Explained: 443 km distance- mountains visible.

FlightMuj

Active Member
Hello all!!!
Eric Dubay posted a video: [Video removed from YouTube]
In this video Eric says that the Mountain (or any of them) should not be visible as like Pic Gaspard below.


The maximum distance achieved is 443 km, and he does his calculation; evaluates observers height but he misses the point that object's height itself is 3867 m. Nonetheless I tried figuring out myself but could not find a calculator that took into account the target (object) height. There is a link of the photographers work :https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/
I cannot get much information after an hour or two research and this is the first time I am creating a post on a flat Earth debate I otherwise solve and prove it on my own and I am kind of embarrassed that I cannot gather information.
So, simply lack of data has motivated me to write on a forum!!!
P.S. I am a new member and have personally disproved every claim about flat Earth (not bragging; I love it!!!), but I just wanted to research it even if it is a repeated claim . I am not giving my full today so this post is not that detailed, Sorry!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
The maximum distance achieved is 443 km, and he does his calculation; evaluates observers height but he misses the point that object's height itself is 3867 m. Nonetheless I tried figuring out myself but could not find a calculator that took into account the target (object) height.
You can use the Metabunk curve calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

To take into account the target object height, all you need to do is see whether the "hidden height" is greater than the target object height.

Plugging in the numbers from this example, with the photographer 2,820 metres above sea level:

upload_2017-8-9_13-50-59.png

You can see that with standard refraction, about 3,817 metres should be hidden at that distance.

That would leave 50 metres of the top of the target mountain visible. If the refraction was greater than standard, then more of the peak would be visible.

The photographer's own description says that was the case:


You can also do the same calculation from the other end, as visibility works both ways. If you put the viewer height as 3,867m, the height of Pic Gaspard, then you get a hidden height of 2,777m, suggesting that a little over 40 metres of the 2,820m Pic de Finestrelles should be visible.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
At 3:21 he writes that from the 9,251ft peak of Pic de Finestrelles the distance to the horizon is 117 miles.

That is correct (actually, with refraction it is 127 miles).

He should also do the same distance calculation for Pic Gaspard, which is 12,687ft high.

The distance to the horizon from Pic Gaspard is 138 miles (or, with refraction, 149 miles).

If you add together the two horizon distances and the total is greater than the distance between the peaks, then they are intervisible.

149 + 127 = 276.

The actual distance is 275 miles, so these peaks are right at the limit of intervisibility, and probably require a bit of an extra refraction boost to make them clearly visible.

The fact that these two peaks appear to offer the world record for visibility, and that this has only been recorded when refraction conditions are favourable, is surely excellent evidence that the globe Earth model is accurate! If the Earth were flat, then there would be nothing to stop more distant mountains being visible, as long as there was nothing in between.

I wonder what Eric Dubay would say when asked why the world record for photographing a distant mountain just happens to be exactly on the limit of visibility predicted by the globe model?
 
Last edited:

FlightMuj

Active Member
Great answer, so the "Refracted Hidden" was the thing I was looking for. Just one more thing what were you trying to say about adding horizons, I did not quite get that...

Thanks in advance!!!
 

FlightMuj

Active Member
You can see that with standard refraction, about 3,817 metres should be hidden at that distance.

That would leave 50 metres of the top of the target mountain visible. If the refraction was greater than standard, then more of the peak would be visible.
So in conclusion he misses out the mathematical fact that refraction is a thing and says that Earth is flat??? Right??? Even in the beginning of his video he completely (deliberately???) misses the height of the observer, tries to solve it and forgets (pun intended) about his another blunder...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Still I would like to hear what was that adding horizons thing you were saying.


Here the tops of h1 and h2 are just visible (from each other). The light path between them just grazes the horizon.

S1 and S2 are the distances to the horizon. If you add them together then that gives you the maximum distance that the two points are visible from each other.

If there's refraction, then the light path is bent a bit, making these distances longer.
 

FlightMuj

Active Member
Love it!!! Thanks Mick!!! The added distance i.e. 276 miles is greater than the actual distance, 275 miles, so that means the peaks can be seen but are at the limit of being seen, but then a little more refraction (like in this special case) can boost the distance more so you see more of the peak, right???
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Love it!!! Thanks Mick!!! The added distance i.e. 276 miles is greater than the actual distance, 275 miles, so that means the peaks can be seen but are at the limit of being seen, but then a little more refraction (like in this special case) can boost the distance more so you see more of the peak, right???
Exactly, yes.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
S1 and S2 are the distances to the horizon. If you add them together then that gives you the maximum distance that the two points are visible from each other.
Brief note: S1+S2 isn't quite the distance between, in this case, the two peaks, as that's the distance at sea level, and doesn't take into account the "tilt".

Doing so here, though, only adds about another 140 metres to the distance between the two peaks, and doesn't make any real difference to the results of the calculations (other variables such as refraction will no doubt have a greater influence).
 
Last edited:

FlightMuj

Active Member
Brief note: S1+S2 isn't quite the distance between, in this case, the two peaks, as that's the distance at sea level, and doesn't take into account the "tilt".

Doing so here, though, only adds about another 140 metres to the distance between the two peaks, and doesn't make any real difference to the results of the calculations (other variables such as refraction will no doubt have a greater influence).
Yeah I was thinking the same, that the actual distance will be greater as it is a bigger arc.
How do you know that it will be an increment of 140 m???
 

Rory

Senior Member.
How do you know that it will be an increment of 140 m?
I was curious what difference it would make for some calculations on another flat earth debunk I was working on, so I made a spreadsheet to work it out (simplified version attached).

What I discovered: it genuinely makes no real difference to the results, so isn't worth the extra work. We're talking inches, feet, and thousandths of a degree. Even here, over a relatively massive distance, that extra 140m results in only 4m or so increased hidden amount.
 

Attachments

  • peak to peak distance calculator.xls
    29.5 KB · Views: 529
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Still I would like to hear what was that adding horizons thing you were saying.
Mick has explained it pretty well but you can also think of it like this:

If the horizon from peak 1 is 127 miles away then a person standing at sea level 127 miles away can just see the top of peak 1 (because lines of sight work. It's ways).

That person is therefore 148 miles away from peak 2 (275-127=148).

And the horizon from peak 2 is 149 miles away, which means that anyone 149 miles or less from peak 2 can see it.

So the person standing at that point can just see both peak 1 and peak 2. And if you can see both peaks in opposite directions from the same place at sea level, then clearly you can also see one peak from the other.

You can imagine each peak has a circle of visibility around it whose size is dependant on the height of the peak. If those circles intersect then the peaks are visible from each other. (Barring real world issues like intervening terrain, of course.)
 

Keith B

New Member
I have composed a few images that prove curvature on the original image beyond doubt. (I even used Mick's Google Earth trick in the first of them). The first two show how you are looking "through" the earth to the sea level at the points under the distant peaks, while the third one proves that the earth calculator is correct.
Here they are:


 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
jeranism Explained: Observations of Canigou, Curvature of the Earth & Atmospheric Refraction Flat Earth 158
jhunsley Explained: Panama UFO "Disc" [Cessna Taking Off] UFOs and Aliens 27
Mick West Explained: Mysterior Tower of Light in Shenyang, China General Discussion 3
N Explained: "Jellyfish object" video in Russia [Rocket Launch] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
W What exactly does “Explained:” mean in a thread title? Site Feedback & News 2
Mick West Explained: Birdwatcher's "Amazing UFO", Burwell Fen, UK. [C-130 Landing Lights] UFOs and Aliens 2
Mick West Explained: Tic-Tac UFO San Jacinto, Highway 62, California [Blimp] UFOs and Aliens 0
DavidB66 Explained: UFOs viewed from the ISS - Squid Boats UFOs and Aliens 16
A Explained: UFO Filmed from a Helicopter in Kamchatka, Russia. May 31, 2021 [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 2
R Explained: Video of Vandenberg UFO shooting down ICBM [reenactment] UFOs and Aliens 8
DavidB66 Explained: Student in Teignmouth, Devon sees UFO [Moon Obscured by Clouds] UFOs and Aliens 35
Q Explained: HomeSteadHow "UFO" Photos [Helicopter] UFOs and Aliens 54
Mick West Explained: Why Magnets Stick To Vaccination Sites (Or Your Nose) Conspiracy Theories 18
Mick West Explained: Odd Looking Bidens/Carters Photo - Not Fake, Just Perspective General Discussion 74
Mick West Explained: UFO Filmed With Telescope [Loon Balloon] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Mick West Explained: Sky Mapping at the Seattle Space Needle [Virtual, Not "Blue Beam] Conspiracy Theories 0
Patrick Gonzalez Explained: Why Biden is boarding C-32 instead of VC-25 Election 2020 35
TEEJ Explained: Inaguration Photos from Different Angles Show Different Backgrounds. Election 2020 9
P Explained: Exactly 5.55555556% (1/18) of votes for Trump across multiple precincts [Cherry Picked, Expected Ratios] Election 2020 20
DavidB66 Explained: Boris Johnson Photo With Confusing Reflection of Phone Cord Election 2020 12
Mick West Explained: Wingless Tic-Tac UFOs Moving Erratically Behind Trees UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 1
Mick West Explained: 9:33 AM ET Time on NPR Story about Storming the Capitol Election 2020 0
A.G. Explained: Covid-19 research with pre-2020 dates in Google search results Coronavirus COVID-19 4
Mick West Explained: "Disappearing needles" in Covid Vaccinations Coronavirus COVID-19 1
Mick West Explained: 82nd Airborne: "A Storm Is Coming" - Operation Devil Storm Conspiracy Theories 12
Mick West Explained: Fulton County, Georgia, "Suitcases" of Ballots being Scanned Election 2020 1
Z.W. Wolf Explained: Red Mirages, Blue Shifts, and Data Dumps in the 2020 Election Election 2020 21
Mick West Explained: Trump's Claim of Suspicious Early Morning Michigan Bump [It's Detroit] Election 2020 1
Mick West Explained: New Navy UFO Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 210
Eleora Explained: "Quantum Dots" - Storing medical information below the skin’s surface Coronavirus COVID-19 13
Cassi O Polaris Height Perspective Explained (No math required) Flat Earth 1
Mick West Explained: RARE Video Footage of "Alien Space Craft" WATCHING ISS Astronaut! UFOs and Aliens 1
A Explained: astronaut's movement causes lunar flag to wave in Apollo 15 footage Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Explained: The "Many Faces" of Patrick Crusius, the El Paso Shooter Conspiracy Theories 22
Mick West Explained: "Beam of Light" in To The Stars Academy header images UFOs and Aliens 0
Mick West Explained: "UFOS" in Donald Trump's Crowd Photo on 4th of July UFOs and Aliens 3
D Explained: Photo of 747 with Contrails Only on One Side [Fake, April Fool] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Qulaey Explained: 17.61 Mile Mirror Flash Supposedly Proves Flat Earth [Refraction] Flat Earth 5
Mick West Explained: The Navy's New "UFO" Reporting Guidelines UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 32
Mick West Explained: "It's photoshopped because it has to be" Flat Earth 3
Mick West Explained: Jet Chasing UFO: X-45A and F/A-18B Formation Flight Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Rory Explained: How Mount Rainier helps demonstrate the shape of the globe Flat Earth 38
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 5
MikeG Explained: EU Army Deployed to Paris Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Explained: Unexplained Green Light During Thunderstorm [Water on Lens, Caustics] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Explained: Flashes of Light During the World Trade Center Collapse 9/11 5
Mick West Explained: House "Cut in Half", Tubbs Fire, Santa Rosa, Coffey Park Wildfires 0
Mick West Explained: Burnt Cars on California Beach [TV Set] Wildfires 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top