The Real Black Swan
If the earth is flat nothing can appear behind the horizon.
The oil rig is behind the horizon therefore the earth is not flat.
If the earth is flat nothing can appear behind the horizon.
The oil rig is behind the horizon therefore the earth is not flat.
|
But is it?? Haven't you guys heard of refraction??
How about a day with no refraction ===> 
|
|
Flat earthers will invent many new, never before heard of, physics explanations for this. The reality is that none actually works. Perspective/compression/convergence cannot obstruct or rearrange the ordering of things. Refraction works in the opposite direction, just ask them for a model of the refraction in conditions that are possible and common, they won’t.
Some even claim diffraction causes the blockage and refer to “angular resolution” and “vanishing point”. A reduction in angular resolution does make things disappear, it just makes fine details unresolvable. “Vanishing point” is an artistic term. There isn’t an actual vanishing point, it’s that things are too small to resolve different objects. The relative positions do not change due to these effects.
Some even claim diffraction causes the blockage and refer to “angular resolution” and “vanishing point”. A reduction in angular resolution does make things disappear, it just makes fine details unresolvable. “Vanishing point” is an artistic term. There isn’t an actual vanishing point, it’s that things are too small to resolve different objects. The relative positions do not change due to these effects.
|
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp
|
|
Notes:
Black swan no refraction analysis
Do it.
He also might follow the script that “you cannot use the radius of the earth in the analysis”. Which is ridiculous. And the formula he uses: sqrt(1.22*height) has the radius of the earth in it. That’s where the 1.22 comes from.
Nathan Oakley loves to say “gonna need R for that”. So you can ask where 1.22 came from, just have the derivation handy. The “math genius” has never done the derivation.
They get the distance using Google Maps. “Gonna need R for that”. So, flerf, you PRESUME the earth to be spherical.
Surveyor data
It makes no assumptions about the shape of the earth.
I would take my entire time going into details how it was done.
Spherical trigonometry
If you go first you could short circuit him by showing yours and include the modus tollens. Then he MUST claim refraction is at play. Then you could be ready with refraction analysis that causes distant things to appear higher. It doesn’t help him.
You can call the bottom up obstructed oil rig the black swan.
If you cannot get him to agree to presenting positive evidence, you can start with The Black Swan as negative evidence for flat earth, then go to the spherical triangles for positive evidence.
The amount of curve of the Earth is not comparatively large. In 1 linear mile of Earth surface there is a 2 inch tall "hump".
Plumb bobs hung 69 miles apart are 1° out of parallel.
Research "Theodolite correction for Earth curvature". Research geodetic surveying, it is, by definition; "a survey of a large land area in which corrections are made for the curvature of the earth's surface."
"A geodetic survey determines the precise position of permanent points on the earth's surface, taking into account the shape, size and curvature of the earth."
Black swan no refraction analysis
Do it.
He also might follow the script that “you cannot use the radius of the earth in the analysis”. Which is ridiculous. And the formula he uses: sqrt(1.22*height) has the radius of the earth in it. That’s where the 1.22 comes from.
Nathan Oakley loves to say “gonna need R for that”. So you can ask where 1.22 came from, just have the derivation handy. The “math genius” has never done the derivation.
They get the distance using Google Maps. “Gonna need R for that”. So, flerf, you PRESUME the earth to be spherical.
Surveyor data
It makes no assumptions about the shape of the earth.
I would take my entire time going into details how it was done.
Spherical trigonometry
If you go first you could short circuit him by showing yours and include the modus tollens. Then he MUST claim refraction is at play. Then you could be ready with refraction analysis that causes distant things to appear higher. It doesn’t help him.
You can call the bottom up obstructed oil rig the black swan.
If you cannot get him to agree to presenting positive evidence, you can start with The Black Swan as negative evidence for flat earth, then go to the spherical triangles for positive evidence.
The amount of curve of the Earth is not comparatively large. In 1 linear mile of Earth surface there is a 2 inch tall "hump".
Plumb bobs hung 69 miles apart are 1° out of parallel.
Research "Theodolite correction for Earth curvature". Research geodetic surveying, it is, by definition; "a survey of a large land area in which corrections are made for the curvature of the earth's surface."
"A geodetic survey determines the precise position of permanent points on the earth's surface, taking into account the shape, size and curvature of the earth."
|
|
Black Swan - Full Video
Flat Earthers Perspective (Flerspective)
Some Flat Earthers complain that Globers don't take perspective correctly into account in their calculations of curvature drop or hidden height. They claim that the calculations derived from orthographic views can not produce the correct results, because in orthographic views there is no perspective.
Their thinking comes from Samuel Rowbotham who claims that objects in the distance are not hidden from bottom up by earth curvature, but is an optical illusion caused by the resolution limit of the eye. Flat Earthers use images like the following to explain their perspective understanding:
This of course is not a valid orthographic representation from which the law of perspective, i.e. the calculation of angular size, can be derived, as is used in all 3D graphics software.
Some Flat Earthers complain that Globers don't take perspective correctly into account in their calculations of curvature drop or hidden height. They claim that the calculations derived from orthographic views can not produce the correct results, because in orthographic views there is no perspective.
Their thinking comes from Samuel Rowbotham who claims that objects in the distance are not hidden from bottom up by earth curvature, but is an optical illusion caused by the resolution limit of the eye. Flat Earthers use images like the following to explain their perspective understanding:
This of course is not a valid orthographic representation from which the law of perspective, i.e. the calculation of angular size, can be derived, as is used in all 3D graphics software.
Rayleigh Criteria
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/Raylei.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/Raylei.html
Throughout the entire day, the angular size of the sun never changes.
This is impossible on a flat earth that has a small and local sun which it would grow (moving toward) and shrink (moving away) in size as it goes around the flat earth
Thanks to many observations using solar filter, we know that the angular size of the sun stays the same and it is also the same for the moon.
Do the math, calculate the angles, plot it out. Use 3D apps, whatever. Do it for the three examples above. Then, use suncalc.org to get the observed sunrise, local solar noon and sunset locations for the three examples above and include these observations into the same dome model. Then use the same dome model to model the angular size of the sun to match the observed size of the sun, about 30 arcminutes, all day every day
This is impossible on a flat earth that has a small and local sun which it would grow (moving toward) and shrink (moving away) in size as it goes around the flat earth
Thanks to many observations using solar filter, we know that the angular size of the sun stays the same and it is also the same for the moon.
Do the math, calculate the angles, plot it out. Use 3D apps, whatever. Do it for the three examples above. Then, use suncalc.org to get the observed sunrise, local solar noon and sunset locations for the three examples above and include these observations into the same dome model. Then use the same dome model to model the angular size of the sun to match the observed size of the sun, about 30 arcminutes, all day every day
Flat Earth Excuse: You Can't See Far through the Atmosphere
I agree that haze would, in reality, prevent viewing DIM objects many thousands of miles away. However, since the Sun should be behind those objects, we should be able to see their silhouette and we cannot. So either I shouldn't be able to see the Sun or I should be able to see a silhouette... Flat Earth fails.
We can see many hundreds of miles from high altitudes so no excuse for why I can't see mountains 500 or so miles away.
Further evidence of the Flat Earth failure here is that the horizon is very sharp and distinct from 3 feet above calm waters, it is more distant at 6 feet above the water but still very distinct, and the horizon grows further and further away as we rise up and becomes more and more hazy. So it clearly isn't hazy that is limiting our view.
I agree that haze would, in reality, prevent viewing DIM objects many thousands of miles away. However, since the Sun should be behind those objects, we should be able to see their silhouette and we cannot. So either I shouldn't be able to see the Sun or I should be able to see a silhouette... Flat Earth fails.
We can see many hundreds of miles from high altitudes so no excuse for why I can't see mountains 500 or so miles away.
Further evidence of the Flat Earth failure here is that the horizon is very sharp and distinct from 3 feet above calm waters, it is more distant at 6 feet above the water but still very distinct, and the horizon grows further and further away as we rise up and becomes more and more hazy. So it clearly isn't hazy that is limiting our view.
