It's not rocket science

Separate forum to permit easy exclusion when searching for serious information !
kwackers
Posts: 14590
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby kwackers » 28 Nov 2019, 8:51pm

Mike Sales wrote:You should watch it to detect the lies.

Just in case there's any doubt this far into this thread.

It's a lot easier to dismiss something than to understand it.

Footage? Pictures?
CGI - or if before CGI then Stanley Kubrick.

Having simple physics or basic maths problems?
Invent a new mechanism that for whatever reason doesn't require proof whilst ignoring the one that has proof.

Navigation by pilots or 17th century sailors which only works on globes?
They're all in it together. Millions of them have a secret handshake that has stood the test of time.


Yep, it's a conspiracy involving millions that hides a truth so complex that none of its advocates can explain how it works in any way that is consistent or makes sense whilst knocking a theory that revolves (literally) around a very simple equation to work (F = Gm1m2/r2)
Occam's razor is dead.

Mike Sales
Posts: 5048
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Mike Sales » 28 Nov 2019, 9:04pm

kwackers wrote:Navigation by pilots or 17th century sailors which only works on globes?
They're all in it together. Millions of them have a secret handshake that has stood the test of time.


I have learned astronavigation for sailors.
Thank goodness shortcut tables have been contrived to eliminate the need for spherical trigonometry!
Though a modern scientific calculator can help out.
The whole elaborate apparatus rests on the simple basic assumptions about a spherical earth of course.

I would like to see our Mancunian friend do a night school class for Ocean Yachtmaster and explain how a sextant can find your position if the world is not a ball spinning in space, with a sky full of stars around it.
Even a simple noon sight of the sun's altitude giving you your latitude depends on the same basic assumption.

kwackers
Posts: 14590
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby kwackers » 28 Nov 2019, 9:26pm

Mike Sales wrote:I have learned astronavigation for sailors.

One of them hey?

Mind you I have a pilots license so if we ever meet I'll give you "the sign" - keep mum though, don't want the plebs discovering the truth... ;)

Mike Sales
Posts: 5048
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Mike Sales » 28 Nov 2019, 9:37pm

kwackers wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:I have learned astronavigation for sailors.

One of them hey?

Mind you I have a pilots license so if we ever meet I'll give you "the sign" - keep mum though, don't want the plebs discovering the truth... ;)


I enjoyed watching the sun at noon through the sextant; seeing it climb and climb, then come to a halt, hesitate a moment and begin to decline, at the appointed time.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17399
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 30 Nov 2019, 8:53pm

Anything I have shown you up to now has been met with denial like the Tim Peake somersault, or people on harnesses.


Except I have answered you regarding Tim Peakes’ somersault (he clearly grabs the “floor”) and pointed out that a harness isn’t even a likely explanation of what you are seeing (CoM of astronaut under it completely wrong).

You still haven’t even explained how the sun sets, or rises.

Seriously the cognitive dissonance is stronger than even a clue-by-four could cope with here.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Manc33
Posts: 1634
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Manc33 » 3 Dec 2019, 10:09am

[XAP]Bob wrote:You still haven’t even explained how the sun sets, or rises.


Atmospheric magnification.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeo_-1h6qUc

The famous Willis tower skyline photo was being shown on a news article, listen to what the guy says at 3:02
"The atmosphere really is like, acting like, a lens"

Here's a still from that video showing the effect:

Image

If the sun is moving away from us and getting magnified for the observer as it moves away, then it's all explained, the apparent horizon in front of the sun must block the bottom of the sun and the reason is the magnification effect detailed above. This gets so extreme that the horizon eventually completely covers the sun, or a boat, or a building, or a hill, or anything else.

In addition to water in the atmosphere causing this effect, a sunset has also been filmed where drone flight footage showed the sun not going behind the horizon and eventually fading away into the air. Skip to 2 mins here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Jb9QFTaQM - this isn't possible if Earth is a globe, it could never happen since geometrically the curvature would always need to be there, regardless of conditions.

All of this shows there doesn't have to be a curvature there to cause sunset. The notion that curvature and only curvature could be causing it, is based on most peoples misunderstanding of how optics works. Most people arguing about this are still trying to use photos to claim curvature is there or claim the horizon is flat, when both claims are wrong because all lenses are curved - thus any and all lenses inherently must cause some apparent curvature in a photo (barrel distortion), it just depends on the type of lens used as to the extent of it. A fish eye lens is one extreme, whereas a really high quality non-wide angle rectilinear lens would I suppose be the other end of the scale, with minimal - but still existing - lens distortion. You can't get rid of it.

So I have covered two things there:
1. How the sun can set on a flat plane without curvature needing to be there.
2. Why no curvature is there (the DITRH drone sunset footage).
Last edited by Manc33 on 3 Dec 2019, 10:18am, edited 1 time in total.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17399
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 3 Dec 2019, 10:12am

How does magnification result in the bottom of the sun disappearing first?

The sun doesn’t change in size during a sunset, it just gets cut off from the bottom - with some interesting atmospheric distortion thrown in.

With no change in angular size there is no magnification.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Manc33
Posts: 1634
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Manc33 » 3 Dec 2019, 10:23am

[XAP]Bob wrote:How does magnification result in the bottom of the sun disappearing first?


As shown in the video I linked to, the sun moves away getting magnified more and more whereas the land in front of it doesn't. The only outcome of that is going to be the bottom of the sun getting cut off.

[XAP]Bob wrote:The sun doesn’t change in size during a sunset, it just gets cut off from the bottom - with some interesting atmospheric distortion thrown in.


It not changing size is explained by it getting magnified as it moves away. Without it getting magnified it would be reducing in size.

[XAP]Bob wrote:With no change in angular size there is no magnification.


This doesn't make sense. If you had someone walk away from you backwards while holding a magnifying glass over something and they pulled that magnifying glass away just the right amount in accordance with them moving backwards, the object they are magnifying can under the right circumstances appear to have the same angular size the whole time. Come on Bob I think you do know what I am getting at. :P

This was shown and "admitted to" (some might claim but not really, they were just going over the science of it) in that news article featured in the video I posted.

*I added the DITRH sunset video footage to my other post after you replied to it.
Last edited by Manc33 on 3 Dec 2019, 10:26am, edited 1 time in total.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17399
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 3 Dec 2019, 10:25am

So magnification somehow happens to match the distance of the sun... but if the sun is always what 3000 miles above the earth how would the horizon ever get in the way? It wouldn’t...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Manc33
Posts: 1634
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Manc33 » 3 Dec 2019, 10:34am

[XAP]Bob wrote:So magnification somehow happens to match the distance of the sun... but if the sun is always what 3000 miles above the earth how would the horizon ever get in the way? It wouldn’t...


Why would you say the sun is 3,000 miles above the Earth?

I have never claimed that. This is something bounded around by people that brushed over this stuff and immediately believed the first amusing sounding thing they read about the topic.

The claim of the sun being 3,000 miles high is something the heliocentrists at Flat Earth Society claimed, to make this topic look stupid. Why are people like that needing to do that? I know why but see if you can work it out. :wink:

The sun could be 100 miles above the Earth for all I know. No one outside of the military (ergo NASA) knows and those that do aren't telling us. Imagine if it all came out, well actually it kinda is doing and has been for nearly 5 years.

Did you know there's now even a football team in Spain called Flat Earth FC? :lol:
https://flatearthfc.com/en/

The people continually denying and hiding this stuff are a dying breed. It's been coming out for nearly 5 years and will continue to. Most people denying it are telling people they don't understand, whether they do or don't. "You don't understand physics" or, insert whichever field you want. It's getting old and people are noticing it, especially when there are people with PhD's that absolutely do understand, looking into this stuff. They can be told they don't understand but the problem is they actually do.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

Tangled Metal
Posts: 6735
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Tangled Metal » 3 Dec 2019, 10:36am

Am I hearing this right?

Sun is moving away from us and increased atmosphere between it and us results in it disappearing like a sun sets?

Ok! Assume that's true, where is the sun going to and how does it get back for the next day? If there's no loop back then we must be seeing identical suns, one for every single day the earth and sun exists.

Am I missing anything in Manc's looney tunes world?

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17399
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 3 Dec 2019, 10:37am

That word “what” allowed you to correct what is usually bandied about by people who claim the earth is flat, since it allows for the appropriate difference in angle to the sun from different locations.

If the sun is always above the horizon, by an inch or a million miles, then it cannot be cut off at the bottom.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Manc33
Posts: 1634
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Manc33 » 3 Dec 2019, 10:39am

Bob, it can if magnification plays a role. Tangled Metal, it's just moving into the far distance, presumably remaining at the same elevation.

Here's another photo showing the effect of water causing magnification:

Image





I'm not going to be here to reply all day, I'm building a bike today, later.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

kwackers
Posts: 14590
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby kwackers » 3 Dec 2019, 10:40am

[XAP]Bob wrote:That word “what” allowed you to correct what is usually bandied about by people who claim the earth is flat, since it allows for the appropriate difference in angle to the sun from different locations.

If the sun is always above the horizon, by an inch or a million miles, then it cannot be cut off at the bottom.

Then there's the issue of why depending on your altitude the sun sets at different times.

These days easy to do with a drone. I was flying one on Sunday, at 400' there's the sun, on the ground - dark.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17399
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 3 Dec 2019, 10:46am

Magnification works, but not quite how you are saying.

Ignoring that - a sun at constant altitude over a flat surface cannot have the bottom cut off by that flat surface.

Any magnification effect would still show the whole disc of the sun.

At some point in the future we’ll chat about the phases of the planets and moons (including our own). The flat earth explanation for those must be insanely convoluted.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.