Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Post Reply
lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by lux » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:41 am

Just to clarify my position on this: I'm not saying that the thermosphere's temperature data is untrue, only that it contradicts NASA's claims of putting objects into space or orbit and that NASA's explanation for this contradiction is illogical. It also seems to contradict the data on the moon's surface temperature as well but only IF their source of heat is the same, i.e., the Sun.

There may be other conditions that produce the higher heat of the thermospshere -- I don't know. It may be a phenomenon related to radiation and the Earth's atmosphere for example or other things unknown to me.

Though I have no way of knowing what the thermosphere's temperature is, I do tend to believe it is as high as NASA and others say. I believe this because NASA hasn't tried to invalidate it yet it contradicts their whole space program. This leads me to suspect that they can't invalidate it because it is too easily proven independently.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

At what altitude does the visible curve of the horizon begin

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:07 am

In the spirit of lux's warning statement about his true position, let me state beforehand that I have no preconceived notion about what I'm proposing in this thread. Nor am I a proponent of any particular existing theory, but I will conclude my proposition with ways of reconciling my observation and hypothesis.

Has anyone but the military claimed to have actually observed and measured the visible curve of the Earth's surface?

I understand that this is a strange subject to think about (and potentially expensive one to take observations on), but I have just been flying in passenger jets at the usual height of 11 kilometers and have witnessed no visible curve and no lowering of the horizon. At most I perhaps noticed a diffusion of visible objects (clouds) at the horizon, but this may have merely been haze.

This led me to ask the question: at what point in a climb — at what altitude — does the rule of "horizon at eye level" begin to change, if it does change at all? And similarly, at what point or altitude does the rule of "the illusion of a flat horizon" (which is actually measurable with a straight edge ruler) shown to have less than a (mean) perfect flatness?

With each pixel being 10 kilometers on a side, the top edge of the blue pixel in this image depicts the height of an airplane on the curve of a 12700 km diameter circle (semi-spherical ball).
world_from_11k.GIF
And a 200% increase to 3 times the size, for clarity.
world_from_11k_big.GIF
Given that we are supposed to see the horizon approximately 300 km away according to this guy's formula (aptly titled Bad Astronomy)
d^2 = h^2 + 2Rh
... does the above graphic make any sense?

Now interestingly, this article I just linked to skips from the civilian height of 12km to 100km, which is quite a leap given that we are ignoring the 40km of high powered military craft. I have found a couple instances online of civilians claiming to see a curve at this height, but just as many people claiming those who claim so are hallucinating or using "wishful thinking" to visibly detect a horizon. That is during the flight of the Concordes, now defunct, and now impossible for us to take additional observations from.

Additionally, it seems to be rumored in some discussions that 70km or higher should present a more visible horizon, which may be true if that height were theoretically achievable for long periods of time (without a gravity induced plunge back below the ionosphere). Let's take a look at those heights in my pixel diagram.

Here is the world from 40k, according to the top of the white pixel at the center of the crosshairs above the curved Earth.
world_from_40k.GIF
Do you notice anything interesting? One question that comes to my mind is: what is preventing this view from seeing mostly just a circle far below, with the horizon well below eye level? In fact, even the 11k view seems to indicate we should have something beginning to appear like that rather than anything at eye level.

Here is the world from the rumored 70k possible through experimental, military and/or NASA craft.
world_from_70k.GIF
Just a depiction to scale:
world_from_70k_enormous.GIF
So, what to conclude from such things? I don't want to conclude anything. However, I will offer some explanation, which I prefer to merely posting it with nothing. As our mind craves answers for something which is apparently in conflict with what we observe previously, or from pictures and records, or even from our common sense. So let me try to answer the inevitable questions that come to my own mind:

1. Isn't the Earth curved?

My guess: Perhaps. But which way? Has there been conclusive proof refuting the Tamarack Mine experiments? Is it perhaps actually more a "wave" than a perfect sphere? Much of the universe is in waves, albeit at a nano level.

2. ... and shouldn't we assume it is curved based on the fact that we observe an orbed Sun, Moon and planets and their moons?

My guess: Perhaps. But perhaps the appearance of an orb is much an illusion as the Earth being flat. If you accept the appearance that the Earth is flat but assume it isn't, why should you not observe orbs in the sky and assume they are not actually round?

3. Is there a prosaic explanation which covers discrepancies?

My guess: I do not know.

I will offer one other thought that comes to mind, and it may be far out for most people; it definitely is far out for me, but I presently find Earth science as difficult to reconcile as the dual role of photons as light particles or waves, and/or the science of observation changing the measurements of quantum physical "objects".

What if orbs in the sky are not, in fact, closed balls? What if the Earth is not, in fact, a closed ball? What if it, and the other "spheres" we think we are observing are more like waveforms — or giant photons that exist both as a vibration and a solid round measurable location? What if the single lone "Earth" is actually our measurement of one section of an infinite tapestry of interwoven waves which repeats itself over and over, just like a sort of quilt pattern? In other words, there is a parallel you and a parallel me approximately 12,700 km away that can never meet the others because as soon as you approach them, all the other yous in all the other locations have moved in the same direction as well? What if this wave is also 3D in the sense that approaching the Moon or Sun in reality would not net you the approach of a single body, but in fact bring you closer in vibration to that particular "tapestry", and the reason we see all the orbs in the sky as round spheres moving is because that is where the vibration of our "plane of existence" is vibrating against their "plane of existence" and so we don't actually see a static rock but we are physically observing a wave moving "around" us. The Sun is the highest vibration and the highest energy and effects the Earth and the other planets in an apparent 3D fashion that makes us think of billiard balls but which is actually much more complex?

I do not subscribe to this, but only propose it as a mental exercise. I do this to stretch out our explanation of what we call the heavens or cosmos into a non-Newtonian non-Einsteinian thing freeing us from the limited "billiard-ball" Star Trek style of seeing outer space as some kind of empty field of alone objects, and instead look at it as a complicated interwoven interdimensional pattern of vibrations which we observe in a particular manner due to the eyeballs we have as humans.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by lux » Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:52 pm

Some problems I have with the Tamarack Mine experiments:

1. If the balls were farther apart at the bottom then at the top then they were being pulled toward two different points. Since the assumption is that objects are always pulled toward the center of the Earth then the Earth must have two centers? How can an object have two centers? But, if it does somehow have two centers then why is one ball pulled toward one center and the other ball pulled toward the other center? And, if its not true that objects are pulled toward the center of the Earth then what does the experiment prove?

2. If the divergence of the balls proves the Earth is concave then the center of the Earth wouldn't be below the surface -- it would be above us. So, why did the balls fall down the mine shafts at all? Shouldn't they have gone upward into the air? But, again, if it's not true that objects are pulled toward the center of the Earth then what does this experiment prove?

3. But, my big question is: What would've happened if they had lowered three equally spaced balls in a row instead of just two? Think about it. :)

dblitz
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by dblitz » Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:28 pm

I imagine this would have happened:

Image

Provided their movement was unobstructed.

I think It's evidence for far attraction - near repulsion. Gravity is only half the story, and the only half NASA, and every other apologist for the 'standard model' wants any one to know about.

Electrical charge is the other half of the story. Keep an eye on my 'Universe electrick' thread.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by lux » Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:29 pm

^ I said three balls in a row.

An example of what "in a row" means:
Image

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 pm

Well, lux, the conclusion the religious extremist Koreshians wanted to draw was that the center of the Earth was actually approximately above us 6300 or so kilometers, and also gravity is a pushing force rather than a pulling force.

Although I agree with dblitz that there are both pushing and pulling forces we don't fully understand. And me personally, I really don't understand, but I'm just asking questions. I would like to know the claims of electro-magnetism in a way, but it also seems to be an age for us to re-examine, re-observe and re-collect really rudamentary data for ourselves in order for us to discover where the propaganda inserted itself into the scientific method.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by lux » Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:20 am

A pushing force ... well, OK. I guess that would make some sense but they'd have to provide the rest of the universal model (which I suppose they have but my head already hurts just thinking about it).

My take on Tamarack is that gravity simply doesn't behave entirely the way we are taught, especially when it comes to one object physically inside of another.

Either that or turn-of-the-century tape measures experienced shrinkage when down in cold, damp mine shafts.

But, I am open to alternate explanations for these things.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:32 am

I think, in order for you to get a good feeling that these things have been addressed by the opposition to the theory, you should read this "debunking" of the Tamarack experiments. The fact that a "debunking" like this can stand around being so inadequate without people looking into it is one of the proofs to me that we urgently need to try to reconduct the experiments. Don't ask me how. I doubt there is a lot of funding for this sort of thing. (Anybody have an uncle with a couple parallel mine shafts?)

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

Particularly of note is the fact that bizarrely (well, actually quite typical of NASA-style argumentation) they mention the missing centripetal force that should be present if we were on a spinning sphere without addressing the fact that it's missing in every other physics experiment. Go figure. I think that's a little philosophical JuJitsu. They use the fact that most people don't think about it to bring it up themselves, and then argue a logical fallacy with their monopoly of the phenomenon.

Another big problem I have with this "debunking" is the number of leaps of logic and assumptions used to argue certain aspects in detail and then jump to erroneous conclusions without doing any additional experimentation to actually disprove the observations.

This 'amateur' looking site is a professional scientific hit job to discredit the experiments. Is the Pennsylvania college involved or is it just an agent/useful idiot who wrote the article?

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by lux » Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:57 am

^ I see what you mean about it being a hit piece and I agree with your logic on that.

I don't know what to make of the experiment itself though except that there is something unexplained by our "scientific" establishment about gravity. I'm reluctant to go the "pushing force/inside out Earth" route just yet. Since I haven't been able to find much about how gravity works when one object is inside another I tend to think it is in that area. And, I also suspect gravity is not really a property of matter/mass. The reason I think that is because I read the book Gravitational Force of the Sun by Pari Spolter, a book that is also "debunked" by the establishment.
Last edited by lux on Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:27 am

To simplify matters, I have moved tangential discussion here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2388128#p2388128

lux was just saying (paraphrasing): I wonder what would happen if an updated version of the experiment used three parallel mineshafts with plumb bobs.

That was clear enough to me, not sure why dblitz is being cryptic.

I agree the experiment should be done. Now the question is: HOW?

dblitz
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by dblitz » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:12 am

Sorry, I was cryptic, and after a while I realized I shouldn't have said things that only make sense to me, but I was out at the time or I would have said something before the thread moved.

scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by scud » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:49 pm

What is the HORIZON...?

Further to Hoi’s excellent and thought provoking post, I thought I’d have a look into this seemingly self explanatory title especially since a good part of the ‘day job’ has been dedicated to producing reasonably accurate perspective drawings (no computers allowed) that begin life with a ‘line of horizon’.
Not a reflection of reality, I’d always assumed, just a reliable method of making an object (usually a piece of furniture) appear, well...more appreciable than a straight elevation.

Image

However, my understanding of the ‘real horizon’ was, that I couldn’t ‘see’ anymore water as I peer out from the beach because no matter which way I looked, Earth was always curving downwards, since we all know that Earth is a sphere and we’re standing on its surface. In other words, the horizon was actually the point where objects, or indeed the ocean itself from a given observers altitude became invisible at a certain distance because they were effectively hidden behind Earth itself.

Image

The above diagram is from Hoi’s original link to NASA champion Phil Plait’s aptly named site ‘Bad Astronomy‘ and is the basis for the formula used to figure ‘how far we can see, from what height’ or simply the distance to the horizon from the observer’s altitude...here’s a calculator that runs this same formula... http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm remembering that the computed figures work both ways. E.g, if I type in 100 meters altitude which gives a distance to horizon result of 35.7 Km, also means that if we’re this same distance away at sea level we would theoretically be able to see only objects / landmass that are above 100m in height.

All makes perfect and simple sense, right? Phil thinks so and assures us that it does indeed ‘all look about right’ but of course he can’t actually confirm with real world measurements (from horizon to observer or vice versa) because, as with say the base of a rainbow, the horizon isn’t a physical / tangible point, so can never actually be reached. However, we can disprove it by simply looking out with our own two eyes.

This rather lovely example is of Snowdonia in Wales taken from Three rock mountain (444m) 140 Km away in Co Dublin. Mt Snowdon (the left of the two central peaks) has an elevation of 1,085m.

Image

http://mountainviews.ie/newsletters/mon ... ofthemonth

Stuff this info through the above calculator and we find that this image must be some sort of lame composite because if we add the heights of Three rock and Snowdon together we get a combined altitude of 1529m which according to the formula is an elevation that should be just shy of that to enable a glimpse of the very tip of Snowdon above the horizon of our convexed world. In other words we should see nothing but water.
Not the extent of it though is it, as it looks as if we’re able to observe pretty much the entirety of the Welsh fore / lowground, meaning that either Three rock eclipses Everest as the world’s tallest mountain and all of Ireland has yet to notice (possibly unlikely) or the radius of Earth has been grossly underestimated (very unlikely).

Many other pictures can be found of this same, Earth expanding phenomena, here’s three further examples...

The skyline of Chicago across lake Michigan. Distance: 33 miles, observer altitude: standing height...
http://rooktopia.files.wordpress.com/20 ... 541&h=3027

The white cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris-Nez, France. Distance 21 miles, observer altitude 30 feet?...
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/28080159 From this elevation / distance, one should only be able to observe the top half of the cliff face but if you compare this image to this, much closer and substantially higher pic.. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mYmCYcOQPyg/U ... 020328.JPG we see that indeed, the entirety of the cliff face is there plus a much greater expanse of the land behind :wacko: :o **

Toronto skyline across lake Ontario. Distance 48Km, observer altitude: standing height.. http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/1292 ... otostream/ (from other, much closer images of the 553m high CN tower; quite clearly we’re able to see all of it, it hasn’t lost 180m off its base that the radius of Earth dictates from this distance).
Just to be sure, here’s the same view at night... http://www.flickr.com/photos/denisgiles/3484179935/ (note what appear to be street level lights).

So, what’s going on here? Obviously this standard mathematical formula doesn’t relate to reality in terms of visible light, that according to our physics books always travels in straight lines therefore it should be impossible to see what we see in these examples. However, there is refraction of light, demonstrable by dipping a stick into water where it appears to kink at the surface (not ‘bend’ just abruptly change direction), same with glass placed at an angle to the light source (prism) and apparently this changing of light direction through differing, transparent mediums can also occasionally occur through the air to produce the rare event of the wonderfully termed ‘Fata Morgana’ ..

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage)

I certainly don’t think that the image of Snowdonia from Ireland is an example of a ‘Fata’, (nor a composite) though admittedly the pic of the Chicago skyline could possibly be construed as such. But hang on, let’s just think about this for a mo. Of course, distances are not normally applied to ‘FM’ images apparently on, or hovering just above the horizon because it’s a mirage...it’s there, but not where your eyes tell you it is, rather it is way below the point of visibility due to Earth’s curvature and is somehow magnified / reflected / distorted and then projected into view via atmospheric conditions.
I don’t doubt that the above photograph is indeed a mirage of some kind, but what I do doubt is that this ship is below a physical barrier of water created by Earth’s convexed curve.
To confound things even further, there are examples where we do know the distance to target of a supposed Fata. From the Wiki link and the Farallon islands example we see this strange, distorted / elevated and changing effect over time... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Faral ... iragep.jpg

Yet people armed with nothing but a clear day and a telephoto lens are able to snap the very same subject with ease from the mainland thus..

http://www.noehill.com/sf/landmarks/nat1977000332.asp

...clearly not a mirage but the real deal. Or how about this one? Greenland from Hvallatur, Iceland a mere 350 Km away!...

http://oi54.tinypic.com/5e74a1.jpg

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic- ... egion.html

...a Fata it maybe, but in order for the cliffs of Eastern Greenland to even just peep above Earth’s curve from this, almost sea level vantage point they’d need to be over 8000 meters tall.

____________________________________________


Ok, that’s light in the visible part of the spectrum what about wavelengths that aren’t...how far can they ‘see’ below the curve (discounting short wave that’s reckoned to bounce between ionosphere and surface)?
I thought a good example of this might be ordinary maritime radar of the type that you see fitted to practically every gin palace / sailing yacht afloat.
Replacing the man in the crows nest to identify potential threats, radar beams out a stream of invisible light (radio 2- 20MHz) that is then reflected off solid objects and back to a receiver to give captain a picture of the way ahead or lock his 30mm guns onto incoming crazed Islamic terrorists to port :)
Here’s a typical example of the modern day, civilian product http://www.raymarine.co.uk/view/?id=174 which has a quoted maximum range of 72 nautical miles. Interestingly (and as seems the norm with these devices) the ‘vertical beam width’ is 25 degrees. It’s looking up; not to spot aircraft in my own humble but to counter the effects of swell on the vessel. Also, there is no optimum mounting height stated for the unit to achieve its quoted maximum range...which you would have thought a legit case of false advertising given that to ‘see’ out to 72nm, you’d need a mast approximately 3,500 foot tall to overcome that great mountain of water that’s well and truly obscuring your most distant targets!!

So you think you’ve found something pretty basic that contradicts the established narrative...woo hoo, exciting, I wonder what it all means! But as always there’s something there that an individual can neither prove or disprove that explains the whole thing away in an Einsteinian, special relativistic, bullshitty...not meant to be understood in any sort of way, way.
In this case it’s something known as ‘Groundwave’ where we’re led to believe that light in these longer wavelengths than visible can travel around a curve and back again (despite other, contradictory established assertions) without the aid of charged particles of the upper atmosphere... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwave

Note that Waki refers to radar as ‘over the horizon radar’...so how’s about an explanation for ‘over the horizon’ visible light? No?...oh well.

____________________________________________


Back to the beginning and perspective drawing.

I’m pretty convinced that the ‘real’ horizon is indeed exactly how we decide where our imaginary one will be placed on a piece of paper. I look up, I see all sky...no horizon. I look down and I see all ground...no horizon, whether gazing out the window at 35,000 feet or standing on a beach. However, looking directly ahead I see equal measure of both...converging to a line, ah....the horizon! I look up a little bit and I see more sky within my field of view than I do ground, the horizon has effectively shifted correspondingly downwards and vice versa...exactly as it is when deciding how to view an object in drawn perspective.
I want to show the top of a table, I place my horizon line above it...I want to show the underside and supports, I’ll put the HL below it...effectively mimicking the altitude of an observer of real life surroundings.
Vanishing points are then added to the line (dependent upon the angle that I wish to view the table) and all lines then project back to these points, which is exactly how we perceive distance in reality. The front and back edge of the table are the same size, but the back will appear smaller because the angle of its light reflected back to the retina has narrowed; is closer to the vanishing point upon the line of horizon...

Image

With a drawing, it depends upon the field of view and the fineness of my pen that determines distant detail. With what we actually see, it appears the only factor is the quality of atmospheric conditions and nothing to do with the curve of Earth as I feel is evidenced by the above examples. No heat haze, smog, humidity, clouds and we can discern detail out to distances that shouldn’t be possible upon a convexed surface whose radius is very much assured.

“Yeah, but what about the hull of a ship to be the first to disappear?...this is well documented, tis proof that Earth curves away from us guv, you got it all wrong.”

Is it? Difficult to find images of this, but here’s one of the few examples available, shot through a telephoto lens (focal length unknown) from what appears to be standing height ..
http://www.weatherwise.org/sebin/b/n/ti ... -fig-5.jpg
Looks odd doesn’t it? Check the swell just to the left of ‘ghost ship’s’ funnel. I’m guessing, but the horizon line is nothing but a couple of hundred meters away.
I can’t pretend to know exactly what’s going on here, but whatever it is, I’m doubtful that it’s the result of a +/- 6100Km radius, besides, I think you’ll agree that we don’t usually witness this ‘hull obliterating’ phenomena when looking out over the waves, no, with the use of a more ‘natural’ lens this type of image.. http://figment.cse.usf.edu/~sfefilat/on ... 9-01mn.jpg I’d suggest is more typical.

Interestingly, claims have been made that with the use of a telescope the exact opposite effect is usually the norm, i.e, that a telescope (or telephoto lens) can ‘resolve’ objects that appear to be hidden ‘below the horizon’ to the naked eye..again, something that shouldn’t be possible if Earth is a solid sphere. SC’s member Totalrecall has much more on this with his very enjoyable and excellently presented analysis of ‘Concave Earth Theory’ here.. http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/

_______________________________________________


Recently, I’ve been perusing the quite extraordinary ‘Flat Earth Society’ forums. I’d not ventured here before because I felt (as I’m sure most people do) that the whole premise is just a silly joke; what with an ‘ice wall’ that prevents the oceans spilling over the edge, a two dimensional Earth forever accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s squared to explain gravity, and ‘flat’ because essentially, ‘it just looks that way’ does indeed appear to be..err...stretching it a bit. This said though, the level of debate is pretty high and amazingly extensive. Clearly, many people really do believe with complete conviction that Earth is configured such and the battles waged with RE’s (round Earthers :D ) is certainly entertaining if nothing else.

Anyway, I thought that the issue of the horizon would be a part of this and sure enough the subject pops up here there and everywhere, in fact it seems of paramount importance to all of FE theory. Here’s one particular thread archiving back just a couple of pages that uses almost all the ‘contrary to established opinion’ examples I’ve included here (a coincidence me lud...a coincidence ^_^ )
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/foru ... o-xsihhx5h

Who wins, the FE’s or RE’s? Don’t think I can be confident, but it did bring to my attention another of those Victorian era characters whose work seems to have been largely brushed under the carpet whose views I happen to share here...that the horizon is just one of perspective, or human eye perception and nowt to do with a convexed surface.

Check out this scathing, snide, libelous even (if he were still alive) Wonki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham
Yeah, he was bonkers alright and a sexual deviant to boot, but, time permitting, have a look at these two pages by Mr. Rowbotham on the issues of perspective, I’m sure that you’ll find them very interesting even though he was trying to prove a hypothesis that myself and most others...err...flatly reject.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm#img_fig65

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:13 pm

Well, this is about as scientific as Mister Rowbotham's fascinatingly bizarre text posted by scud. But without even really processing scud's post (I assure you, I really didn't until now to see if he'd already made my point and it seems he kind of did but c'est la vie) some things really started sinking in for me with lux's questions about towers.

You see, the tallest tower in the world is nearly 900 meters high, and is ostensibly visible from 60 kilometers away. The problem is, might it be more or less? And how should it — or any distant, large object — appear on a horizon? The calculations and expectations for a "round Earth" (as the explanation for that ever hungry all-consuming horizon's disappearances would make it seem) don't seem to make sense to me.

And one of the main issues I think of purely from a photographic point of view is the way in which things flatten out at long distances, as seen through binoculars or telescope or digital zoom. Of course, flattening is expected, but in my opinion, we should be seeing increasingly under objects as they remove themselves from our radial point. That is to say, distant objects should behave as though we are getting shorter and shorter, looking up at the tower or object closer and closer to its base (forgiving both distance and the greedy horizon's nibbling off the bases, of course) which it seems, at first reflection, is not an effect we see.

In the figure below, we have our imperfect Earth curve (now 1 pixel per kilometer square) for a generous 12700 pixel-diameter circle. And from the point of the off-screen "center" of this circle, angles coming through it. The far-left line is where we might consider a "U R HERE" in the round Earth scheme. The middle line is the angle at which we should observe a very tall object — let's say over 8 km tall about 250 km (pixels) away. The last line would be for something over 700 km (pixels) away, but which should be visible in the sense that a flying object fifteen or twenty kilometers up would be.
earth_curve_angles.gif
As you can see, this is where my questions coalesce (roughly where scud's had); why don't towering mountains "flatten" on our side and/or "sink" on their far side as if we are increasingly looking at them at the oblique angle the "Round Earthers" ( :D ) claim we should be? For example, let's take something absurd and fictional (for the purposes of argument) and suggest that a giant mountain like Everest could somehow magically be viewed from something like 250 kilometers away, roughly sea level (or an 800m mean or what-have-you). Then, the "tilt" should be more noticeable, should it not? Yet, in no distant photographs of a range close to it in our real world has this subject been addressed. Instead, we almost observe distant objects merely increasingly 2D-ify then nonsensically sink into an unknown station, like metal playing cards in a shooting gallery.

So even if we do have a round planet (which I wonder about, now), if we cannot come up with some kind of photographic or recorded proof of some kind which shows the expected happening, at the very least we must admit that even a global Earth model uses the bending of light waves as an explanation. As long as we are bending light for special purposes, and/or just explaining it away, why can't light bend more or less than we assume to force-fit a model? Why are we restricting our laws to fit with a round Earth, despite evidence against a round (or spinning) Earth? Is that truly scientific? Why can't the shape of the Earth merely be misunderstood and/or unknown for the time being? People have apparently lived with different explanations for Earth for thousands of years. And they are why we are here today. So can the true mathematically physical shape of the Earth really be all that crucial to life knowledge? Why can't we merely accept the desktop globe is a "very nice map" and leave it at that?

My assumption: it's not because the Earth's shape is so important as is the age-old question; what are the stars?

It is by observing the behavior of the stars that the explanation for their apparent movement gave rise to a retroactive theory about Earth's shape and behavior. I am not dealing with the stars in this post, but that is my accidental 'diversionary tactic' to somewhat explain why people insist the Earth is round. It's because there is better evidence for a round Earth in the cosmos than there is on or near Earth itself.

Still, inquiring minds want to know. I know mine does. I'm just losing my arrogance about assuming I already do. (And for me it begs a marvelous new question: what are the stars, really?)

Just for illustrative purposes, and of course again completely unscientifically, here is a more detailed curve — each pixel representing just 1 km on a side now, and the "airplane" (white pixel) 11km above sea level. Does the lack of this kind of view from an airplane make anyone scratch their heads, yet?
earth_curve_airplane.gif
Thanks, scud, for a marvelous post pre-summarizing my ruminations better than I could; and thanks, lux, for the continued demand of reason and speculation in the face of the (hard fought for) unknown.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by lux » Thu Dec 05, 2013 12:49 am

hoi.polloi wrote: As you can see, this is where my questions coalesce (roughly where scud's had); why don't towering mountains "flatten" on our side and/or "sink" on their far side as if we are increasingly looking at them at the oblique angle the "Round Earthers" ( :D ) claim we should be? For example, let's take something absurd and fictional (for the purposes of argument) and suggest that a giant mountain like Everest could somehow magically be viewed from something like 250 kilometers away, roughly sea level (or an 800m mean or what-have-you). Then, the "tilt" should be more noticeable, should it not? Yet, in no distant photographs of a range close to it in our real world has this subject been addressed. Instead, we almost observe distant objects merely increasingly 2D-ify then nonsensically sink into an unknown station, like metal playing cards in a shooting gallery.
This is not meant as an argument because I don't disagree with your thoughtful post. I just want to point out that this tilting issue is more complex than many people may realize, especially when it involves cameras and lenses.

The pair of images below demonstrate what I mean:

Image

Neither of these photos were manipulated in any significant way yet the building on the left appears to be tilting backward and the other doesn't (or not as much anyway) yet both photos were taken from the same position. The photo at left was taken by pointing a camera slightly upwards at the building. This causes the building to appear to be leaning backwards away from the camera (it isn't really leaning at all). This is what happens when a camera takes a photo of a vertical object while the camera is tilted out of perfect horizontal orientation, that is, the photographer had to point it upward a bit to get the whole building in the frame. Most lenses will do this if tilted. It is caused by the camera's film plane or sensor plane being out of parallel with the subject. Like a projector throwing an image on a tilted screen, the image is skewed and distorted, making it appear to be “leaning.” Nearly any lens will do the same if it is tilted but we usually don't notice it much until we try to photograph a perfectly rectangular object like a tall building. Viewing optics such as telescopes and binoculars can do the same thing but we tend to mentally correct for the distortion automatically so is not usually as noticeable.

The building on the right is taken from the same position but using a special lens called a tilt/shift lens that looks something like these …
Image Image

… and designed to correct for this type of aberration. Photoshop also has tools for correcting this issue though it doesn't work as well as the tilt-shift lenses in my opinion.

It doesn't take much camera tilt to create this problem. If you elevate the camera up to the mid-height of the building such that the camera can “see” the whole building without tilting you may be able to avoid this to some degree if the building isn't too tall but this is usually impractical.

So, my point is that observing your distant buildings would involve more complexity then you might have thought. And, a perceived tilt in the subject presented to you by a camera or lens would not necessarily have anything to do with the curvature of the Earth unless great care was taken to prevent the above issues which may not be practical. And, there are no telephoto tilt/shift lenses to my knowledge to view distant objects. All that I know of are wide angle lenses since they are mostly used for architectural photography where the photographer needs a wide angle lens to fit the subject into the frame.

As for mountains, I don't know. I'm not sure I could tell if a mounting appeared to be leaning or not since they are not rectangular and since they usually taper toward their peaks. I just don't know how I could reliably tell one way or the other with something as irregular as a mountain.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:28 am

I agree, and of course I thought of this too. The point is to compare for example a close, grounded but even version and a distant grounded version of the mountain to see the particular mathematically calculated warping that "should" occur on a round Earth model.

"Up close" is thankfully not a big issue except for purposes of testing and comparison. The camera lens, as you mentioned, or really any potential distortion is a big issue. This is why I think we would all as thinking persons insist the study were conducted accurately and fairly. As I said, my bias is not to one particular Earth model at this point. It is to conduct the experiments and go from there.

Post Reply