Lighthouse dipping lights

  • 627 Replies
  • 15946 Views
Lighthouse dipping lights
« on: February 02, 2021, 08:09:20 AM »
One calm night with clear skies, we were motor sailing from Portmouth, UK to the Channel Islands, heading for Alderney.
Some time into the darkness when we list sight of the land lights, we started observing a flashing glow ahead of us.  The frequency matched the Alderney lighthouse.  As we closed in with our slow motoring at 5-6 miles per hour, the glow became stronger and sometime later, we saw the strong light just on the horizon.  As we got closer, we started observing the reglection of the light in the channel waters.
Later, we saw the rest of the island's lights.  Which part of the flat earth explains this consistent observation with a mathematical formula?
Have a look at this to explain the dipping lights:



Also, we know that the VHF works with a line of sight which makes my handheld VHF lose contact first with land stations than the one that has the antena at the top of the sail boat's mast.  If the reason for both above is not the curvature, of the earth, which mathematical flat-earth fomula explain what I saw and listen?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2021, 09:00:35 AM »
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?

You see, this would be logical reality.

So the mere fact you're seeing the lighthouse (assuming you really did) then it stands to reason that you were on a flat surface and the lighthouse was raised above a flattish surface.

It makes perfect sense....right?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2021, 09:54:35 AM »

*

Mikey T.

  • 2573
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2021, 11:01:01 AM »
No.  Why/how are you able to discern that a light you see at night is on a tower tilted very very very slightly away from you?  Why would you fix your gaze towards the sky for something you expect to be on or just over the horizon.  What ship and lighthouse in history is that large when compared to the Earth?  Why must people constantly misinterpret how large the Earth is when compared to a human, ship, or other man-made structure?  So no your responses do not make sense, and are the opposite of logical.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2021, 12:04:54 PM »

So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?

Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2021, 12:35:23 PM »
If you were on a globe wouldn't you expect to be tilted back whilst also looking towards a tilted back and away from you, lighthouse?
At this distance, only by an insignificant amount which would not be detectable.

If you wish to disagree, do the math to show just how much it should be tilted. And then provide evidence that it should be detectable.

If you would like an example of that:
The distance between the locations mentioned is 144 km. The circumference of Earth is roughly 40 000 km. That means the distance is roughly 0.0036 times the circumference. As the total circumference is 360 degrees, that means it is ~1.3 degrees, at most.

That is far too small to be detectable. Especially when you are just looking at a light at night.

And don't forget that we don't just magically see in 1D, we have a FOV.

It makes perfect sense....right?
No, your claim makes no sense at all.
The tilt is far too small and it wouldn't magically make it invisible.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2021, 12:42:35 PM »

So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2021, 04:16:57 PM »

So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.

I was all excited to post my measurements and calculations but I see you beat me to it.

Yeah, this is a common absurd tactic of sceptimatic.  Use a very not to scale image and treat it like it was.  Hard to tell if it's intentional, or he doesn't understand scale.  It's pretty dishonest if it's intentional.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15671
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2021, 04:40:51 PM »
What about the red line on the image below? It seems like it would illustrate an object appearing from the top down as it appeared over the horizon.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2021, 10:32:12 PM »

So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2021, 05:11:22 AM »

So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?


*

Mikey T.

  • 2573
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2021, 03:22:57 PM »

So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.
First, the scale matters quite alot since you drew such an absurdly small Earth compared to the absurdly large ship, lighthouse, and distance between them in comparison to the size of your Earth.  Second, read to post just above yours that was there for like 6 hours before.  Even Boyd, who routinely takes up for absurd FE claims, whether he supports them or not, drew it for you. 
Scale matters..  scale matters..  repeat after me.   Scale matters. 


Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2021, 04:17:13 PM »
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.
Yes, that is something you need to do as well.
But the big issue with your diagram isn't so much the size of the object, but just how far apart they are.

Notice that in your diagram, as I already explained, you have a distance of 4300 km, being nice and pretending that is along the surface, rather than a straight line, that would amount to ~40 degrees, or roughly 30 times the maximum angle that could be involved in the situation described in the OP.

For a more representative example, here you go (I couldn't be bothered drawing in the Earth, so instead I just drew in 2 lines, at the appropriate angles):

Note the above, while it does have the angles correct, does suffer from one big flaw, digital images like this have aliasing so you can easily see they tilt in opposite directions. This is very obvious in the middle where it moves over 1 step (1 px), and less so at the ends.
So a better representation would be this:

Now you have a bunch of lines offset by that small angle, such that you can divide them into 2 sets where every line in a set is parallel. Can you pick which ones are which, just using your eyes without using any tools such as paint to measure the tilt?

Oh, and also tell me which set is tilted further to the right vs which set is more vertical.

And all of that is involving the maximum angle. He didn't tell us the distance he actually was when he started to see it, which would likely be a much smaller angle, which would make it even harder.

And of course, with these lines, you are looking at them side on, so it is much easier to see the difference.

What you need is to look at them head on, like this:

Or if you would prefer a more textured version, like this:


From left to right, these are cylinders at various angles to the viewer.
Can you tell which is vertical and which is at various angles? (and what those angles are?)
Just which do you think should correspond to the lighthouse?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2021, 04:28:06 PM by JackBlack »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2021, 11:08:56 PM »

So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.

You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies.

Do you area with a near 8 inches per mile squared?


Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2021, 12:42:47 AM »
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.
Because it isn't to scale you are massively overestimating the curve.
Earth is not a tiny ball.

So much of your nonsense relies upon pretending Earth is just a tiny ball you can fit in your hand rather than the massive one you are standing on.


And one issue directly related to that, you show (also using your nonsense of magical 1 D vision with no FOV) that you don't see the lighthouse. But as already shown, if you are high enough on the boat, YOU CAN.


The same kind of set issues arise with a to scale diagram.
You can see the light in question from ~ 22 km away (ignoring refraction which lets you see it from even furhter).
And the higher you are in the boat, the further the distance to the horizon and the further you can see it from.
And that is before you even consider the light passing through the water or seeing the light above you as it scatters from dust and moisture/clouds in the air.

Now, care to address your nonsense regarding the lean?

Can you tell me which of those poles are leaning forwards or back?

*

Stash

  • 7308
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2021, 01:07:56 AM »

So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.

You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies.

Do you area with a near 8 inches per mile squared?

How do you not get that scale makes a massive difference to the diagram, line of sight, etc.?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2021, 01:15:07 AM »

And one issue directly related to that, you show (also using your nonsense of magical 1 D vision with no FOV) that you don't see the lighthouse. But as already shown, if you are high enough on the boat, YOU CAN.

The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.

There's no real way out of it, Jack.
You can argue scale as much as you want but if there was a convex curve and your ship had a 200 foot mast with crows nest your vision would be massively angled from a level view.

The very same is someone was to look towards the ship from the lighthouse and meet the visual intersection of theoretical sight lines, you would end up with a big pyramid.




The higher you go the higher the angle of sight away from the object.

There's no convex curve.


You see, you can't change it to having a person looking down towards the ground from these heights because that would be cheating.
A level scope is a level scope, not angled.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2021, 01:16:35 AM »


How do you not get that scale makes a massive difference to the diagram, line of sight, etc.?
I do get it but it doesn't matter, overall.
The distances from a ship to lighthouse would still see tilted back and angled vision, no matter how minor you think that is.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2021, 01:24:14 AM »

And one issue directly related to that, you show (also using your nonsense of magical 1 D vision with no FOV) that you don't see the lighthouse. But as already shown, if you are high enough on the boat, YOU CAN.

The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.

There's no real way out of it, Jack.
You can argue scale as much as you want but if there was a convex curve and your ship had a 200 foot mast with crows nest your vision would be massively angled from a level view.

The very same is someone was to look towards the ship from the lighthouse and meet the visual intersection of theoretical sight lines, you would end up with a big pyramid.




The higher you go the higher the angle of sight away from the object.

There's no convex curve.


You see, you can't change it to having a person looking down towards the ground from these heights because that would be cheating.
A level scope is a level scope, not angled.

Calculate it then. Don't use diagrams, use numbers

Back in reality, all curve simulators work ( http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator )

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2021, 01:37:48 AM »
The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.
Why?
You are aware that makes no sense at all right?
Moving higher up on the ship will just make you higher. it wont change the angle at all.

There's no real way out of it, Jack.
So why you pretend their is with all your nonsense?
You have been refuted, deal with it.

You can argue scale as much as you want but if there was a convex curve and your ship had a 200 foot mast with crows nest your vision would be massively angled from a level view.
I already clearly demonstrated that was pure BS.
Why do you just repeat the same BS as if it hasn't already been refuted.

The angle is insignificant.

Again, which of the rods in this image are vertical? Which are leaning towards you? Which are leaning away? (Note, this is viewed from the same level as the base of the rod):


The higher you go the higher the angle of sight away from the object.
And what is this magic "angle of sight" you speak of?
Are you back to pretending we magically only see a straight line?

What is wrong with the line provided by boydster before?

A level scope is a level scope, not angled.
No one said anything about a level scope in this thread.
And again, just like in the other thread, WE DON"T JUST SEE A LINE!
We have a FOV.

Stop pretending we magically only see a line.
It just shows how pathetic your position is.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2021, 01:41:00 AM »
Yeah, this is a common absurd tactic of sceptimatic.  Use a very not to scale image and treat it like it was.  Hard to tell if it's intentional, or he doesn't understand scale.  It's pretty dishonest if it's intentional.
Of course it is dishonest.  He's been told this stuff thousands of times by now.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2021, 02:41:26 AM »

And one issue directly related to that, you show (also using your nonsense of magical 1 D vision with no FOV) that you don't see the lighthouse. But as already shown, if you are high enough on the boat, YOU CAN.

The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.

There's no real way out of it, Jack.
You can argue scale as much as you want but if there was a convex curve and your ship had a 200 foot mast with crows nest your vision would be massively angled from a level view.

The very same is someone was to look towards the ship from the lighthouse and meet the visual intersection of theoretical sight lines, you would end up with a big pyramid.




The higher you go the higher the angle of sight away from the object.

There's no convex curve.


You see, you can't change it to having a person looking down towards the ground from these heights because that would be cheating.
A level scope is a level scope, not angled.

Calculate it then. Don't use diagrams, use numbers

Back in reality, all curve simulators work ( http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator )
Your calculator doesn't allow for tilt of observer and tilt of object to be observed. Why?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2021, 02:45:12 AM »
The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.
Why?
You are aware that makes no sense at all right?
Moving higher up on the ship will just make you higher. it wont change the angle at all.

It won't change the angle if you are on a level.
We aren't talking about a level with your theory of a globe, are we?
Your Earth is supposedly a globe. I'm sure you can understand if you placed two masts 10/20/30/40/50 miles apart they would be closer at the base to base and farther away at the very top to top.

Try and tell me this wouldn't be the case.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2021, 03:21:08 AM »
Your calculator doesn't allow for tilt of observer and tilt of object to be observed. Why?
Probably because unlike your fantasy, the tilt is insignificant and is quite difficult to see.

Again, which of the rods in the diagram I provided are vertical? Can you tell?

The higher you went on a ship the more angled away from the object you become.
Why?
You are aware that makes no sense at all right?
Moving higher up on the ship will just make you higher. it wont change the angle at all.

It won't change the angle if you are on a level.
We aren't talking about a level with your theory of a globe, are we?
No, instead we are talking about simply going up higher at the same point on Earth's surface and thus at the same angle.

Your Earth is supposedly a globe. I'm sure you can understand if you placed two masts 10/20/30/40/50 miles apart they would be closer at the base to base and farther away at the very top to top.
Try and tell me this wouldn't be the case.
Why would I say that?
You claimed the ANGLE would be greater, not the distance.
Do you understand the difference?

The distance along the surface of Earth would still be exactly the same.
The angle subtended at the centre will still be exactly the same.
So that means the ship wouldn't be more angled away.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2021, 03:37:24 AM »
It whoud be case, but by a few centimeters, at best

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19545
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2021, 03:41:20 AM »
...

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2021, 06:44:59 AM »
Whoudn't two black lines go above tower, and not intercept red line near it?

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2021, 07:13:23 AM »

So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.

You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies.

Do you area with a near 8 inches per mile squared?

"You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies."

This is you not understanding scale.  If you stretch this out, eventually those lines you drew will intersect the light house.

That is how scale works, and why it seems you don't understand it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2021, 07:51:00 AM »

So, on that scale how big are the boat and the lighthouse?
Well, the diameter of the circle is approximately 800 px.
The distance (as a straight line) between the lighthouse and boat is ~270 px.
The height of the boat is ~17 px.
And the lighthouse (going from water level to the light) is ~ 40 px.

That means the boat is ~270 km tall, at a distance of 4300 km from the lighthouse which is ~640 km high.

That is a big boat, and a big mountain.
No need to concentrate on how tall. Concentrate on the angle that both objects would be at from a level sight.
Draw it if you think you can.

Do you truly not understand scale?
To put this to scale would be to not see the diagram.
The diagram shows the angle and the level sight over a curve.

You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies.

Do you area with a near 8 inches per mile squared?

"You can stretch it our as much as you want to but the same thing still applies."

This is you not understanding scale.  If you stretch this out, eventually those lines you drew will intersect the light house.

That is how scale works, and why it seems you don't understand it.
Forget your scale.
The tilt will always take your level view away from the object if you were on a globe.

Go and get your globe and try it.
Yeah I know I know....it's not to scale.

Are you happy with near 8 inches per mile squared or have you got another way to sort that?