Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

[Dale Eastman]

Bird traveled over 60,000 miles around Antarctica even tho the claimed size on the spherical model is roughly 14,000 miles. He also claimed there was land beyond Antarctica. So if Antarctica is just the shoreline for our world pond(oceans), what are they hiding with the Antarctic treaty. Why do you think it's a big deal that putin is threatening to break the treaty. I know you don't like to discuss the notion that the earth isn't a ball in an infinite space vaccume but, there is more and more evidence to support the idea that is not everyday.

I'm fine with discussing flat/round earth. What I'm not okay with is folks who refuse to think and folks who refuse to actually look at and discuss facts. Scratch that... and discuss information and data.

If you are willing to do that, I'll start another thread here in my collection of shares.

Lemme know.

That's a great answer especially compared to the normal reaction to the notion. 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. I only make a couple positive claims, mostly just questions about major flaws in the proposed globe model, such as the one i made in my original comment. I would be down to have a discussion with the caveats considered.

➽  I know you don't like to discuss the  notion that the earth isn't a ball in an infinite space vaccume but,  there is more and more evidence to support the idea that is not  everyday.

Here's the convo starter OP.

➽ I only make a couple positive claims, mostly just questions about major flaws in the proposed globe model, such as the one i made in my original comment.

I've not really seen direct claims in your post in the other thread.

I can't even claim you've implied a PRO-FE position.

➽ Bird traveled over 60,000 miles around Antarctica even tho the claimed size on the spherical model is roughly 14,000 miles.

I'm not sure which dimension of what is meant by 14,000 miles. The GE model is a circumference is...

⚡ Measured around the Equator, it is 40,075.017 km (24,901.461 mi). Measured around the poles, the circumference is 40,007.863 km (24,859.734 mi). Measurement of Earth's circumference has been important to navigation since ancient times.
Wikipedia⚡

I used to own a truck. I did 90,000 miles per year. Average 250 miles per day. Max speed out west, 70 mph, or 3.5 hours average drive time. So, what speed did Byrd travel at?

➽ So if Antarctica is just the shoreline for our world pond(oceans), what are they hiding with the Antarctic treaty.

That "IF' is very important. FE thinks it's a shoreline. GE does not.

I am nescient of the words of this treaty. So I only have a half challenge on the assumption that the treaty is hiding something.  The treaty is a null issue on the FE-GE discussion.

➽ Why do you think it's a big deal that putin is threatening to break the treaty.

Resources... And meeting Biden's warmongering threats with his own.

My questions are specific...
And in your case, rhetorical unless you feel the need to attempt to answer.
What is the sun's distance from the alleged FE?
What is the sun's angular size?
If the distance X has an angular size of Y, and you cut the distance X in half, what is the angular size of the sun?

[Dale Eastman]

Could i start more fundamental? I would ask how earth's proposed sizeis known. To know meaning: to know first hand. How is earths size calculated. We have to establish this before we start to comment or speculate on the lights in the sky.

➽ how earth's proposed size is known

First pass without detail answer: Trigonometry.

[Dale Eastman]

ok perfect. But there's a presupposition of a distant sun casting rays on the earth nearly parallel, correct? Like this....

➽ presupposition

Assumption/claim of GE.

➽ nearly parallel

Yes.

Is this connected to my image showing how diameter can be discerned from a fixed elevated object?

[Dale Eastman]

yes. Your correct about the math and everything. However we are trying to explain observable reality. The only thing any one has ever observed are cerpuscular rays coming from the sun such as...

would you agree?

Took me a moment to comprehend your point's connection to my image.

I was going to delete the following 35 words. Instead, I'm going to leave them as a chastisement that you can do more clear writing.

Would I agree that "we are trying to explain observable reality"?
Yes.

Would I agree that "The only thing any one has ever observed are cerpuscular rays coming from the sun"?
I can neither answer yes or no.

While I find the images you presented very intriguing, there is too much missing information to assume what appears is correct.

End 35+ word chastisement.

Now that I know what you are angling at (pun intended), I can address the unchecked assumptions.

I have marked this image with the non-parallel rays to the best of my ability. I have marked the image with a horizontal baseline. I have marked this image with a vertical bifurcating line. With knowledge of 1/2 baseline to angled line distance, and the angle of the angled line, Trig will give the answer of the distance from the baseline to the apex where the two angled lines intersect. How close to equal is the length of the vertical line and 1/2 the baseline by what you see? The red horizontal line is not at the waterline because the to vertices would be off the image.

[Dale Eastman]

that sounds about right. And simple trig would give you an answer between 3000-5000 miles away Depending on many veriables. And we can get into why its difficult to actually triangulate the sun in a bit, but I'm stickin with this point to paint the picture. The calculations for trigonometric phericty work on a flat plane with a local light source. You can have two bottles on a table with a light over one bottle and you can measure the angles of the shadows and do some great trigonometry and figure out the sphericity of your table. Leaving out any presumptions. To presume a distant sun you have to presume the atmosphere is acting like a convex lens insted of a concave one also. But what I'm saying is neither one proves anything. But one of them requires two presumptions. Does that make sense?

➽ Does that make sense?

It does in that 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.

You are attempting to use Occam's razor to shoot for the simplest theory. You invalidate your intent because you are yourself presuming others have used the presumption you claim. What you have presented is the concept of "atmospheric lensing". I'm going to kick that can down the road for now with the admission that atmo lensing IS a measurable thing and with the caveat that to bring it up again will require delving into its science.

If you scroll back up to the image I created, you err in what you are assuming. That image does NOT have anything to do with sunlight rays. That image is solely what line of sight angles are to the top of an object affixed to the earth.

On that issue, I will re post my standard answer to FE v GE debate.

Tweaked my original.

[Dale Eastman]

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?

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.

[Dale Eastman]

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.

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.

[Dale Eastman]

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.

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.

[Dale Eastman]

i submit this into evidence
https://youtu.be/_J3SoI2BExQ

this one we know it at the shoreline at 1 foot of the ground.
https://youtu.be/F4h9Y5lqn5w

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.

[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

[Dale Eastman]

are you familiar with fraunhofer defraction?

I checked Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction
It had a lot of words to state: "Gish Gallop".

[Dale Eastman]

I've got still pictures to demonstrate the effect for reference if you want...

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

[Dale Eastman]

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...

➽ 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.

[Dale Eastman]

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.

Do you have rokfin? Chicago skyline experiment 1 @ -151 I'll find the defraction explanation wren i find it.
https://rokfin.com/stream/20360

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

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.

[Dale Eastman]

how are the sizes and distances to those celestial objects we see known?

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.