HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

  • 3179 Replies
  • 393395 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #990 on: September 06, 2019, 04:21:25 PM »
Poor old Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis would be turning in his grave!
Quite possibly.  How fast and in which direction would depend on how close his body is to the equator.  8)
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #991 on: September 06, 2019, 04:38:25 PM »
1. Jack, have you ever seen this :
Yes I have. And notice that you quoted the refutation of it?

Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?
Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.

I made it quite clear that your nonsense does not answer the question.
Yet you keep bringing up this already refuted nonsense to pretend it does.

Let's try once again :
1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas
No, that isn't point 1.
You have started with magically accelerated gas.
You are intentionally ignoring the problem which my question is raising.

How does the gas accelerate to begin with?
Start with the gas in the rocket moving with the rocket, i.e. it is at a speed of 0 relative to the rocket.
How does this gas accelerate away from the rocket?
That is the key issue you are repeatedly avoiding because you know it destroys your argument.
You have to outright reject physics to pretend rockets wont work in a vacuum.

So I will ask again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the tank to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force? (And if so, why can't the tank and person do so?)
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied without the corresponding reactionary force? (And if so, why can't the tank and person do so?)
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #992 on: September 06, 2019, 05:58:05 PM »
Again, your message is UNINTELLIGIBLE.

that does not exist in the real world.

Exactly.

Only on A FLAT EARTH, you'd have no bulge at all.

You are whining that a spherical earth actually has curvature.

You are trolling the upper forums.

No Im questioning your formula and again you cant answer it and when I post my own you ignore.
You might find the discussion in a "real" physics forum interesting  . . .
Know your opponent: Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula by sandokhan, March 24 in Speculations

A few of the replies to "sandokhan's wisdom":
Quote from: studiot, Senior Members
On
Quote from: sandokhan
4/13/2019 at 1:05 AM, sandokhan said:

The science of Physics will progress much further once it realizes that in a magnet there are TWO STREAMS OF PARTICLES, not only a South - North flux of lines, but also a North-South flux of lines.

Now I know this is a thread about Voodoo not Physics.

First you deny that photons are  particles suggest but they are actually scalar fields.

Then you suggest that magnetic fields are actually particulate, with not one but two types of particle.
Quote from: Strange, Moderators
Quote from: sandokhan
On 4/13/2019 at 6:29 AM, sandokhan said:

Are you going to call the Aharonov-Bohm voodoo physics? It is being caused by the POTENTIAL, in the absence of vector fields.

Are you going to call Whittaker's proofs as voodoo physics? He proved, mathematically, the existence of scalar/longitudinal waves.

Are you going to call Maxwell's original set of equations, which are invariant under galilean transformations voodoo physics?
This is a bizarre variant of the straw man argument.

None of those things have to be voodoo for you to base voodoo on them.
Quote from: sandokhan
On 4/13/2019 at 6:29 AM, sandokhan said:
You better not.
Oooooh. Scary.
And after that it gets really "interesting" and you could almost copy the answers from those physicists for use here.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #993 on: September 06, 2019, 06:34:01 PM »
Both the Black Sun and the visible Sun orbit beyond the Dome. There is a certain distance between them, so in an annular eclipse the distance increases.



The object eclipsing the sun is quite proven to be the moon.

It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a theory.

It can't be the Moon, just take a look at the computations:

No, that does not prove that "It can't be the Moon"! You have not proven that there cannot be other explanations.

Now you show numerous photos in an earlier post in this thread that supposedly prove that "There is no curvature whatsoever".
         HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Message by sandokhan on September 05, 2019, 01:21:44 AM »

And you said that "It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a theory" so look here's one counterexample!
The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce,  Cottesloe Western Australia.

Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft
     
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
The screenshots are from an earlier version of this video:

Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West.

  • If the ocean is flat, why is far more visible from 100 ft above sea-level than when 6 ft above sea-level.
    It does look as though a "bulge of water" is between the camera and Rottnest Island.

  • The focal centre of the lamp on the lighthouse is also 100 ft above sea-level so if the earth were flat that lamp would be at eye-level.
    On the flat earth the we are told that "however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level."
    But  in this case the horizon clearly does not "rise eye level".

    So, why doesn’t the horizon rise to eye-level as it should if the ocean were flat?
The distance of the lighthouse from the beach is 20 km.
So what hides Bathurst Island and part of the lighthouse  and what causes a clean sharp horizon closer than the lighthouse?

And here is another:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is 16.7 km from the camera, the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind "something".
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
         And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

The maker of the video those screenshots came from wrote:
Quote from: MCtheEmcee1

MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018

Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible.
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.
So what hides the far container ship and what causes a clean sharp horizon closer than the ship?

There are two counterexamples with information about distance camera height and elevation.

Your case for "There is no curvature whatsoever" is invalidated!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #994 on: September 06, 2019, 09:54:00 PM »
I took the GLOBAL SAGNAC effect formula right into the lair of the relativists, but they couldn't handle me, so the thread was closed.

They also could not handle the new radical chronology of history.

Here is the global algorithms for the Riemann zeta function thread:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118534-global-algorithmformulas-for-the-zeros-of-riemanns-zeta-function/

You have not proven that there cannot be other explanations.

Is this supposed to be a joke on your part? By all means, please PROVIDE an explanation; if you cannot, and since you cannot, you must accept the inevitable conclusion: the identity of the third body involved in a solar eclipse cannot be the Moon.

What? The Bathurst lighthouse and container ships?

It is the quality of the camera itself which cannot capture the ENTIRE view. You bring a better quality photographic equipment and everything will come into view. No counterexamples forthcoming from you at all.

Let me show you how it's done.

Let us go to St. Catharines.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

ROGERS CENTRE: SKY DOME clearly visible in the photograph; however IT PROVES THE FLAT EARTH THEORY DIRECTLY AND EXACTLY.


Height of Sky Dome: 86 meters, the building itself can be seen without any terrestrial refraction in the photograph, but we will include 10 meters, for the sake of the discussion; that is, the influence of the refraction will be some 10 meters...


Two other photographs, taken right there, on the same beach:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg

The altitude of the photographer can be easily estimated to be at or around 10 meters (if we would ascend to some 20 meters, that would mean that we are on top of a five-story building; certainly not the case here, as we can see from the photographs themselves; I would estimate some 5 meters, but we will go to 10 meters).

On a round earth, taking refraction into account, and ascending to some 10 meters, it would still be impossible to see the rooftop of the Sky Dome.

In order to see the roof top of the Sky Dome, we would have to ascend to at least 20 meters, that is, on top of a five story building; as we can see from the photographs taken right there, we are right on the St. Catharines beach itself.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5


Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #995 on: September 06, 2019, 11:25:16 PM »
I took the GLOBAL SAGNAC effect formula right into the lair of the relativists, but they couldn't handle me, so the thread was closed.

They also could not handle the new radical chronology of history.
No they ridiculed your "radical chronology of history" because it's rubbish and your Voodoo physics that does not work!
You see a "paradox" that you cannot explain and then find your answer to it that "proves most of history was fabricated".
But again, there could easily be another explanation - possibly some mix-up in the different calendars used or something else.
You claim a "Graviton Flux Paradox".
In quantum theory, there is not even a hypothesis suggesting that a "Graviton Flux" causes a gravitational field nor that a "Photon Flux" causes an electric field.

Quote from: sandokhan
Here is the global algorithms for the Riemann zeta function thread:
I couldn't care less about your Riemann zeta function!

Quote from: sandokhan
You have not proven that there cannot be other explanations.

Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?
I do not have to! You are the one claiming it is "proof" so the onus on you is to prove "that there cannot be other explanations" before YOU claim it is proof!

Quote from: sandokhan
What? The Bathurst lighthouse and container ships?

It is the quality of the camera itself which cannot capture the ENTIRE view. You bring a better quality photographic equipment and everything will come into view. No counterexamples forthcoming from you at all.
Rubbish, look again! And I'm not trying to "prove" anything at all - just to show that there might be other explanations!


Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft
     
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
So, if the ocean is flat, why is far more visible from 100 ft above sea-level than when 6 ft above sea-level.
It does look as though a "bulge of water" is between the camera and Rottnest Island.

And the focal centre of the lamp on the lighthouse is also 100 ft above sea-level so if the earth were flat that lamp would be at eye-level.
On the flat earth we are told that "however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level." but it provably is not! Why?
But in this case the horizon clearly does not "rise eye level".

The distance of the lighthouse from the beach is 20 km.
So what hides Bathurst Island and part of the lighthouse and what causes a clean sharp horizon closer than the lighthouse?
[/quote]

Quote from: sandokhan
Let me show you how it's done.

Let us go to St. Catharines.
Let's not!
Quote from: sandokhan
Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:
Sure, in some photos but it has nothing to do with the cases that I showed!

Quote from: sandokhan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)
No, that is NOT impossible on a Globe earth at all - there could be and often are other reasons especially with photos close to the surface of cold water!

And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
         And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
Please explain how any camera better than a Nikon P-900 could show that any differently!
All of the hull of that container ship is hidden behind a sharp horizon - no better camera or greater magnification could make more visible.

Trying to "prove the earth flat or round" by observations of short (tens of kilometres) curvature measurements is too unreliable to put much weight on.

Something huge disappearing and then reappearing it somewhat better evidence - like this!
If the earth were flat I can't see how the sun (and moon, planets and stars) could appear to be hidden "behind something" and slowly rise up top first as in this video (click anywhere, it links to a video):

An then the sun set near the west with the bottom disappearing first:

LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm
       
LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm

But I'm trying to prove nothing just to show that your claim of proof is quite fallacious because there are other explanations as I have shown.

Your claims might be evidence but certainly not proofs!
And in science theories are  never "proven" though in many cases, like the Globe earth, they might be regarded as "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #996 on: September 06, 2019, 11:25:34 PM »

What? The Bathurst lighthouse and container ships?

It is the quality of the camera itself which cannot capture the ENTIRE view. You bring a better quality photographic equipment and everything will come into view. No counterexamples forthcoming from you at all.

Let me show you how it's done.

Let us go to St. Catharines.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

ROGERS CENTRE: SKY DOME clearly visible in the photograph; however IT PROVES THE FLAT EARTH THEORY DIRECTLY AND EXACTLY.


Height of Sky Dome: 86 meters, the building itself can be seen without any terrestrial refraction in the photograph, but we will include 10 meters, for the sake of the discussion; that is, the influence of the refraction will be some 10 meters...


Two other photographs, taken right there, on the same beach:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg

The altitude of the photographer can be easily estimated to be at or around 10 meters (if we would ascend to some 20 meters, that would mean that we are on top of a five-story building; certainly not the case here, as we can see from the photographs themselves; I would estimate some 5 meters, but we will go to 10 meters).

On a round earth, taking refraction into account, and ascending to some 10 meters, it would still be impossible to see the rooftop of the Sky Dome.

In order to see the roof top of the Sky Dome, we would have to ascend to at least 20 meters, that is, on top of a five story building; as we can see from the photographs taken right there, we are right on the St. Catharines beach itself.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5


Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

Where did the bottom of the CN tower go in your image? On a flat earth, for some reason I can't see a bunch of it. Same with the Rogers center. Where did it go?


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #997 on: September 06, 2019, 11:35:14 PM »
Had they not closed the two threads, I would have demolished their forum for good.

They had no answers for the Gauss Easter formula.

None at all.

Nor for the maps which feature Pompeii as a city in full activity in the period 1570 AD - 1725 AD.

For St. Catharines I provided the exact distances and figures.

I win.

As for the other images/videos, the explanation is very simple: even the Nikon camera could not capture the entire visual target (the second boat, as an example).


Now, you have mentioned here "bulge in the water".

Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

You have never done so, nor can you provide any kind of an explanation.

Please explain how a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interacts with a graviton released by lake Ontario.

If you cannot, it means you believe in pure magic.

Explain how the ocean near Rottnest Island stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

How in the world can you believe in such a preposterous hypothesis, where water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #998 on: September 06, 2019, 11:40:28 PM »
As for the other images/videos, the explanation is very simple: even the Nikon camera could not capture the entire visual target (the second boat, as an example).

How so? The camera somehow makes the Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower magically disappear behind a wall of water? How does it do that?  How does it know to not capture the portion of the entire object that should be hidden on on a round earth? How is that possible?

Look again, where did Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower go? How did they get behind the water?


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #999 on: September 06, 2019, 11:49:55 PM »
Here is the video you posted on the two container ships:



THE AUTHOR OF THE VIDEO REFUSED TO OFFER ANY DETAILS AS TO THE DISTANCE INVOLVED, OR THE HEIGHT WHERE THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN.

Please read from the comments section.

Data Lore says:

Good video but lacks information even though some has been given through the comments but people always want to know : Your viewer height from sea level , distance to the objects(in this case ships) name/type of ships , date taken and time etc
All this information is best to have especially when you title it "Debunk Flat Earth" rather hard to do that when you have given no information to work out anything is it?


Here is how the author of the video responded:

Distance to the boats is irrelevant. Next you would need to ask what the containers are carrying, which would determine the draught, which would affect how much of the ship you can see.. Fact of the matter is that the hull is almost entirely obscured from view because of the curvature of the earth...


Incredible!

And it gets better.


Data Lore says:

Distance to the boat is extremely important , with your viewer height of 10mtrs and knowing how far the boat is you can use that to find out how much earth curve drop there should be E.G viewer height 10 meter distance 30 miles thats would be Refracted Hidden= 287.4 Feet
So how far away the boat was is important.


Again, the author of the video responds in this manner:

+data lore, I appreciate that these technical details are important at some level, but I refuse to discuss these with flat earthers.


Data Lore points out:

:-) well you have gone from "Distance to the boats is irrelevant" to " I appreciate that these technical details are important at some level"

Well you can understand my confusion when you call it " Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)..." Its easy to assume you are into debunking flat earth .
Well like I said nice video , and I was not saying you should know all this information just pointing out that people will ask you for more information because they are using it as proof of curve and they need the details .


Just like rabinoz, here is how the author of the video responds:

+Data Lore, I think we are primarily on the same page.. Those details are just not important to me in observing the earths curvature.


Another viewer said this:

This debunks nothing! Its doesnt show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesnt show the actual zooming in, says everything! ; )


This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom. That’s what they do in the other videos. I was waiting for it.


SO, NOTHING AT ALL.


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1000 on: September 06, 2019, 11:59:52 PM »
Here is the video you posted on the two container ships:



THE AUTHOR OF THE VIDEO REFUSED TO OFFER ANY DETAILS AS TO THE DISTANCE INVOLVED, OR THE HEIGHT WHERE THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN.

Please read from the comments section.

Data Lore says:

Good video but lacks information even though some has been given through the comments but people always want to know : Your viewer height from sea level , distance to the objects(in this case ships) name/type of ships , date taken and time etc
All this information is best to have especially when you title it "Debunk Flat Earth" rather hard to do that when you have given no information to work out anything is it?


Here is how the author of the video responded:

Distance to the boats is irrelevant. Next you would need to ask what the containers are carrying, which would determine the draught, which would affect how much of the ship you can see.. Fact of the matter is that the hull is almost entirely obscured from view because of the curvature of the earth...


Incredible!

And it gets better.


Data Lore says:

Distance to the boat is extremely important , with your viewer height of 10mtrs and knowing how far the boat is you can use that to find out how much earth curve drop there should be E.G viewer height 10 meter distance 30 miles thats would be Refracted Hidden= 287.4 Feet
So how far away the boat was is important.


Again, the author of the video responds in this manner:

+data lore, I appreciate that these technical details are important at some level, but I refuse to discuss these with flat earthers.


Data Lore points out:

:-) well you have gone from "Distance to the boats is irrelevant" to " I appreciate that these technical details are important at some level"

Well you can understand my confusion when you call it " Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)..." Its easy to assume you are into debunking flat earth .
Well like I said nice video , and I was not saying you should know all this information just pointing out that people will ask you for more information because they are using it as proof of curve and they need the details .


Just like rabinoz, here is how the author of the video responds:

+Data Lore, I think we are primarily on the same page.. Those details are just not important to me in observing the earths curvature.


Another viewer said this:

This debunks nothing! Its doesnt show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesnt show the actual zooming in, says everything! ; )


This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom. That’s what they do in the other videos. I was waiting for it.


SO, NOTHING AT ALL.

What are you talking about, the locations of the ships and the observer as well as the observers height is right in the description of the video:

The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.


Also, you didn't answer my question. How are the Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower magically hidden behind a wall of water?


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1001 on: September 07, 2019, 12:08:37 AM »
As for the video with the lighthouse, please read the comments section: the viewers were not convinced at all, in fact, they bring up very interesting points.




Bathurst Lighthouse video:



The comments section DESTROYS THE VIDEO.

Please read.

Wolfie6020 who knows when this vid was taken? Are you seriously asking us to take your word for it? Because you offer zero proof of the date.

What you have admitted in passing is that the swell does indeed invalidate your vid. Unlike your halfwit followers who don’t understand the importance of the swell off Rottnest, you do know. My point is that the swell can be up to 4.5m at various times of the year. Which you completely fail to mention in any of your Bathurst Lighthouse vids. Very deceptive and it has tricked your zombie minded followers

Btw why spell metres, meters? Team Wolfie is a NASA shill account. Uses American spelling.

Better lift your game, this vid is an epic fail.


HERE IS A REAL VIDEO ON FLAT EARTH LIGHTHOUSES:




So, you wanna talk about lighthouses, do you?

LET US INCREASE THE DISTANCE TO 128 KM.


 
Grand Haven Daily Tribune   April 3, 1925

COAST GUARDS SEE MILWAUKEE LIGHTS GLEAM

Captain Wm. J. Preston and Crew See Lights of Milwaukee

and Racine Clearly From Surf Boat

ANSWER TO FLARE

Crew Runs Into Lake in Search For Flashing Torch

Grand Haven Daily Tribune   April 3, 1925

Captain Wm. J. Preston and his U. S. Coast Guard crew at Grand Haven harbor witnessed a strange natural phenomenon last night, when they saw clearly the lights of both Milwaukee and Racine, shining across the lake.  As far as known this is the first time that such a freak condition has prevailed here.

 The phenomena was first noticed at shortly after seven o’clock last night, when the lookout called the keeper’s attention to what seemed to be a light flaring out on the lake.  Captain Preston examined the light, and was of the impression that some ship out in the lake was “torching” for assistance.

Launch Power Boat

   He ordered the big power boat launched and with the crew started on a cruise into the lake to locate, if possible, the cause of the light.  The power boat was headed due west and after running a distance of six or seven miles the light became clearer, but seemed to be but little nearer.  The crew kept on going, however, and at a distance of about ten and twelve miles out, a beautiful panorama of light unfolded before the eyes of the coast guards.

 Captain Preston decided that the flare came from the government lighthouse at Windy Point at Racine.  Being familiar with the Racine lights the keeper was able to identify several of the short lights at Racine, Wis.

Saw Milwaukee Also

   A little further north another set of lights were plainly visible.  Captain Preston knowing the Milwaukee lights well, easily distinguished them and identified them as the Milwaukee lights.  The lights along Juneau Park water front, the illumination of the buildings near the park and the Northwestern Railway station were clearly visible from the Coast Guard boat.  So clearly did the lights stand out that it seemed as though the boat was within a few miles of Milwaukee harbor. 

   Convinced that the phenomenon was a mirage, or a condition due to some peculiarity of the atmosphere, the keeper ordered the boat back to the station.  The lights remained visible for the greater part of the run, and the flare of the Windy Point light house could be seen after the crew reached the station here.


DISTANCE GRAND HAVEN TO MILWAUKEE: OVER 80 MILES (128 KM).

http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/images/twomichigans2a.gif


Windy Point Lighthouse:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Wind_Point_Lighthouse_071104_edit2.jpg/800px-Wind_Point_Lighthouse_071104_edit2.jpg

The lighthouse stands 108 feet (33 m) tall

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

Using the well known formula for the visual obstacle, let us calculate its value:

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS


No terrestrial refraction formula/looming formula can account for this extraordinary proof that the surface across lake Michigan is flat.

In fact: http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#

If we use h = 50 for the observer, and 140 for the distant object height, we get a negative answer: no way it could be seen over a 128 km distance; while the actual data for the account is h = 5 m, and d = 40 m.


Looming/modified lapse rate:

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html

The formula used here does not recognize the change in the range of temperature values, nor do we know if it takes into consideration the very basic formula I posted earlier for the visual obstacle: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28196.msg674444#msg674444 - however, it is an excellent place to start and to explore the effect of looming/ducting on the visual target being observed.

Let us use several values, starting with the value of 15 C for that day (Milwaukee/Racine/Holland/Grand Haven) and increasing the value for the target by 1-3 degrees.

For a value of 15 C overall we get of course a negative altitude value of the target.

For a value of 16 C (for the target) we get, again, a negative altitude value for the target (−0.317 degrees of arc) - target is hidden by horizon

For a value of 17 C (for the target) we get: −0.207 degrees of arc, target is hidden by horizon

For a value of 18 C (for the target) we get: −0.098 degrees of arc, target is hidden by horizon


Let us decrease the value to 12 C.

Increasing the value for the target to 15 C degrees, again, we get negative values. This would also correspond to a huge k = 0.613 value.

From the textbook on atmospheric science:

 "So the ray curvature for an arbitrary lapse rate  γ K/m will be

k  = ( 0.034 − γ ) / 0.154

where we take γ to be positive if the temperature decreases with height, and a positive curvature means a ray concave toward the Earth.

Example 1: the Standard Atmosphere:

In the Standard Atmosphere, the lapse rate is 6.5°/km or  γ = 0.0065 K/m. The numerator of the formula above becomes .034 − .0065 = .0275, so the ratio k is about 1/5.6 or 0.179. In other words, the ray curvature is not quite 18% that of the Earth; the radius of curvature of the ray is about 5.6 times the Earth's radius.

Example 2: free convection:

In free convection, the (adiabatic) lapse rate is about 10.6°/km or  γ = 0.0106 K/m. The numerator of the formula above becomes .034 − .0106 = .0234, so the ratio k is about 1/6.6 or 0.152. In other words, the ray curvature is about 15% that of the Earth; the radius of curvature of the ray is about 6.6 times the Earth's radius. This is close to the condition of the atmosphere near the ground in the middle of the day, when most surveying is done; the value calculated is close to the values found in practical survey work."


Moreover, as we have seen, the light from Windy Point was continuously observed, during the approach, and during the return to the station:

The power boat was headed due west and after running a distance of six or seven miles the light became clearer, but seemed to be but little nearer.  The crew kept on going, however, and at a distance of about ten and twelve miles out, a beautiful panorama of light unfolded before the eyes of the coast guards.

The keeper ordered the boat back to the station.  The lights remained visible for the greater part of the run, and the flare of the Windy Point light house could be seen after the crew reached the station here.



Now, the calculation for the most pronounced form of looming: ducting.

However, ducting requires the value for the ray curvature, k, to be greater than or equal to 1.

This amounts to at least a five degree difference in temperature.

With 10C in Grand Haven (or Holland) and 15C in Racine, we get k = 1.182.


For the very same geographical/hydrographical conditions, for the same latitude in question, for cities located on the opposite shores of Lake Michigan, it is absolutely impossible to have a five degree difference, at the very same instant of time - moreover, looming/ducting do not apply to the two cases presented here:

FURTHERMORE, as we have seen, the light from the lighthouse located in Racine was seen all of the time.

For the second case exemplifed here, see below, Mr. Kanis did see the very shape of the buildings: in the case of ducting/looming a very distorted image would appear making it instantly recognizable:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Superopr_mirage_sequence.jpg
http://3sky.de/Div/Luftspieg/Summary.html
http://finland.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=160069&contentlan=2&culture=en-US







'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat.

THE TALLEST BUILDING IN RACINE IS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 40 METERS; IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS COURTHOUSE FROM 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM HOLLAND.


On Memorial Day, it was 60 F degrees (15 C) in Milwaukee on that day.




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1002 on: September 07, 2019, 12:14:03 AM »
What are you talking about, the locations of the ships and the observer as well as the observers height is right in the description of the video:

The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.

Also, you didn't answer my question. How are the Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower magically hidden behind a wall of water?


THOSE DETAILS WERE ADDED LATER!!!

At first, the author of the video REFUSED TO OFFER ANY DETAILS, as can be clearly seen from his own comments.

Pressed by his viewers he offered these figures which nobody can verify at all.

Remember what he said:

Distance to the boats is irrelevant. Next you would need to ask what the containers are carrying, which would determine the draught, which would affect how much of the ship you can see.. Fact of the matter is that the hull is almost entirely obscured from view because of the curvature of the earth...

+data lore, I appreciate that these technical details are important at some level, but I refuse to discuss these with flat earthers.

+Data Lore, I think we are primarily on the same page.. Those details are just not important to me in observing the earths curvature.


So, cut out the BS on the figures he offered.


The answer is very simple: the camera cannot capture the entire visual obstacle, certainly the bottom of the image will not appear due to this very fact.

That is why I posted several flickr images, each of which zooms further, so that finally we have the Sky Dome visible.


The figures are very clear.

From the beach in St. Catharines, 50 km distance to Toronto, on the beach, no Sky Dome could have been visible.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1003 on: September 07, 2019, 12:27:07 AM »
THE BEST EVER LIGHTHOUSE EXPERIMENT PERFORMED IN SPAIN:



Flat Earth proven.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1004 on: September 07, 2019, 12:31:18 AM »
What are you talking about, the locations of the ships and the observer as well as the observers height is right in the description of the video:

The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.

Also, you didn't answer my question. How are the Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower magically hidden behind a wall of water?


THOSE DETAILS WERE ADDED LATER!!!

At first, the author of the video REFUSED TO OFFER ANY DETAILS, as can be clearly seen from his own comments.

Pressed by his viewers he offered these figures which nobody can verify at all.

Remember what he said:

Distance to the boats is irrelevant. Next you would need to ask what the containers are carrying, which would determine the draught, which would affect how much of the ship you can see.. Fact of the matter is that the hull is almost entirely obscured from view because of the curvature of the earth...

+data lore, I appreciate that these technical details are important at some level, but I refuse to discuss these with flat earthers.

+Data Lore, I think we are primarily on the same page.. Those details are just not important to me in observing the earths curvature.

So, cut out the BS on the figures he offered.

I don't know when the author added the coordinates, but how would they have been verified regardless of when he added them? And I agree, why do they matter. Either that ship is sinking or it's behind a curve. How far away doesn't matter.

The answer is very simple: the camera cannot capture the entire visual obstacle, certainly the bottom of the image will not appear due to this very fact.

That is why I posted several flickr images, each of which zooms further, so that finally we have the Sky Dome visible.


The figures are very clear.

From the beach in St. Catharines, 50 km distance to Toronto, on the beach, no Sky Dome could have been visible.

So describe for me in the image you presented why the bottom of the objects, (rogers center and CN Tower) are replaced with a wall of water? What properties in a camera would arbitrarily decide to do so? What insufficiencies in a camera would decide to do so? And do so in accordance with a curved earth observation. Please, do explain how a camera would do that.

Look again, why is there a wall of water hiding the rogers center and the bottom of the cn tower? That is not the camera doing that:


Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1005 on: September 07, 2019, 12:38:25 AM »
As for the video with the lighthouse, please read the comments section: the viewers were not convinced at all, in fact, they bring up very interesting points.




Bathurst Lighthouse video:



The comments section DESTROYS THE VIDEO.

Please read.

Wolfie6020 who knows when this vid was taken? Are you seriously asking us to take your word for it? Because you offer zero proof of the date.

What you have admitted in passing is that the swell does indeed invalidate your vid. Unlike your halfwit followers who don’t understand the importance of the swell off Rottnest, you do know. My point is that the swell can be up to 4.5m at various times of the year. Which you completely fail to mention in any of your Bathurst Lighthouse vids. Very deceptive and it has tricked your zombie minded followers

Btw why spell metres, meters? Team Wolfie is a NASA shill account. Uses American spelling.

Better lift your game, this vid is an epic fail.

You haven't payed attention. He addressed this in comments:
https://www.transport.wa.gov.au/imarine/coastaldata/tidesandwaves/live_gfx/RDW_Wave.gif

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1006 on: September 07, 2019, 12:55:48 AM »
What are you talking about, the locations of the ships and the observer as well as the observers height is right in the description of the video:

The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.

Also, you didn't answer my question. How are the Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower magically hidden behind a wall of water?

THOSE DETAILS WERE ADDED LATER!!!
I didn't bother because I'm not trying to debunk your photos, I'll leave that to others!

I'm simply showing that there are other explanations and a possible explanation for your photos is anomalous refraction, which is not uncommon over water.

Quote from: sandokhan
At first, the author of the video REFUSED TO OFFER ANY DETAILS, as can be clearly seen from his own comments.
Where did he "REFUSE TO OFFER ANY DETAILS"? The details came from
Quote from: WheresWa11y
roohif found some info -
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
MC could you pin this or copy this to the description?
WheresWa11y lives not that far from Wollongong.

Quote from: sandokhan
Pressed by his viewers he offered these figures which nobody can verify at all.
Remember what he said:

Distance to the boats is irrelevant. Next you would need to ask what the containers are carrying, which would determine the draught, which would affect how much of the ship you can see.. Fact of the matter is that the hull is almost entirely obscured from view because of the curvature of the earth...
Yes, "Fact of the matter is that the hull is almost entirely obscured from view" by something!
But the distances can be verified from the on-line logs of those ships positions!

Quote from: sandokhan
The answer is very simple: the camera cannot capture the entire visual obstacle, certainly the bottom of the image will not appear due to this very fact.
Rubbish again just face facts!
More magnification cannot possibly show more of:

And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something.
      Or more of the lighthouse!

Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft

But you still refuse to acknowledge the point that I've made all along!

Your photos do not PROVE the earth FLAT and the photos I showed do not PROVE the earth a GLOBE!

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1007 on: September 07, 2019, 01:04:11 AM »
At the risk of sounding like a troll

Why is it acceptable for FE to base entire arguments on photographs,  often photographs presenting images different to reality, ie sinking buildings. Yet if I were to produce an image from low orbit or space of the earth's curve its CGI?

You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1008 on: September 07, 2019, 01:17:08 AM »
At the risk of sounding like a troll

Why is it acceptable for FE to base entire arguments on photographs,  often photographs presenting images different to reality, ie sinking buildings. Yet if I were to produce an image from low orbit or space of the earth's curve its CGI?
That's no problem. It's the "conspiracy" ;D!
And still there's more on these "Conspiracy Theorists", BBC NEWS:Technology, YouTube aids flat earth conspiracy theorists, research suggests.

Yet there's more to follow ;):
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Place of the Conspiracy in FET
The existence of 'The Conspiracy' is a consequence of the FET. Virtually no one begins with 'The Conspiracy' and develops a belief in the Flat Earth Theory. Flat Earthers starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence which they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to -

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.

If there is no conspiracy there is no possibility that the earth could be flat and stationary.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1009 on: September 07, 2019, 01:25:58 AM »
rabinoz, cut out the BS.

Again, for the nth time, you come here with very poor arguments (not to mention the photos and the videos).

The author of the container ship videos REFUSED to offer any details.

He REFUSED TO ZOOM IN for the SECOND CONTAINER SHIP.

Please read.

This debunks nothing! Its doesnt show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesnt show the actual zooming in, says everything! ; )


This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom. That’s what they do in the other videos. I was waiting for it.


The video proofs NOTHING.


The lighthouse video was DEBUNKED in the comments section.

Very easy.

Wolfie6020 who knows when this vid was taken? Are you seriously asking us to take your word for it? Because you offer zero proof of the date.

What you have admitted in passing is that the swell does indeed invalidate your vid. Unlike your halfwit followers who don’t understand the importance of the swell off Rottnest, you do know. My point is that the swell can be up to 4.5m at various times of the year. Which you completely fail to mention in any of your Bathurst Lighthouse vids. Very deceptive and it has tricked your zombie minded followers

Btw why spell metres, meters? Team Wolfie is a NASA shill account. Uses American spelling.

Better lift your game, this vid is an epic fail.



HERE IS THE REAL DEAL.

A VIDEO WHERE THE THE ALTITUDE IS PROGRESSIVELY DECREASED IN ORDER TO SEE THE VISUAL OBSTACLE.

FULL FLAT EARTH PROOF IN FULL VIEW:





LAKE MICHIGAN LIGHTHOUSES, 128 KM DISTANCE

 
Grand Haven Daily Tribune   April 3, 1925

COAST GUARDS SEE MILWAUKEE LIGHTS GLEAM

Captain Wm. J. Preston and Crew See Lights of Milwaukee

and Racine Clearly From Surf Boat

ANSWER TO FLARE

Crew Runs Into Lake in Search For Flashing Torch

Grand Haven Daily Tribune   April 3, 1925

Captain Wm. J. Preston and his U. S. Coast Guard crew at Grand Haven harbor witnessed a strange natural phenomenon last night, when they saw clearly the lights of both Milwaukee and Racine, shining across the lake.  As far as known this is the first time that such a freak condition has prevailed here.

 The phenomena was first noticed at shortly after seven o’clock last night, when the lookout called the keeper’s attention to what seemed to be a light flaring out on the lake.  Captain Preston examined the light, and was of the impression that some ship out in the lake was “torching” for assistance.

Launch Power Boat

   He ordered the big power boat launched and with the crew started on a cruise into the lake to locate, if possible, the cause of the light.  The power boat was headed due west and after running a distance of six or seven miles the light became clearer, but seemed to be but little nearer.  The crew kept on going, however, and at a distance of about ten and twelve miles out, a beautiful panorama of light unfolded before the eyes of the coast guards.

 Captain Preston decided that the flare came from the government lighthouse at Windy Point at Racine.  Being familiar with the Racine lights the keeper was able to identify several of the short lights at Racine, Wis.

Saw Milwaukee Also

   A little further north another set of lights were plainly visible.  Captain Preston knowing the Milwaukee lights well, easily distinguished them and identified them as the Milwaukee lights.  The lights along Juneau Park water front, the illumination of the buildings near the park and the Northwestern Railway station were clearly visible from the Coast Guard boat.  So clearly did the lights stand out that it seemed as though the boat was within a few miles of Milwaukee harbor. 

   Convinced that the phenomenon was a mirage, or a condition due to some peculiarity of the atmosphere, the keeper ordered the boat back to the station.  The lights remained visible for the greater part of the run, and the flare of the Windy Point light house could be seen after the crew reached the station here.


DISTANCE GRAND HAVEN TO MILWAUKEE: OVER 80 MILES (128 KM).

http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/images/twomichigans2a.gif


Windy Point Lighthouse:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Wind_Point_Lighthouse_071104_edit2.jpg/800px-Wind_Point_Lighthouse_071104_edit2.jpg

The lighthouse stands 108 feet (33 m) tall

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

Using the well known formula for the visual obstacle, let us calculate its value:

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS


No terrestrial refraction formula/looming formula can account for this extraordinary proof that the surface across lake Michigan is flat.

In fact: http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#

If we use h = 50 for the observer, and 140 for the distant object height, we get a negative answer: no way it could be seen over a 128 km distance; while the actual data for the account is h = 5 m, and d = 40 m.


Looming/modified lapse rate:

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html

The formula used here does not recognize the change in the range of temperature values, nor do we know if it takes into consideration the very basic formula I posted earlier for the visual obstacle: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28196.msg674444#msg674444 - however, it is an excellent place to start and to explore the effect of looming/ducting on the visual target being observed.

Let us use several values, starting with the value of 15 C for that day (Milwaukee/Racine/Holland/Grand Haven) and increasing the value for the target by 1-3 degrees.

For a value of 15 C overall we get of course a negative altitude value of the target.

For a value of 16 C (for the target) we get, again, a negative altitude value for the target (−0.317 degrees of arc) - target is hidden by horizon

For a value of 17 C (for the target) we get: −0.207 degrees of arc, target is hidden by horizon

For a value of 18 C (for the target) we get: −0.098 degrees of arc, target is hidden by horizon


Let us decrease the value to 12 C.

Increasing the value for the target to 15 C degrees, again, we get negative values. This would also correspond to a huge k = 0.613 value.

From the textbook on atmospheric science:

 "So the ray curvature for an arbitrary lapse rate  γ K/m will be

k  = ( 0.034 − γ ) / 0.154

where we take γ to be positive if the temperature decreases with height, and a positive curvature means a ray concave toward the Earth.

Example 1: the Standard Atmosphere:

In the Standard Atmosphere, the lapse rate is 6.5°/km or  γ = 0.0065 K/m. The numerator of the formula above becomes .034 − .0065 = .0275, so the ratio k is about 1/5.6 or 0.179. In other words, the ray curvature is not quite 18% that of the Earth; the radius of curvature of the ray is about 5.6 times the Earth's radius.

Example 2: free convection:

In free convection, the (adiabatic) lapse rate is about 10.6°/km or  γ = 0.0106 K/m. The numerator of the formula above becomes .034 − .0106 = .0234, so the ratio k is about 1/6.6 or 0.152. In other words, the ray curvature is about 15% that of the Earth; the radius of curvature of the ray is about 6.6 times the Earth's radius. This is close to the condition of the atmosphere near the ground in the middle of the day, when most surveying is done; the value calculated is close to the values found in practical survey work."


Moreover, as we have seen, the light from Windy Point was continuously observed, during the approach, and during the return to the station:

The power boat was headed due west and after running a distance of six or seven miles the light became clearer, but seemed to be but little nearer.  The crew kept on going, however, and at a distance of about ten and twelve miles out, a beautiful panorama of light unfolded before the eyes of the coast guards.

The keeper ordered the boat back to the station.  The lights remained visible for the greater part of the run, and the flare of the Windy Point light house could be seen after the crew reached the station here.



Now, the calculation for the most pronounced form of looming: ducting.

However, ducting requires the value for the ray curvature, k, to be greater than or equal to 1.

This amounts to at least a five degree difference in temperature.

With 10C in Grand Haven (or Holland) and 15C in Racine, we get k = 1.182.


For the very same geographical/hydrographical conditions, for the same latitude in question, for cities located on the opposite shores of Lake Michigan, it is absolutely impossible to have a five degree difference, at the very same instant of time - moreover, looming/ducting do not apply to the two cases presented here:

FURTHERMORE, as we have seen, the light from the lighthouse located in Racine was seen all of the time.

For the second case exemplifed here, see below, Mr. Kanis did see the very shape of the buildings: in the case of ducting/looming a very distorted image would appear making it instantly recognizable:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Superopr_mirage_sequence.jpg
http://3sky.de/Div/Luftspieg/Summary.html
http://finland.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=160069&contentlan=2&culture=en-US







'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat.

THE TALLEST BUILDING IN RACINE IS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 40 METERS; IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS COURTHOUSE FROM 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM HOLLAND.


On Memorial Day, it was 60 F degrees (15 C) in Milwaukee on that day.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1010 on: September 07, 2019, 01:27:54 AM »
THE BEST EVER LIGHTHOUSE EXPERIMENT PERFORMED IN SPAIN:



Flat Earth proven.

At 1 minutes he shows the data according to, this lighthouse is 95 feet over the sea level, but that's not true, it's almost 128 feet. So i assume the rest is a failure and a proof of the round earth.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1011 on: September 07, 2019, 01:28:36 AM »
rabinoz, cut out the BS.
I'm not trying to debunk anything other than your claim that a few photos PROVE the earth to be FLAT! They DO NOT!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1012 on: September 07, 2019, 01:30:56 AM »
How are the Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower magically hidden behind a wall of water?

I already did.

Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

ALWAYS, the bottom of the images/pictures will disappear first. Progressively, if you zoom in with a better quality camera you will get to see more and more of the visual obstacle.


Now, it is your turn to offer explanations.

You have mentioned here "bulge in the water".

Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

You have never done so, nor can you provide any kind of an explanation.

Please explain how a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interacts with a graviton released by lake Ontario.

If you cannot, it means you believe in pure magic.

Explain how the ocean near Rottnest Island stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

How in the world can you believe in such a preposterous hypothesis, where water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Please explain the attractive mechanism.



*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1013 on: September 07, 2019, 01:33:32 AM »
THE BEST EVER LIGHTHOUSE EXPERIMENT PERFORMED IN SPAIN:



Flat Earth proven.

Not really, a couple of things:

- The author uses a drone to gauge the lighthouse tower height above sea level - He claims 95 feet. When, in actuality, it is 128 feet (39 meters) above sea level, and we assume MSL, according to: http://www.visitcostadelsol.com/explore/monuments-and-areas-of-tourist-interest/lighthouse-of-torrox-p33601

- When he is doing his observations, the first is at what he claims is 6' observation level. On a flat earth we should see everything above the blue line. But we don't, we only see above the red line. What's hiding the lighthouse between the blue and red lines? Is that some sort of magical camera effect you keep referring to yet never explain?



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1014 on: September 07, 2019, 01:40:50 AM »
At 1 minutes he shows the data according to, this lighthouse is 95 feet over the sea level, but that's not true, it's almost 128 feet. So i assume the rest is a failure and a proof of the round earth.

Really?



The height is clearly specified in at 1:34 in the video, using the AUTORIDAD PORTUARIA DE MALAGA data, that is, THEIR OWN PRECISE LOCAL DATA, not google searches like you did.

What? 128 feet? 39 meters?

Take a look at the lighthouse itself in the video, where are the 14 meters from the bottom of the lighthouse basement to the sea? Are you dreaming?

14 meters is the height of a four story building.

Please do not bother your viewers with BS data again.

« Last Edit: September 07, 2019, 01:43:33 AM by sandokhan »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1015 on: September 07, 2019, 01:51:18 AM »
How are the Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower magically hidden behind a wall of water?

I already did.

No, you didn't. You've made up some sort of camera magic where the "lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs" and is replaced by water. How does that work? Please explain the mechanics of magic water application to images.

Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

ALWAYS, the bottom of the images/pictures will disappear first. Progressively, if you zoom in with a better quality camera you will get to see more and more of the visual obstacle.

Why would the bottom of the cn tower be chosen by the camera to be removed and replaced by a wall of water. Using two of your images,  please explain how a camera does this and coincidently does so conforming to a spherical earth observation:




Now, it is your turn to offer explanations.

You have mentioned here "bulge in the water".

Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

You have never done so, nor can you provide any kind of an explanation.

Please explain how a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interacts with a graviton released by lake Ontario.

If you cannot, it means you believe in pure magic.

Explain how the ocean near Rottnest Island stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

How in the world can you believe in such a preposterous hypothesis, where water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

Gravity.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1016 on: September 07, 2019, 01:52:24 AM »
At the risk of sounding like a troll

Why is it acceptable for FE to base entire arguments on photographs,  often photographs presenting images different to reality, ie sinking buildings. Yet if I were to produce an image from low orbit or space of the earth's curve its CGI?
That's no problem. It's the "conspiracy" ;D!
And still there's more on these "Conspiracy Theorists", BBC NEWS:Technology, YouTube aids flat earth conspiracy theorists, research suggests.

Yet there's more to follow ;):
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Place of the Conspiracy in FET
The existence of 'The Conspiracy' is a consequence of the FET. Virtually no one begins with 'The Conspiracy' and develops a belief in the Flat Earth Theory. Flat Earthers starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence which they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to -

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.

If there is no conspiracy there is no possibility that the earth could be flat and stationary.

Wow

I'm still letting this sink in...

So the purpose of the society doesnt really stand up

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society

Its futile

Lol most shocking thing is it took me 2 weeks to realise  ;D
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1017 on: September 07, 2019, 01:59:00 AM »
Sandokhan you keep mentioning the bulge, even provided a formula,  but consistently refuse to work through your own math.

Surely math is the greater proof?
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1018 on: September 07, 2019, 02:08:23 AM »
MORE BAD NEWS FOR THE RE.

Another formidable lighthouse FE video:




Gravity.

These are the upper forums, not the CN section.

Please EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

You want a bulge of water. Fine.

How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton released by lake Ontario? How do they attract each other?

Are you telling your viewers to accept this preposterous hypothesis only based on magic?

This is what you are doing: "gravity".

What gravity? Attractive gravity?

Please explain the mechanism.


Why would the bottom of the cn tower be chosen by the camera to be removed and replaced by a wall of water.

No shit.

Go ahead and do your own research in camera photography to get the well-known answer: always, the bottom of an image disappears before everything else.

Let me prove it.

Let us go to St. Catharines.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

ROGERS CENTRE: SKY DOME clearly visible in the photograph; however IT PROVES THE FLAT EARTH THEORY DIRECTLY AND EXACTLY.


Height of Sky Dome: 86 meters, the building itself can be seen without any terrestrial refraction in the photograph, but we will include 10 meters, for the sake of the discussion; that is, the influence of the refraction will be some 10 meters...


Two other photographs, taken right there, on the same beach:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg

The altitude of the photographer can be easily estimated to be at or around 10 meters (if we would ascend to some 20 meters, that would mean that we are on top of a five-story building; certainly not the case here, as we can see from the photographs themselves; I would estimate some 5 meters, but we will go to 10 meters).

On a round earth, taking refraction into account, and ascending to some 10 meters, it would still be impossible to see the rooftop of the Sky Dome.

In order to see the roof top of the Sky Dome, we would have to ascend to at least 20 meters, that is, on top of a five story building; as we can see from the photographs taken right there, we are right on the St. Catharines beach itself.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5


Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)






'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat.

THE TALLEST BUILDING IN RACINE IS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 40 METERS; IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS COURTHOUSE FROM 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM HOLLAND.


The bottom of the buildings/lighthouse could not be seen with the naked eye.

However, with a simple pair of binoculars, almost everything could be seen.



*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1019 on: September 07, 2019, 02:11:20 AM »
Wow

I'm still letting this sink in...

So the purpose of the society doesnt really stand up

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society

Its futile

Lol most shocking thing is it took me 2 weeks to realise  ;D
Quote
ABOUT
The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature. Our forums act as a venue to encourage free thinking and debate.

The Flat Earth Society mans the guns against oppression of thought and the Globularist lies of a new age. Standing with reason we offer a home to those wayward thinkers that march bravely on with REASON and TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.

Come join us in our forums and get started learning about the greatest lie ever told.
Free thinking as long you accept the "TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.".