4 > Discussions; Public Archive
Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 2 18:56 ---are you familiar with fraunhofer defraction?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 2 19:16 ---I checked Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction
It had a lot of words to state: "Gish Gallop".
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 2 19:17 ---I've got still pictures to demonstrate the effect for reference if you want...
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 3 15:22 ---You and I have not really beat the previous topic points to death yet.
The Wiki article points out that this stuff is at the micro (μ) level of size. You and I are discussing effects at the macro level.
⚡Refraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with diffraction, the change in direction of a wave around an obstacle..⚡
⚡Diffraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with refraction, the change in direction of a wave passing from one medium to another.⚡
And I note: Neither to be confused with atmospheric lensing which is brought up by the FE model and not yet addressed by me.
Back to the not dead horse...
30 15:39
➽ However this photo below should be impossible on a globe. You can plug in these numbers in an earth curve calculator.
To my surprise, the claim is correct. The photo you supplied, and the one I supplied, "should" both be impossible on a globe.
Your image does show buildings in Chicago that should be occluded. My image does show the tower that should be fully occluded.
Side note: Your image claims 1060 feet of Chicago should be below the horizon. The tower 1450 feet tall. So 390 feet of the top of the tower would still be visible.
⚡Atmospheric refraction is the deviation of light or other electromagnetic wave from a straight line as it passes through the atmosphere due to the variation in air density as a function of height.[1] This refraction is due to the velocity of light through air decreasing (the refractive index increases) with increased density. Atmospheric refraction near the ground produces mirages. Such refraction can also raise or lower, or stretch or shorten, the images of distant objects without involving mirages. Turbulent air can make distant objects appear to twinkle or shimmer. The term also applies to the refraction of sound. Atmospheric refraction is considered in measuring the position of both celestial and terrestrial objects.
[...]
Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the times of culmination, when celestial objects are highest in the sky. Likewise, sailors will not shoot a star below 20° above the horizon.
[...]
Surveyors, on the other hand, will often schedule their observations in the afternoon, when the magnitude of refraction is minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction⚡
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#/media/File:Atmospheric_refraction_-_sunset_and_sunrise.png
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 3 16:38 ---im cool with beating the horse to a pulp. At the very least for clarity sake. I just want to recap, we agree what we observe is a close local light source, and the notion of a distant sun requires presumptions, correct? I've not seen an experiment that demonstrates how light would enter a synthesized atmosphere on a ball. However fraunhofer defraction doesn't require a presumption in order to demonstrate some of the optical effects near the apparent horizon on a flat plain. Please excuse the meme trail but the series of photos should help to illustrate what this type of defraction can do to objects near the horizon. I'll pause to let you take in the effect...
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 3 18:34 ---➽ Please excuse the meme trail
No harm, no foul. You don't need forgiveness.
➽ I just want to recap, we agree what we observe is a close local light source, and the notion of a distant sun requires presumptions, correct?
Repeating my words from my 30 14:40 post:
[...] I understand the point you are attempting to make about why divergent v. parallel rays don't prove flat or globe. Absent checks on globe - flat trig, I would agree that figuring distance to the sun is not calculable.
For purposes of this discussion I am assuming the distance to the sun is not known, requiring the notion of a distant sun to be built upon the model of a GE.
➽ what we observe is a close local light source[?]
What do you mean by "a close local light source"?
➽ I've not seen an experiment that demonstrates how light would enter a synthesized atmosphere on a ball.
By "ball" I assume you mean "earth". Please correct or verify.
What do you mean by "synthesized atmosphere"?
What do you mean by "synthesized atmosphere on a ball"?
➽ However fraunhofer defraction doesn't require a presumption in order to demonstrate some of the optical effects near the apparent horizon on a flat plain.
What "presumption" are you implying is avoided?
Now onto your images. Specifically the one with the text that claims "460 feet eye level".
The disproofs of the claim are right there in that very image.
Thus this causes me to question the validity of the similar images.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 3 18:59 --- close local light source, if you've seen a street light when it's a foggy night, you see the divergent/cerpuscular rays, similar to the rays we ovserve from the sun, without assuming or presuming a distant sun and the refraction that would be required. The last picture is where the camera is held up to eye level, all the other ones are siting on the ground and moving away from the 2 lids, on a flat warehouse floor. So the last two photos are the same distance but the last one he brings the camera up, increasing the angle, and you can then make out what was being obscured by the defraction at the horizon. Now these optics work in conjunction with the optics from the video with rob skiba, showing that with enough moisture in the air we can see how objects can apear to be magnified, and sink below the horizon, and the defraction demonstrates why it may be assumed things disappear from the bottom up, even on a flat surface. I hope that was concise enough. I might be able to link the video these photos were pulled from if you want to hear it explained in a different way.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 3 19:27 ---Do you have rokfin? Chicago skyline experiment 1 @ -151 I'll find the defraction explanation wren i find it.
https://rokfin.com/stream/20360
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 3 20:14 ---i found it. If you don't have rokfin, you can probably find them through odyssey/lbry.
It's around @ -105
https://rokfin.com/stream/21248
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 15:39 ---3 16:38
➽ I just want to recap, we agree what we observe is a close local light source, and the notion of a distant sun requires presumptions, correct?
Yes... With caveat... The (my) alleged proof of a distant sun has NOT been verified, thus the (my) alleged proof is just a presumption until verified.
In my 30 14:54 post I said:
My sole point is the angle to the top of a structure is measurable and different according to the two models/theories.
The image attached, created for discussion with another, shows the fact that the closer one is to an object, the higher the angle to the top will be. Close enough and atmospheric issues are not observable. However close enough to see 1° GE-FE difference is far enough away to be affected by the atmosphere.
1.0 nautical mile = 1.150779 mile = 1/60 of a degree = 1 minute
So one degree = 69. nautical miles = 79.5 statute miles.
My image is 49.5 miles.
According to the curve calculator, the top of an object must be taller than 3,915 feet to be observed over the (assumed) curvature to verify a 1 degree difference due to roundness.
Your part in this discussion has caused me to conclude my image is NOT suitable as proof of GE. Likewise, the images you presented of Chicago are NOT suitable as proof of FE. Score one for you, personally. Adds nothing to the FE score though.
In my 3 15:22 post I quoted Wiki:
⚡Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the times of culmination, when celestial objects are highest in the sky. Likewise, sailors will not shoot a star below 20° above the horizon.⚡
The errors caused by atmosphere are known and accounted for in celestial navigation. I did not know such errors would be so pronounced until looking into the optics of atmosphere due to this convo.
Now my curiosity is going to demand I visit that beach several times during the year. My A Priori theory is that I will see differing amounts of occlusion.
The attached image also shows the farther away the item observed, the smaller its angular size will be.
Angular size in degrees = inverse-tangent(size ÷ distance)
Distance = size ÷ tangent(angle)
Size = distance × tangent(angle)
The angular size of both the sun and the moon are about .5°
.5° = Inverse-tangent(0.0087268677907587893345361980612)
Distance to the sun = sun's size ÷ 0.00872
Sun's size = sun's distance × 0.00872
Distance to the moon = moon's size ÷ 0.00872
Moon's size = moon's distance ÷ 0.00872
My notes for the record and future point reminder:
The moon's angular size equals the sun's angular size because of total eclipse.
The moon is closer to earth than the sun because of total eclipse.
Moon - sun distance ratio and moon - sun size ratio will be the same.
Double distance:double size, 3X:3X, 4X:4X, etc.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 4 15:42 ---how are the sizes and distances to those celestial objects we see known?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 16:30 ---4 15:42
➽ how are the sizes and distances to those celestial objects we see known?
DING DING DING! You have won recognition for asking excellent and intelligent questions.
To answer that question authoritatively requires acceptance of a GE model, something not yet proven in this discussion.
Now I am assuming you mean just the sun and the moon when you referred to celestial objects. Stars are also celestial objects.
Now I'm going to ask you to do a simple experiment. As you are on one side of a room, close one eye and hold one finger up to point up at some item across the room. Without moving, close that eye and simultaneously open the other. If you did it correctly, you are now pointing somewhere else.
This is called parallax.
Two eyes substitute for looking at something from two different locations. When focused on a far object the near object appears to change location relative to the far object. If the focus is on the near object, the far object's location appears to change relative to the near object.
Based on this simple observation, determining which of two nearly aligned objects is easy. Based on simply observing, with the correct filters for safety looking at the sun, one can determine that even the closest star is way farther away than the sun.
3 18:59
➽ you see the divergent/cerpuscular rays, similar to the rays we ovserve from the sun
According to your comments about crepuscular rays, the attached image shows the sun BELOW the clouds.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version