1. Hepper

    Hepper New Member

    Here is a video made by wide awake, a flat earther who regularly tries to disprove what he calls the "globe model":

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd_4a4I5BAs

    This is what he did: he put his camera close to water level (approximately 2.5 ft) and tried to find distant platforms marking hazards such as submerged rocks. Apparently, this was done at the Gulf coast in Hernando County, Florida. Here is a list of the various platforms, providing a general description as well as GPS numbers:
    None of the racks/platforms is taller than 16 ft.

    The first platform is found at 9:00 in the video. Wide Awake identifies it as "Bayport North Rack", some 7.5 miles away. The image is heavily blurred, but the object is clearly stationary.


    Next, wide awake turns to the left. There, he finds "Cutter Rock", more than 11 miles away (!) (see 12:45 in the video). The object doesn't move so it probably isn't a boat.


    Just a little bit further to the left, we find the "Bayport Channel Entrance light" (18:10). This rack is very close to the camera (3.8 miles). The thing next to it is a boat.


    I checked the locations of the platforms and the viewing angles on Google Earth and they appear to be consistent with the observations in the video:

    Wide Awake.PNG

    However, it is not clear to me how we are supposed to see a rack that is 11 miles away. Remember the elevation of the camera relative to sea level is (2.5 ft) and Cutter Rock is not taller than 16 ft.
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    In my refraction simulator I have a preset, "Green Laser at 5 feet, 17 miles away"
    Metabunk 2019-11-28 08-12-13.

    Over water, it takes surprisingly little temperature gradient to bend light around the horizon. Typically this will distort any object quite a bit, but if you are just looking at a light then that light will still look like a light.

    If you've got cool water, plus the standard atmospheric lapse rate, it does three things:
    1. It partially flattens the curve, raising up distant objects, so more of distant objects are visible than you would expect
    2. It has some light paths close to the horizon that go very far, but distort, leading to vertically compressed images for distant objects.
    3. It allows light paths of indefinite length close to the horizon, limited by dimming from the atmosphere - this allows you to see far distant lights, but usually NOT the objects at the same altitude (as they are too compressed).
    This all leads to farther fundamental problems measuring the curve with observations of small objects over water, especially of just viewing lights. That's why using tall buildings and mountains gives a far better set of empirical evidence.
    • Like Like x 4