Ultra High Definition (4K) Crew Earth Observations

originally posted by: SemperFried

It is pretty straightforward, only a few buildings are higher than the supposed drop off at that distance, yet we can see virtually every building of the skyline.

"very few" = "about 60" if you suppose some of them are back from the lake a few hundred yards.

An article with useful into and calculations: www.davidsenesac.com...

According to it, at 30 miles distant, anything higher than 595 feet (or 181 meters) will be visible above the horizon. Toronto has lots of buildings ~590 feet or taller, and the refractive influence of the atmosphere _must_ be taken into account. Depending on atmospheric conditions, i.e. layers of warmer or colder air, the refractive effect will change over the course of time.

Sea, lake, or ocean are very flat. The height of waves becomes too negligible at such great distances.

Ok...look at the tall spiky CN Tower about a third of the way from the left. See the blank space to the left of it? That's where Rogers Centre would be. Can't see it. The top of it is 282 feet above ground level.

No one seems to make a google earth skyline thing where you can swing around and get perspectives of a city. At least not that I could find.

eta: there are three harbour point buildings in front of the Rogers Centre at that angle. About 300 feet high. Don't see them either.

a reply to: SemperFried

Seems someone may want to take their own advice this time.

You seem to be losing the flat earth battle there my friend...quit while you still can, as the Earth is round.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You seem to be losing the flat earth battle there my friend.

What battle. I presented some observations and asked a question. I didn't draw any conclusions. I didn't see anyone make a valid debunk, and I will present more evidence, showing zero drop off, maybe here or maybe I will make a thread.

Even in the vid I posted you can see that the CN tower isn't missing almost 500ft......


I invite you to join that thread and try to do your best to debunk it.

a reply to: SemperFried

The battle I am talking about is your feeble attempt at trying to make an argument for a flat earth, because that is what your doing here.

And by all means start another FE thread as we don't have enough already.

And it will be another FE thread because those are the only threads that think there is no drop off when looking at something from a distance such as you presented.

Make the thread and I will be there, but don't get too upset when it gets shown you are in fact wrong...which will happen.

See you there....

Better yet here you go no need for another senseless thread about FE...



Debunked.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: SemperFried

Debunked.

Wow, great video, and it really settles the argument. How can flat-earthers explain that you can't see the rest of the city and the shoreline? They can't!

Here's my favourite image, taken near St. Catharines by Tom Szczerbowski: media.gettyimages.com...



(And here we see the refractive influence of the atmosphere, "lifting" those tops of the buildings slightly above the horizon!)

~~~

But of course this way of demonstation of the Earth's curvature has been known for ages, using the examples of ships gradually dipping below the horizon as they got farther and father.

a reply to: wildespace

Wow, great video, and it really settles the argument.

Well since the discussion was around Toronto, I thought it was a good one to post.

As far as settling the argument...for some reason I highly doubt it will.

a reply to: wildespace

Wow, great video, and it really settles the argument. How can flat-earthers explain that you can't see the rest of the city and the shoreline? They can't!

Actually, a very valid explanation is that this in fact is caused by refraction.

Earth has an atmosphere of air, whose density and refractive index vary considerably depending on the temperature and pressure. This makes the air refract light to varying extents, affecting the appearance of the horizon. Usually, the density of the air just above the surface of the Earth is greater than its density at greater altitudes. This makes its refractive index greater near the surface than higher, which causes light that is travelling roughly horizontally to be refracted downward.

en.wikipedia.org...

(And here we see the refractive influence of the atmosphere, "lifting" those tops of the buildings slightly above the horizon!)

Or we see it obscuring the lower portions, which would make more sense in these atmospheric and geographical conditions.




Timelapse footage of Chicago skyline from 52 miles away. That is one persistant mirage then. They usually happen in the desert.......

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Debunked.

Nothing is debunked.

It really isn't as simple as posting the first vid you encounter that says "debunked". This guy only shows the images in which the lower portions are obscured, which can be explained by refraction, but ignores all the other available evidence that can't be explained by mirages and light refraction.

originally posted by: SemperFried
a reply to: wildespace
That is one persistant mirage then. They usually happen in the desert.......

That's because it's not a mirage. Mirages show an extra image (like a reflection) of the object.

Atmospheric refraction almost always lifts objects higher than they really are (case in point, the Sun that just touches the horizon is actually fully below it). This is because air nearer to the ground is more dense than air higher up:

This makes its refractive index greater near the surface than higher, which causes light that is travelling roughly horizontally to be refracted downward.

And light being refracted downward makes objects appear higher up than they really are. Only when air near the ground (or water) is heated (and thus less dense) will the rays curve upwards making the objects appear lower.

So yeah, in your own words, why is Toronto permanatly sunk below the horizon? It can't be some permanent heating phenomenon, can it?

originally posted by: SemperFried
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Debunked.

Nothing is debunked.

It really isn't as simple as posting the first vid you encounter that says "debunked". This guy only shows the images in which the lower portions are obscured, which can be explained by refraction, but ignores all the other available evidence that can't be explained by mirages and light refraction.

Show me a video of Toronto from the opposite shore of the lake that show the full city with all the buildings, trees, and the shoreline, and then we can talk.

Where is the city?

a reply to: SemperFried

Really...can you prove it wrong?

Yes the old it isn't debunked because I say it isn't excuse...gotta do better than that.

So far you have been shown the error of your ways, but just like most who believe a FE you fail miserably trying to back your claim even when your claim is proven wrong, but feel free to keep trying as this is fun to watch.

And just so you know it was the second video not the first one that I posted...

a reply to: SemperFried

Timelapse footage of Chicago skyline from 52 miles away. That is one persistant mirage then. They usually happen in the desert.......

The Toronto video too much you had to move on to Chicago now...amazing.

Here you go regarding the Chicago skyline mirage...



Keep trying...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I already showed that it cannot be a mirage, with the timelapse footage, and I also already showed you that refraction can also explain why Toronto appears lower.

Keep trying...

You have not debunked a thing......

a reply to: wildespace

Why is Chicago permanently visible when we really shouldn't see any building at that distance. It is not a mirage and refraction can only acount for a 15% difference, so how do you explain that?

And again, not all Toronto pics show the same amount being obscured and it is not unusual at all for objects to appear lower due to refraction.

Furthermore, I suspect that perspective and the vanishing point has something to do with it too.

a reply to: SemperFried

So are there any pictures or videos where all of Toronto is visible from the far shore? I'd like to see some.

And why is Chicago only appears as a handful of skyscrapers?

Either the Earth is flat and we should be able to see all of the very distant terrain (subject to atmospheric haze and occasional "diping"), or the Earth is round and the videos and pictures posted here prove that, because they show only the upper part of the skyscapers. If the Earth is flat, how is it that if you rise higher you'll see more and more of the distant terrain?

How is it that the sea or ocean has such a clear cut-off horizon, instead of gradually disappearing into haze? How is it that our view on land isn't filled to the brim with terrain, cities, hills and other stuff for over a hundred of miles all around?

a reply to: SemperFried

I already showed that it cannot be a mirage,

And yet it is...

Explanation beginning at the 4:54 mark.



I also would like to point out from the original video that you can see the lights on the buildings distort as the time lapse goes, so now if this were not a mirage changing with the atmospheric conditions wouldn't those lights stay in one place during the video?

Also the person who made the original video has already said what it is...A Superior Mirage.

Note the date on the tweet...

#SuperiorMirage of #Chicago as seen from Warren Dunes State Park in Bridgman, #Michigan after sunset on 4/29/2015.

twitter.com...

Debunked.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Another fantastic video, thanks. Here's a screenshot:



So, flat-earthers, where's the rest of the city? Why is it not normally visible from that location? Could it be because the city is normally hidden below the horizon by the curvature of the Earth, and is occasionally "stretched" upwards by refraction?

originally posted by: SemperFried

Timelapse footage of Chicago skyline from 52 miles away. That is one persistant mirage then. They usually happen in the desert.......

Part of the problem with that video is that they're assuming the camera is at an altitude of 0. In fact, the high point at Warren Dunes State Park is at about 800 feet. When you use that altitude, you get about 200 feet obscured. But the city isn't at an altitude of 0, either. The base of the Willis Tower is at 595 feet. When you take the difference between the high point at the park and the base of the tower, you get 205 feet. Plugging that in, we'd expect about 792 feet above the base of the tower to be obscured. That's pretty far from the video's claim of over 1800 feet, but very close to the actual view.