1. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    With all the ballyhoo over Lake Balaton I've been reminded of this video: in it a guy shows a railing right down to the water from 5.33 miles away which 'should' have about 8 feet hidden by the earth's curve.

    Now, as far as taking the photos goes, the methodology is good, the image is clear enough, and there aren't any issues with lasers or inaccurate measurements.

    I mean, not that I think this is proof of anything - but in comparison to the Lake Balaton experiment, for those who want proof, this one seems much better to me.

    And the real issue, of course, is that it's just one test, one little dabble, and shouldn't be used to reach a conclusion about anything. Real science, if it thought it could show something, would do this over and over again. Real science wouldn't leap to a conclusion. Real science would wonder if something else was afoot.

    For us, we assume some sort of refraction, and aren't threatened by videos such as this, but are interested by what's going on.

    In this case, as Mick shows below, it is indeed an effect of atmospheric refraction.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2016
  2. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    Looks good!
    Pehaps these measurements are best done in a howling gale.
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, it means people need to be more careful when doing their experiments, and equally careful in accepting the claims of poorly done experiments.

    Here we've got photos of a building from 5.3 miles away, and a view height of 2 feet.
    8.9 feet hidden if we ignore refraction.

    His photo:

    The actual building from a distance.

    A comparison with reference lines. Draw the center line to move.
    kershaw park compare A. kershaw park compare B.

    Notice that below the roofline everything is oddly compressed. This would indicate localized refraction greatly more than standard atmposheric. Cooler water, warmer air, bends the light down and around the curvature of the lake surface - but most significantly for the lower portions.

    And there's about ten feet of beach there from the waterline:
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    Ah but.. Your photo was taken from a higher point, so it would show more beach.
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's appears to be from a few hundred feet away, so the difference would be negligible. Remember the beach rises about ten feet from the waterline to the ground by the building.

    And the compression of the beach is consistent with the compression of the building below the roofline (there would likely be more compression as you got closer to the horizon)
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    kershaw park compare 2B. [​IMG]

    And flipped, for easier comparison:

    kershaw park compare 2C. [​IMG]
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2016
  7. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    Google shows the water sloping upwards! It also seems to show a low wall.
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There's some steps and a ramp. Then the brick footings of the building.

    This photo would suggest about 5-6 feet from waterline to the building ground.
  9. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    I'm not sure I would say the picture of the beach building is clear enough to deduce anything from. What I was more interested in was the railing. His picture from distance does appear to show the full railing, and some rocks beneath, so is basically right down to the water:

    Screen Shot 2016-09-08 at 1.59.43 PM.

    Naturally we know we shouldn't see this much, but we do. Refraction must play a role.

    I think the point is, sometimes photos across lakes show results that match flat earth theory, and I'm okay with that. But we shouldn't draw conclusions from just one or two 'experiments'.

    Repetition. Considering other factors. Fine-tuning.

    But, of course, all that's for those who think Balaton has 'proved' something (when, in actual fact, I think the video above is a better demonstration of "an apparent lack of curve").
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I had the wrong image in the comparison above, so here it is again, corrected.

    I think it's pretty clear there's significant compression of the bottom the image, meaning refraction.

    kershaw park compare 2C. [​IMG]
  11. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    If the black blob in front, and below, the entrance is the steps, then I would say it was to scale and not compressed..
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well I would not say that photo is any clearer. It's the same kind of thing, huge compression of bottom of image indicating refraction around the curve of the lake.
    gazeboA. gazeboB.
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Are you perhaps not seeing the comparison slider in your browser? The above post should look like:
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think the refraction we are seeing here is localized looming. In the standard atmosphere, all distant images are looming, as the light bends towards the more dense air that's lower down.

    The lake is colder than the air, and it cools the air directly above it. So there's a small temperature inversion. The colder air near the lake surface is denser, so bends the light around the curve even more than normal atmospheric refraction would. This accounts for the relatively narrow band of refraction close to the surface of the lake.

    Prof Andrew Young says:
    0.11°C/m is 0.06°F/foot
  15. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    I see it. Very nice it is too!
  16. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    Agreed. And that's why I think this is a such a salient lesson for those who took part in Lake Balaton.

    Purpose of experiment:
    To measure curvature, or lack of, across a lake.

    Result of experiment:
    No curvature observed (ie, no obscuration of a distant landmark).

    Is the earth flat, then, or are there other factors?
    Other factors. Refraction. Compression.

    Can anything be concluded from this experiment?
    No. Many further tests required.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Refraction is a big part of why the Flat Earth theory still has legs. The exact same thing messed up the old Bedford Level experiments:

    And more specifically the experiment here is nearly a mirror of one performed over 100 years ago:
    Telephoto camera, six miles, two feet, low level thing visible.

    A big advantage of out current situation is that the much higher quality of cameras available allow us to detect and identify the refraction zone.

    This might be true if you subscribe to the scientific solipsism of the flat earthers (where all of science has to be personally verified by subjective experiences). But I would take the experiment as another confirmation of decades of similar experiments which have consistently shown this effect.

    Regardless though, repeating this particular test is not needed unless we are studying refraction. The real thing that is required is to repeat Wallace's version of the experiment, which is carried out sufficiently high above the waterline to avoid the problem of refraction almost entirely.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. freedom4all

    freedom4all New Member

    Hey guys does everyone understand this guy Mick is saying it's compression when really it just seems like HIS photo isn't even 5.33 miles aware and definitely wasn't captured via a FLIP PHONE extended to the lens of a telescope. Also his pics are at different angles. I am sorry for blasting this out ASAP but I am an objective truther and FLAT EARTH is something I've put nearly 1000 hours into I don't appreciate for everyone falling for this guy duping them maybe it's already been cleared up or maybe I'm wrong but this guy Mick is using these photos as proof when his initial disclaimer of the photo said "a distance" not "at that distance" or "5.33 miles". Please repond lol
    • Funny Funny x 2
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm saying it's refraction, which in the case of an inversion like this compresses the bottom of the image.

    It's very slight. YOu can put in this image URL:

    To the mirage simulator:

    Then Set distance 5.3, target height 50, FOV 0.3, view height 2.
    Metabunk 2018-04-09 08-37-43.
    Then click RELOAD.
    Metabunk 2018-04-09 08-38-53.

    Fiddle around with the lower portion of the temperature profile. Basically a slightly inversion. Cooler water, cool air near the water, warming up, then cooling down with height.

    Then turn off refraction to see the difference, and how the compression works.
    Metabunk 2018-04-09 08-43-22.
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here I simply move the second dot up on the curve slightly to the right. It's a very small temperature difference.
    • Like Like x 2
  21. Luc The Lurker

    Luc The Lurker New Member

    Are there any photos of statues of people or animals? It'll probably get the point of refraction over easier when a person is distorted into having tiny legs.

    To me the buildings being compressed get the point across, but others will just claim your photos are at an angle or not aligned (as we saw earlier).
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's tricky to use smaller objects, as they can be hard to see clearly at 5 miles. There are probably people in the OP image.

    A building should be good, as it compresses irregularly in one direction. Mountains can also work. The Space Needle compression is pretty obvious. But I understand some people have a hard time understanding perspective, etc.