Discussion in 'TT - Public' started by Moonpony, Jul 15, 2017.
There are some games you can't opt out of.
I will look at creating a scale model test to see if the horizon 'rises' or not.
In the meantime I will superimpose on image on the other to see if it changes significantly
To be perfectly honest, the temptation was strong to beat my chest instead. I had to go for a walk first to cool my head, after which the correct course was obvious.
This has the added benefit of modeling simplicity. There is no need for simultaneity of camera feeds as long as the apparatus is perfectly level and perfectly fixed, then you take the average at each elevation. But there is a devil in the details, in that you need to be able to precisely define where the horizon is many, many times. My intuition says roughly a thousand data points. And I wouldn't trust a computer to do this either, you'd have to freeze frame and click on the horizon. Not insurmountable.
I see your point. The key is the difference in pixels at different elevations. Do we have raw numbers for the change in pixels we should expect for a 35,000 foot elevation, such as found in a commercial airline?
If you look directly horizontal then the horizon should not be visible at all.
And you just identified the devil in the details. Making sure the apparatus is perfectly level. Lorien's two camera technique eliminates that issue. Once you have two cameras hooked up and recording, coordinating the video streams isn't hard for someone like me.
Another issue is the haze on the horizon; there is not a clear "line" for the horizon, but there is a smudge of light. So, at what height will the change in angle overcome the smudge/haze on the horizon?
Maybe we should crowd-fund this experiment in order to settle the issue. You guys can put the video streams on YouTube so that everyone can see the data for themselves. Is there a way to include an additional instrument just to double-check that the cameras are really level? (Just to rid people of any lingering doubts...)
This isn't the only way to prove or disprove flat earth. Simply measuring the curvature or non-curvature of the ocean should be proof enough that the world is not a globe.
If you are using Lorien's double camera set up, it doesn't matter if they are level. When one is down, the other is up, and it averages out.
However, the easiest experiment is Auriga's; go out at sunrise and sunset and measure the compass angle between north, and where the sun rises/sets. Flat earth predicts something very at odds with the Baller model (and with observed reality)
I'm not sure you understood what I'm suggesting and why, because what you're saying makes no sense to me. I made a simulation in Geogrbra to illustrate the concept. Won't link it here for reasons, but you have it by PM.
Regarding how precisely you can resolve the horizon, the following samples suggest that with the aid of edge detection, you can resolve it within 4 pixels under good conditions (i.e. +-2), but within 12 pixels or even 20 pixels when conditions are not so good. Ofc you could do it without edge detection too, but the band or orange in the following images seems to be a good measure of both the location and certainty of it.
The expected effect size on this camera with this resolution is a drop of 30 or 40 pixels. So I'd say, under decent conditions, the measurement noise is much smaller than the effect, wherefore thousands of measurements are hardly necessary.
That is of course assuming that the sharpness of the horizon is the only source of error! I have no idea whether for example the atmospheric haze could serve not only to make the line indistinct, but also to raise it.
There are certainly a bunch of other potential sources of error I haven't thought about, and that realization is giving me second thoughts here. I would not be convinced by this experiment, as carried out by Skiba and his gang, because I don't trust them not to make a bunch of stupid mistakes! Of course I wouldn't trust myself to do it right either.
In future when we're all living together in Neandertown, we can do nerdy projects like this all the time. I would have it no other way! For now though, it's quite a logistical challenge to cooperate on anything physical.
It seems to me that in order to accept such a proof, based on sight, you'd have to trust that light moves in perfectly straight lines through air. That is a proposition neither flat earthers nor ballerthers believe in.
Yes, but at a certain point this becomes a farcical excuse. You should be able to switch off your pre-programming and realise that you are essentially arguing for a joke idea, right?
I don't know if you watched the last video I posted, but tbh I didn't actually watch it myself because I already recognised it from a source elsewhere. Anyway, I just clicked it and jumped at random to about 3 and a half minutes in - and bingo, exactly what I was looking for... "and the target over here, should be 16,140.1805 (feet) beyond your ability to see it."
Of course, atmospheric conditions mean that the same mountain range is projecting a mirage exactly 3.03 miles above itself, day after day, year after year, and it is *actually hidden* from view!!
If anyone seriously wants to argue that atmospheric refraction invalidates long distance proofs by projecting perfect illusions - I don't know what to say - basically you must belong in the loony bin, like, what can anyone say to help you. It is a joke notion. Noone is saying that light moves in perfectly straight lines through air. However to believe the precise opposite - that light behaves in such a way as to render images that float mysteriously above their source, high above the earths curvature by thousands of feet - then youknow, that's the sort of lunatic bullshit where you need to simply switch off any kind of connection with that person, because they are obviously a crazy case who will only be a cost and never a benefit.
Oh, anyway, my math was out, he was referring to the base of the mountain range. Subtract the mountains actual height and it should be just over half mile. Anyway it's just a mirage, nothing you see is real, the atmo"sphere" has magical abilities that make everything seem as though it's not. Whatever.
So I get my math corrected:
High altitude balloon real life vs. comparison test
So I made a blender sphere and camera scale comparison. These results can easily be manipulated by changing the camera angle a few degrees and adjusting the focal length of the camera.
I've done the best I can here, but note that the below doesn't prove anything...
... Except the horizon should be visibly curved at 120K feet. The "It's really big" argument doesn't work for that.
While the horizon does appear to be declining, I think this the true horizon being out of sight due to atmospheric fuzz.
I'll indulge in further argument with you as soon as you stop being a little cunt.
A mechanical camera, to avoid the problems with humans needing a reference point! I think this would be a valid experiment to test one of the minor claims that Moonpony made, but I don't think it would have any bearing on whether the Earth is actually flat or not.
It seems to me that this experiment should always show the horizon moving downward, no matter what shape the Earth actually is, because that's what happens when you move upward without correcting your view. The precise rate at which the horizon sinks would be interesting, but also a delicate measurement (that would probably be drowned out by the error margin caused by refraction).
As for the problems others have mentioned: Raising the camera on a rigid pole (so that it's always pointing in the same direction) would solve the "level camera" problem well enough, I think. It doesn't actually matter whether the camera is perpendicular to the ground, so long as it can see the horizon and does not change angle during the experiment. (And the way to publish the results would be as a time-lapse video of what the camera saw.)
Tbh, I'm finding it pretty difficult to argue for flat earth from the basis of what I've shown earlier. The horizon drops out of sight on that model in about another 50K at the set up I made.
The "little piggy" camera has a fisheye lense distortion that is giving it a slight concave effect.
Flat Earth says that the horizon should be the same height consistently. It's entirely possible that the true horizon is out of sight though due to the limit of the suns illumination.
However, the model DOES show definite curvature, so please compare and contrast, as the balloon here reaches 100,000 feet
I will post a virtual 100,000 feet model for comparison later.
I suppose that "always at eye level" effect would happen if the Earth was an infinite flat plane. Is that what you're claiming? That it's not just a flat disc, but an infinite plane?
EDIT: It doesn't need to be truly infinite to have more or less the "always at eye level" effect; see below.
Separate names with a comma.