3 > Discussions; Public Archive

Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

<< < (2/35) > >>

Dale Eastman:

--- Quote from: 30 14:49 ---Correct, the globe model would have to have a physical horizon at a set distance dependent on hight of the observer, is what you're saying?
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: 30 14:54 ---For the sake of our discussion, I'm attempting the best I can, to act like I don't have the position I actually have.

My sole point is the angle to the top of a structure is measurable and different according to the two models/theories.

--- End quote ---

Dale Eastman:

--- Quote from: 30 14:59 ---correct me if I'm not hitting on your point. but you are seeing only the top of that building but would you agree that there is some magnifacation going on also? And there could be an explanation not requiring the notion of a globe.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: 30 15:07 ---Whether there is magnification or not has no bearing on what is observed, shown, and photographed.

The issue is what is occluded. One only has a line of sight to the top half of a 1/4 mile tall building.

--- End quote ---

Dale Eastman:

--- Quote from: 30 15:39 ---we can go into atmospheric refraction soon but what your saying you're seeing you might would expect to see on a globe. I can get that. However this photo below should be impossible on a globe. You can plug in these numbers in an earth curve calculator.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: 30 16:17 ---The image only shows that the Chicago skyline can be seen from WHERE EVER the image was taken from.

The claim of 40 miles is plausible, but not valid because it is not known where the image was taken from. The claim of do the math is even less plausible without an exact location of where the image was taken. And the math is wrong because only 725 feet of the Sears/Willis tower is below the line of sight at 50 miles out.

The distance formula is not linear. It is exponential. Note to self: check the equation for comparison to the Kenosha image.
Note for you regarding my note to myself: I will check the online calculator(s) with the equations in a spread sheet once I re-wrap my mind around the math... Again.

Got guests coming this evening, so I will be offline at some point in time.

--- End quote ---

Dale Eastman:

--- Quote from: 30 15:55 ---i submit this into evidence
https://youtu.be/_J3SoI2BExQ
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: 30 16:20 ---this one we know it at the shoreline at 1 foot of the ground.
https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: 2 18:42 ---To have an orderly discussion with you, I need your help.

I wish to not have sub-threads with multiple parallel topics. One point beat to death at a time please.

Per the Fecalbook timestamps:

Quote from: 30 15:39: you.
Quote from: 30 16:17: me.
Quote from: 30 15:55: you.
Quote from: 30 16:20: you.

I am not presently addressing your 15:55 and 16:20 posts.

I addressed your 15:39 post with my 16:17 post.
While I was addressing that post you made two more posts.

Please do not do a Gish Gallop.

I have copied your 15:55 and 16:20 posts to my archive of our discussion. So I have a record to refer to so that I don't miss or ignore your points.

30 11:24
➽ First thing is, it is most flat-earters contention that the flat-eart society is a government disinformation co-intel-pro type organization meant to make fe looks retarded.

In my research to again wrap my mind around the math, I found this bit:
⚡ Flat Earthers seem to look at the world all on their own, without reference to the well over 2,000 years of human discovery.⚡

A point to be examined is navigation with a sextant and a clock. On both the FE and GE models. Set that aside, the comment is to archive to remind me.

30 14:59
➽ correct me if I'm not hitting on your point. but you are seeing only the top of that building but would you agree that there is some magnifacation going on also?

Upon re-reading your words, You did indeed miss my point. And I failed to make the point clearer.

If you again look at the image I made with the brown ground, red line of sight, and black tower, the angle observed differs depending upon FE or GE. A 45 degree difference.

30 15:39
➽ You can plug in these numbers in an earth curve calculator.

Per my 30 16:17 post...
Note to self: check the equation for comparison to the Kenosha image.

Upon doing so, and knowing the height of the building, there is not enough of the tower occluded per the online calculator.

Full transparency: The image I used is not mine. When I stumbled onto the picture, I grabbed it because it matched my recollection of seeing the tower with the bottom occluded when I stood on the beach myself. What my Boomer CRS disadvantages me with is I do not remember how much of the tower was occluded.

My intent is to get back to the beach and snap some photos of my own.

This is caused by "atmospheric_refraction" which is not the same as "atmospheric lensing. From my reading up on the refraction issue, temperature gradients will affect how much of the building can be seen at different times when the math says none should be visible.

I am also going to state that atmospheric refraction typically and usually operates to the advantage of the FE theory. I'm tired now. I will expand upon my claim and why I make it if you need me to.

30 15:55
➽ i submit this into evidence
https://youtu.be/_J3SoI2BExQ

Ah... Sorry... Nope.
You have submitted a theory that if proven true THEN becomes "evidence".

I did view the vid. It gets its own response when I address this 30 15:55 post of yours.

--- End quote ---

Dale Eastman:
Celestial Navigation
Stars location, distance, ray divergence.
Angular diameter, angular size.
North south angle of elevation on the same day. FE v. GE measurements.
Are stars farther away than the sun?
Tilt o earth N S 90 degree zenith limits. Tropics of ???
Flat earth sun on other tropic, distance angular diameter v. this tropic angular diameter half degree. Calculate distance size change.
https://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/screen/yb_southern_cross_cc.jpg

 "always visible" by Stobaeus (5th century),  Nav star since 5th century.
Compass points N-S. Where is the south pole.
α Crucis (Latinised to Alpha Crucis)     −63° 05′ 56.7343


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/flat-vs-round-earth

https://www.britannica.com/science/celestial-navigation

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/snells-law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_measurement

https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/atmospheric-lensing.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/mirage.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#/media/File:Atmospheric_refraction_-_sunset_and_sunrise.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Colorado_Anticrepuscular_Rays.jpg/800px-Colorado_Anticrepuscular_Rays.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Reply

Go to full version