Official Outer Limits/Debunking Thread
View Poll Results: How would you want to go if the world had to end?
Zombie apocalypse
20
18.02%
Meteor collides into the earth
30
27.03%
Alien invasion
58
52.25%
Nuclear disaster, either from war or accident
3
2.70%
02-15-2020
, 07:58 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
Here is the SDSU link for Looming
https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims...oom.html#LandS
From the Link:
----------------
Here are some simulations of terrestrial refraction phenomena that do not involve mirages. The four types named in the title all involve refraction anomalies, but without inverted or multiple images — and therefore without mirages.
================
Note that looming is not a mirage type phenomenon. Looming refers to when you have an object beyond the apparent horizon so that the bottom of the object is obstructed according to how far it is from the apparent horizon. Looming makes more of the bottom of the object visible than you would normally expect from the object's distance to the apparent horizon.
There's nothing about the Looming phenomenon that says the formula I used above for calculating distance from observer to apparent horizon does not still hold for curvatures of light between 1/2 Earth's curvature and just less than 1xEarth's curvature. So my calculation for light curvature of 80/81 of Earth's giving 9x distance of geometric horizon is valid. Furthermore, the discussion on the SDSU website shows such refraction is certainly possible, especially over the ocean and near shore.
I think it's pretty clear that Billy's representations of refraction are not trustworthy.
PairTheBoard
https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims...oom.html#LandS
From the Link:
----------------
Here are some simulations of terrestrial refraction phenomena that do not involve mirages. The four types named in the title all involve refraction anomalies, but without inverted or multiple images — and therefore without mirages.
================
Note that looming is not a mirage type phenomenon. Looming refers to when you have an object beyond the apparent horizon so that the bottom of the object is obstructed according to how far it is from the apparent horizon. Looming makes more of the bottom of the object visible than you would normally expect from the object's distance to the apparent horizon.
There's nothing about the Looming phenomenon that says the formula I used above for calculating distance from observer to apparent horizon does not still hold for curvatures of light between 1/2 Earth's curvature and just less than 1xEarth's curvature. So my calculation for light curvature of 80/81 of Earth's giving 9x distance of geometric horizon is valid. Furthermore, the discussion on the SDSU website shows such refraction is certainly possible, especially over the ocean and near shore.
I think it's pretty clear that Billy's representations of refraction are not trustworthy.
PairTheBoard
02-15-2020
, 08:16 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
Quote:
I am allowing this because you still cannot get the numbers to work unless you are PTB and can assume an infinite earth radius, or at least big enough to go past the necessary 9+ miles. And what it has done is make you all assert apparent horizons, not geometric horizons, which destroys your globe geometry.
I am allowing this because you still cannot get the numbers to work unless you are PTB and can assume an infinite earth radius, or at least big enough to go past the necessary 9+ miles. And what it has done is make you all assert apparent horizons, not geometric horizons, which destroys your globe geometry.
I don't know what your problem is but I don't think it's one that can be fixed on this forum.
PairTheBoard
02-15-2020
, 08:43 AM
Is the double horizon the same as the bottom of the marine layer or were those different things?
02-15-2020
, 12:08 PM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
It's not begging the question. It's not a deductive argument. It's not the first time you've been told this. It won't be the last time you'll be told this.
In my world "change the perception of the geometry but not the actual..."?
So not yours? Do you think light refraction changes an object's geometry?
Nothing in your comment had any relevance to the soundness or validity of your argument.
In my world "change the perception of the geometry but not the actual..."?
So not yours? Do you think light refraction changes an object's geometry?
Nothing in your comment had any relevance to the soundness or validity of your argument.
Quote:
begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true.
The refraction coefficient is entirely arbitrary, based not on the specific atmospheric features you claim it to be based on but by the necessity of a sphere edge at fixed distance and a horizon at variable distance. There is literally no distance the horizon can be at for the sphere model not to be claimed, you ipso facto have no sphere geometry beyond that in the sphere model. PTB just did this right here, he literally chose a refraction coefficient to give earth a radius that would create a 9 mile horizon. It is more than 9 miles. No problem, we will just increase earth radius even more to make it fit the observation. What's that? Perspective means we can't see past a certain point? Forget that, we are assuming a spherical earth here and then making stuff up to justify it! Such as - there is really no horizon! This is in the realm beyond fantasy, beyond ludicrous absurdity. Train wreck.
You have no mechanism for the effect in any case, looming and any other types of refraction apply to objects such as being made to appear higher ABOVE a horizon, not making the horizon itself appear behind and higher up than an object.
02-15-2020
, 12:16 PM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
That your argument is unsound and invalid? Cool. This is what my comment pointed out. Unless....you didn't read my sodding post properly, did you?!
Why don't we put you to the test. How many times have I told you what I meant by geometric horizon, but you substituted your definition instead (you know the fallacy, don't you?).
Tell me in your own words what you think I mean wrt geometric vs observed horizon? Hmmm?
Why don't we put you to the test. How many times have I told you what I meant by geometric horizon, but you substituted your definition instead (you know the fallacy, don't you?).
Tell me in your own words what you think I mean wrt geometric vs observed horizon? Hmmm?
Your observed horizon is this same geometric edge that appears to be shifted to various distances because the light from the ground has a bent trajectory according to temperatures and air moisture.
This is why you are now unofficially arguing for flat earth. Your sphere geometry cannot be observed.
02-15-2020
, 12:29 PM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Here is the SDSU link for Looming
https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims...oom.html#LandS
From the Link:
----------------
Here are some simulations of terrestrial refraction phenomena that do not involve mirages. The four types named in the title all involve refraction anomalies, but without inverted or multiple images — and therefore without mirages.
================
Note that looming is not a mirage type phenomenon. Looming refers to when you have an object beyond the apparent horizon so that the bottom of the object is obstructed according to how far it is from the apparent horizon. Looming makes more of the bottom of the object visible than you would normally expect from the object's distance to the apparent horizon.
https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims...oom.html#LandS
From the Link:
----------------
Here are some simulations of terrestrial refraction phenomena that do not involve mirages. The four types named in the title all involve refraction anomalies, but without inverted or multiple images — and therefore without mirages.
================
Note that looming is not a mirage type phenomenon. Looming refers to when you have an object beyond the apparent horizon so that the bottom of the object is obstructed according to how far it is from the apparent horizon. Looming makes more of the bottom of the object visible than you would normally expect from the object's distance to the apparent horizon.
Quote:
There's nothing about the Looming phenomenon that says the formula I used above for calculating distance from observer to apparent horizon does not still hold for curvatures of light between 1/2 Earth's curvature and just less than 1xEarth's curvature. So my calculation for light curvature of 80/81 of Earth's giving 9x distance of geometric horizon is valid. Furthermore, the discussion on the SDSU website shows such refraction is certainly possible, especially over the ocean and near shore.
I think it's pretty clear that Billy's representations of refraction are not trustworthy.
PairTheBoard
I think it's pretty clear that Billy's representations of refraction are not trustworthy.
PairTheBoard
Quote:
Looming
To simulate this effect, it's convenient to choose a temperature gradient that makes the ray curvature about half that of the Earth
To simulate this effect, it's convenient to choose a temperature gradient that makes the ray curvature about half that of the Earth
See begging the question fallacy as explained clearly to BeaucoupFish.
02-15-2020
, 12:41 PM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
You evidently don't understand mathematics. It's the difference in curvatures between Earth's curvature and the curvature of light due to refraction that matters. R' is simply a mathematical device which represents the radius that would be required of a theoretical ball whose curvature matched that difference in curvatures. If the difference in curvatures is small, i.e. the curvature of refracted light is close to Earth's curvature, then the mathematical term R' is large. You are ridiculing a mathematical term in a calculation.
I don't know what your problem is but I don't think it's one that can be fixed on this forum.
PairTheBoard
I don't know what your problem is but I don't think it's one that can be fixed on this forum.
PairTheBoard
Quote:
in principle, you can see infinitely far — there really is no horizon
02-15-2020
, 12:58 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
I haven't made an argument. All I've done is apply the math from the SDSU link to show that a curvature of light from refraction that's 80/81 the curvature of Earth (assuming the round Earth) produces an apparent horizon 9 times further than the geometric horizon.
Making an assumption for the sake of argument is not "begging the question". Billy claims his video is a black swan which can't be explained under the assumption of a round earth. My calculation proves that under the assumption of a round earth the video can be explained. What Billy red-lines as the apparent horizon could be the apparent horizon at such a distance due to refraction with large light curvature such as 80/81 that of Earth's curvature. I'm not claiming that's actually the case. I'm arguing that could be the case. Therefore, Billy's video is not a black swan that disproves a round Earth.
Aaron, BeaucoupFish, and others may have other ideas for what's going on with the video. It may be more complicated. Or it may be much simpler, like a much higher elevation for the observer than is reported.
If flat earthers really wanted to produce more serious evidence based on this video they should go to that location and repeat the identical filming every week for a year with documentation for observer height. If the effect is due to unusually high refraction then it should vary significantly week by week according to atmospheric conditions. But I doubt they will do this. They know they can't really produce serious evidence disproving the round Earth.
PairTheBoard
Making an assumption for the sake of argument is not "begging the question". Billy claims his video is a black swan which can't be explained under the assumption of a round earth. My calculation proves that under the assumption of a round earth the video can be explained. What Billy red-lines as the apparent horizon could be the apparent horizon at such a distance due to refraction with large light curvature such as 80/81 that of Earth's curvature. I'm not claiming that's actually the case. I'm arguing that could be the case. Therefore, Billy's video is not a black swan that disproves a round Earth.
Aaron, BeaucoupFish, and others may have other ideas for what's going on with the video. It may be more complicated. Or it may be much simpler, like a much higher elevation for the observer than is reported.
If flat earthers really wanted to produce more serious evidence based on this video they should go to that location and repeat the identical filming every week for a year with documentation for observer height. If the effect is due to unusually high refraction then it should vary significantly week by week according to atmospheric conditions. But I doubt they will do this. They know they can't really produce serious evidence disproving the round Earth.
PairTheBoard
02-15-2020
, 01:09 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
Quote:
Your geometric horizon is that which is necessitated by a sphere edge being mathematically modelled at a fixed distance depending on observer height and earth radius, 3959 miles (varying according to oblate spheroidness but whatever).
Your observed horizon is this same geometric edge that appears to be shifted to various distances because the light from the ground has a bent trajectory according to temperatures and air moisture.
This is why you are now unofficially arguing for flat earth. Your sphere geometry cannot be observed.
Your observed horizon is this same geometric edge that appears to be shifted to various distances because the light from the ground has a bent trajectory according to temperatures and air moisture.
This is why you are now unofficially arguing for flat earth. Your sphere geometry cannot be observed.
PairTheBoard
02-15-2020
, 01:16 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
Quote:
Obfuscation and ad hominem attack reflective of you having lost the argument. Your ball cannot deviate from its 3959 mile radius or your entire religion crumbles. So obviously you will not be claiming earth radius can be bigger than this. Yet if you want to have it that
Then you must have an effective radius that is infinitely large ie a flat plane. It is how you as a glober reconcile your Fundamentalist religious belief in a sphere with observations that clearly show a flat plane.
Then you must have an effective radius that is infinitely large ie a flat plane. It is how you as a glober reconcile your Fundamentalist religious belief in a sphere with observations that clearly show a flat plane.
You've reached a truly astounding level of the ridiculous.
PairTheBoard
02-15-2020
, 01:23 PM
All I showed in my comment was how your modus tollens was unsound and invalid.
Nothing you have said to me since has been a defense of that. Increasing observer height / refraction coefficients / missing perspective - none of these are parts of your modus tollens claim.
Here's another direct question that you didn't answer:
02-15-2020
, 01:59 PM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
I haven't made an argument. All I've done is apply the math from the SDSU link to show that a curvature of light from refraction that's 80/81 the curvature of Earth (assuming the round Earth) produces an apparent horizon 9 times further than the geometric horizon.
Making an assumption for the sake of argument is not "begging the question". Billy claims his video is a black swan which can't be explained under the assumption of a round earth. My calculation proves that under the assumption of a round earth the video can be explained. What Billy red-lines as the apparent horizon could be the apparent horizon at such a distance due to refraction with large light curvature such as 80/81 that of Earth's curvature. I'm not claiming that's actually the case. I'm arguing that could be the case. Therefore, Billy's video is not a black swan that disproves a round Earth.
Aaron, BeaucoupFish, and others may have other ideas for what's going on with the video. It may be more complicated. Or it may be much simpler, like a much higher elevation for the observer than is reported.
If flat earthers really wanted to produce more serious evidence based on this video they should go to that location and repeat the identical filming every week for a year with documentation for observer height. If the effect is due to unusually high refraction then it should vary significantly week by week according to atmospheric conditions. But I doubt they will do this. They know they can't really produce serious evidence disproving the round Earth.
PairTheBoard
Making an assumption for the sake of argument is not "begging the question". Billy claims his video is a black swan which can't be explained under the assumption of a round earth. My calculation proves that under the assumption of a round earth the video can be explained. What Billy red-lines as the apparent horizon could be the apparent horizon at such a distance due to refraction with large light curvature such as 80/81 that of Earth's curvature. I'm not claiming that's actually the case. I'm arguing that could be the case. Therefore, Billy's video is not a black swan that disproves a round Earth.
Aaron, BeaucoupFish, and others may have other ideas for what's going on with the video. It may be more complicated. Or it may be much simpler, like a much higher elevation for the observer than is reported.
If flat earthers really wanted to produce more serious evidence based on this video they should go to that location and repeat the identical filming every week for a year with documentation for observer height. If the effect is due to unusually high refraction then it should vary significantly week by week according to atmospheric conditions. But I doubt they will do this. They know they can't really produce serious evidence disproving the round Earth.
PairTheBoard
To be clear, no reference I have seen states the horizon can be manipulated in the way it is claimed to be here in the oil rigs video, ie being sent behind the images. What the references state is that refraction affects IMAGES OF OBJECTS including making them appear ABOVE the horizon, or making them rise from below the horizon. It is to explain how an image can be observed at or above the horizon, it does not apply to the black swan situation which is the position of the horizon itself. This is somehow completely ignored yet it is what is stated plainly in the wiki from me and in your reference:
Quote:
LOOMING: The appearance above the horizon of a distant object that would normally be hidden below it.
To summarise as succinctly as possible:
If the logical statement not q (horizon not at 1.22 miles) therefore not p (not a globe radius 3959 miles) is accepted then the globe is debunked. If it is rejected then there is no observable sphere geometry. Which is quite a statement - there can never be observable proof of a globe earth. The mechanism for this claimed effect is not cited here in these pages and as far as I am aware no such mechanism exists:
Quote:
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.
Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they actually are, although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they actually are.
Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they actually are, although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they actually are.
Quote:
TERRESTRIAL REFRACTION: The displacement of terrestrial objects from their geometric directions by atmospheric refraction.
What we actually have in the black swan argument is nothing to do with the above. Refraction effects apply to objects around the horizon, not to the horizon itself.
Quote:
The horizon or skyline is the apparent line that separates earth from sky

02-15-2020
, 04:43 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
Do you agree or disagree with this statement. "If the apparent horizon is 10 miles away that means you can see everything up to 10 miles, given visibility."
PairTheBoard
02-15-2020
, 04:45 PM
Billy is claiming that refraction never moves the horizon, only objects. So there is no such thing as an "apparent horizon" in his book.
02-15-2020
, 05:03 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
PairTheBoard
02-15-2020
, 05:29 PM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
The horizon or skyline is the apparent line
Another acknowledgement there is no geometric horizon, keep em coming.
Just tell me again, you claim you are not begging the question correct? And then give me the formula you used to calculate the distance to what you are calling the "apparent horizon" please.
The answer to your question is here:
Quote:
LOOMING: The appearance above the horizon of a distant object that would normally be hidden below it.
Quote:
TERRESTRIAL REFRACTION: The displacement of terrestrial objects from their geometric directions by atmospheric refraction.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they actually are, although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they actually are.
https://aty.sdsu.edu/glossary.html#looming
Nothing here about the horizon being refracted is there? Now give me your citation that says the horizon is refracted.
You say "high curvature of light due to refraction". Curvature? What would it be curving around exactly? That would be a presupposed sphere correct? Do you still claim you are not begging the question?
You use earth radius in the refraction calculation. The radius of a geometric sphere. Which you then piss all over by asserting an "apparent horizon" not a geometric one - you don't have sphere geometry.
Quote:
Do you agree or disagree with this statement. "If the apparent horizon is 10 miles away that means you can see everything up to 10 miles, given visibility."
"If the horizon is 10 miles away that means you can see everything up to 10 miles, given visibility."
02-15-2020
, 05:48 PM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245

The idea the mountain can be brought in front of the horizon line is just beyond absurd. It just appears higher up above the horizon which stays where it is. The calculation simply increases the distance to the presupposed ball earth horizon because otherwise how the heck will the mountain be observed unless the horizon distance is increased. This is the crux of all this obfuscation - there was never a geometric horizon beyond that predicted by a radius 3959 miles as is asserted by flat earthers. Now the globers are in agreement. the horizon is apparent.
And bear in mind this is me jumping into their begging the question fallacy to expose how they cannot use this refraction get out clause. They are really shafted with this. The horizon being sent back beyond the objects as in the black swan is completely unsupported anywhere.
Last edited by 1&onlybillyshears; 02-15-2020 at 05:54 PM.
02-15-2020
, 05:51 PM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
He applied the same formula I used to calculate distance to the apparent horizon in the case the curvature of light due to refraction was 1/2 that of Earth's curvature. He accepted my correction to his botched calculation to conclude in this case the apparent horizon is sqr(2) times further than the geometric horizon, for the height of the observer. He thinks the fact that looming can occur at that refraction coefficient means the formula is invalid for light curvature greater than 1/2 up to just less than full Earth curvature. However, he has no reference for that. In fact, other discussion on the SDSU link indicates the formula does hold for those larger curvatures of light. And such levels of refraction do occur, especially over the ocean and near shore.
PairTheBoard
PairTheBoard
02-15-2020
, 06:22 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
Quote:
https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html
Precisely as I have already stated.
So, let's be generous, let's allow
1) perspective effects to be completely ignored by looking side on at the observer looking over a globe as per the reference material
2) the begging the question fallacy of earth being a sphere of radius r
3) the observer height being 6 feet instead of 1 foot as claimed by formula72
We therefore have the distance to the horizon as
1.32 x sqrt of 6 = 3.23 miles.
Whoops, not quite more than 9 miles is it. Should still be in front of the first platform.
Wait, there is more. "looming":
Any mirages in the image? Nope.
What is looming? it says
OBJECTS appearing ABOVE the horizon. Not bringing objects in front and sending the horizon much further back then.
Some numbers:
So, multiply earth radius by 3/2 (forget the absurdity for a moment)
3959 x 1.5 = 5939 miles
Observer height let's take formula72 value of 6 feet which in miles is
6/5280 = 0.0011363 miles
Sqrt (2 x 5939 x 0.0011363) = 3.67 miles
Oh dear, not quite over 9 miles is it. Not even close to the first platform.
Thank you PTB. You and BeaucoupFish can take over putting forward flat earth arguments from here. Outstanding work.
Precisely as I have already stated.
So, let's be generous, let's allow
1) perspective effects to be completely ignored by looking side on at the observer looking over a globe as per the reference material
2) the begging the question fallacy of earth being a sphere of radius r
3) the observer height being 6 feet instead of 1 foot as claimed by formula72
We therefore have the distance to the horizon as
1.32 x sqrt of 6 = 3.23 miles.
Whoops, not quite more than 9 miles is it. Should still be in front of the first platform.
Wait, there is more. "looming":
Any mirages in the image? Nope.
What is looming? it says
OBJECTS appearing ABOVE the horizon. Not bringing objects in front and sending the horizon much further back then.
Some numbers:
So, multiply earth radius by 3/2 (forget the absurdity for a moment)
3959 x 1.5 = 5939 miles
Observer height let's take formula72 value of 6 feet which in miles is
6/5280 = 0.0011363 miles
Sqrt (2 x 5939 x 0.0011363) = 3.67 miles
Oh dear, not quite over 9 miles is it. Not even close to the first platform.
Thank you PTB. You and BeaucoupFish can take over putting forward flat earth arguments from here. Outstanding work.
Quote:
From the SDSU Link:
-----------------------
This assumption is made so often that it's conventional in surveying and geodesy to use a “refraction constant” that's just the ratio of the two curvatures. A typical value of the ratio is about 1/7; that is, the ray curves about 1/7 as much as the Earth does (or, equivalently, the radius of curvature of the ray is about 7 times that of the Earth's surface).
Using this “typical” value means we should just use the formula given above, but use a value R′ instead of R for the effective radius of the Earth, where
1/R′ = 1/R − 1/(7R) = 6/(7R) ,
so that
R′ = R × 7/6 .
...
and apply
OG ≈ sqrt ( 2 R h )
with the new R'
=====================
Note the term 7R comes from the reciprocal of the assumed curvature of 1/7 of Earth's curvature. Also, notice in the above formula for R', as the curvature of light approaches 1, ie. that of Earth, R' gets as large as you want.
So if the curvature of light is 1/2 that of Earth the formula for R' is
1/R' = 1/R - 1/2R
R' = 2R (not 3/2 R)
OG' = sqr[2(2R)h]
Now suppose the curvature of light due to refraction is 7/8 that of Earth. Then …
1/R' = 1/R - 1/(8/7R)
R' = 8R
OG' = sqr[2(8R)h]
And if the curvature of light is as close to Earth's curvature as 80/81 that of Earth's we get
OG' = sqr[2(81R)h] = 9sqr(2Rh)
or 9 times the distance of the geometric horizon.
PairTheBoard
-----------------------
This assumption is made so often that it's conventional in surveying and geodesy to use a “refraction constant” that's just the ratio of the two curvatures. A typical value of the ratio is about 1/7; that is, the ray curves about 1/7 as much as the Earth does (or, equivalently, the radius of curvature of the ray is about 7 times that of the Earth's surface).
Using this “typical” value means we should just use the formula given above, but use a value R′ instead of R for the effective radius of the Earth, where
1/R′ = 1/R − 1/(7R) = 6/(7R) ,
so that
R′ = R × 7/6 .
...
and apply
OG ≈ sqrt ( 2 R h )
with the new R'
=====================
Note the term 7R comes from the reciprocal of the assumed curvature of 1/7 of Earth's curvature. Also, notice in the above formula for R', as the curvature of light approaches 1, ie. that of Earth, R' gets as large as you want.
So if the curvature of light is 1/2 that of Earth the formula for R' is
1/R' = 1/R - 1/2R
R' = 2R (not 3/2 R)
OG' = sqr[2(2R)h]
Now suppose the curvature of light due to refraction is 7/8 that of Earth. Then …
1/R' = 1/R - 1/(8/7R)
R' = 8R
OG' = sqr[2(8R)h]
And if the curvature of light is as close to Earth's curvature as 80/81 that of Earth's we get
OG' = sqr[2(81R)h] = 9sqr(2Rh)
or 9 times the distance of the geometric horizon.
PairTheBoard
Quote:
Sorry yes, effective radius is 2R therefore you have 4.24 miles. Oh dear, not quite over 9 miles is it.
Where the heck is this 80/81 or 7/8 from?
This is the biggest effect cited, and it clearly says lifting things above the horizon which is not the effect you are claiming so this is friggin redundant anyway, but you are just making the numbers up. Just claim light can bend around the whole earth and we can see our own backsides
Where the heck is this 80/81 or 7/8 from?
This is the biggest effect cited, and it clearly says lifting things above the horizon which is not the effect you are claiming so this is friggin redundant anyway, but you are just making the numbers up. Just claim light can bend around the whole earth and we can see our own backsides
https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html
Read the link and study the diagram in the section "Refraction, considered simply".
You really don't know what you're talking about do you? The apparent horizon can be further than sqr(2) times distance to geometric horizon for higher rates of light curvature than 1/2 that of Earth's curvature. Looming refers to seeing more of the bottom of tall objects which are behind the apparent horizon. Looming is not relevant to seeing everything in front of the apparent horizon.
You didn't answer my question. Do you agree or disagree with the following? "If the apparent horizon is 10 miles away, that means you can see everything up to 10 miles, given visibility."
PairTheBoard
02-15-2020
, 06:35 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
The point of this quote from the link ...
----------------------
"In conditions that produce superior mirages, there are inversion layers in which the ray curvature exceeds that of the Earth. Then, in principle, you can see infinitely far — there really is no horizon. "
===========
is to show that ray curvature greater than 1/2 that of the Earth happens. In fact, ray curvature sometimes exceeds that of the Earth under conditions that produce superior mirages. This also implies that short of exceeding Earth curvature the distance to the apparent horizon can get arbitrarily large, just as application of the formula in my last post calculates.
PairTheBoard
----------------------
"In conditions that produce superior mirages, there are inversion layers in which the ray curvature exceeds that of the Earth. Then, in principle, you can see infinitely far — there really is no horizon. "
===========
is to show that ray curvature greater than 1/2 that of the Earth happens. In fact, ray curvature sometimes exceeds that of the Earth under conditions that produce superior mirages. This also implies that short of exceeding Earth curvature the distance to the apparent horizon can get arbitrarily large, just as application of the formula in my last post calculates.
PairTheBoard
02-15-2020
, 08:56 PM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html
Read the link and study the diagram in the section "Refraction, considered simply".
Read the link and study the diagram in the section "Refraction, considered simply".
Quote:
H is the (refracted) apparent horizon
Quote:
Where the sky appears to meet the Earth
Quote:
just use an effective radius of curvature for the Earth that is bigger than the real one.
Quote:
R′ = R × 7/6
Quote:
distance to the horizon
1.32 miles times the square root of the height in feet
1.32 miles times the square root of the height in feet
Quote:
You really don't know what you're talking about do you? The apparent horizon can be further than sqr(2) times distance to geometric horizon for higher rates of light curvature than 1/2 that of Earth's curvature. Looming refers to seeing more of the bottom of tall objects which are behind the apparent horizon. Looming is not relevant to seeing everything in front of the apparent horizon.
So you claim refraction can produce the effect of
Quote:
seeing everything in front of the apparent horizon.
Quote:
seeing everything in front of the apparent horizon.
Atmospheric refraction effects include
Quote:
mirages. Such refraction can also raise or lower, or stretch or shorten, the images of distant objects
Is "Images of distant objects" the same thing or inclusive of "the apparent line that separates earth from sky"? Therefore atmospheric refraction cannot be applied to the horizon.
What about terrestrial refraction:
Quote:
usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they actually are, although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they actually are.
Hmm, sounds rather like looming which is
Quote:
The appearance above the horizon of a distant object that would normally be hidden below it. This effect is caused by unusually large terrestrial refraction
But since looming is "not relevant" we shall ignore.
So, you have a calculation that does not work to produce a distance to the horizon that is anything like the distance observed in reality - that is in any case based on fallacious reasoning - that produces an apparent horizon that is in fact a claimed geometric horizon based on a geometric calculation that on application destroys the very geometry it is based on, that is itself based on an effect that cannot move the horizon anywhere only images of objects up and down relative to the horizon.
Quote:
You didn't answer my question. Do you agree or disagree with the following? "If the apparent horizon is 10 miles away, that means you can see everything up to 10 miles, given visibility."
"If the horizon is 10 miles away, that means you can see everything up to 10 miles, given visibility."
02-15-2020
, 09:12 PM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
The point of this quote from the link ...
----------------------
"In conditions that produce superior mirages, there are inversion layers in which the ray curvature exceeds that of the Earth. Then, in principle, you can see infinitely far — there really is no horizon. "
===========
is to show that ray curvature greater than 1/2 that of the Earth happens. In fact, ray curvature sometimes exceeds that of the Earth under conditions that produce superior mirages. This also implies that short of exceeding Earth curvature the distance to the apparent horizon can get arbitrarily large, just as application of the formula in my last post calculates.
PairTheBoard
----------------------
"In conditions that produce superior mirages, there are inversion layers in which the ray curvature exceeds that of the Earth. Then, in principle, you can see infinitely far — there really is no horizon. "
===========
is to show that ray curvature greater than 1/2 that of the Earth happens. In fact, ray curvature sometimes exceeds that of the Earth under conditions that produce superior mirages. This also implies that short of exceeding Earth curvature the distance to the apparent horizon can get arbitrarily large, just as application of the formula in my last post calculates.
PairTheBoard
Quote:
Then, in principle, you can see infinitely far — there really is no horizon.
From geometric to apparent to none at all. The end.
02-15-2020
, 11:00 PM
I think the "no horizon at all" (even assuming all the math checks out) is only theoretical and there haven't been any documented instances of people actually being able to see around the earth. But it does seem clear that you'll need to move onto another facet as your "black swan" has been shot down.
02-16-2020
, 01:51 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Or it would be that horizontal line that clearly cuts across the rectangular-shaped thing in the middle marking the horizon, followed by another cut off image further "up."
02-16-2020
, 05:58 AM
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
I think the "no horizon at all" (even assuming all the math checks out) is only theoretical and there haven't been any documented instances of people actually being able to see around the earth. But it does seem clear that you'll need to move onto another facet as your "black swan" has been shot down.
Firstly to state the horizon is apparent which the globers are now asserting is a de facto acceptance that there is no observable geometric sphere edge. Therefore no geometric calculation can be applied. The globe model is imaginary, it cannot represent real observations. I can stop here, this kills the whole thing.
The refraction argument is really quite simple. An object is observed above the horizon such as

To account for why this is observed above the horizon instead of being behind the curve, the radius of earth is increased to a bigger, effective radius. By necessity this has to increase the "distance to the horizon" which is bigger than a direct line would be to the actual sphere edge, hence they call this the "apparent horizon" because it does not match that necessitated by the geometry. What this clown PTB has done is to then reify this calculation into reality and claim everything now appears in front of this imaginary number. This is not what we see. The Sun, or whatever we are observing, just appears higher.
What makes you the arbiter of this debate and when it should be moved on? What shape is the earth, globe, flat, concave, something else?
Last edited by 1&onlybillyshears; 02-16-2020 at 06:05 AM.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE
Powered by:
Hand2Note
Copyright ©2008-2022, Hand2Note Interactive LTD