Flat Earth and Refraction with Oil Platforms Hillhouse and Habitat

[Mick West]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdNhf-Ye1gQ


Oil rigs off the coast of Santa Barbara give us some great opportunities to view the curve of the Earth. But they also provide great opportunities for refraction to confuse the issue. How do we know it's not just refraction on a flat earth that just LOOKS round? I've added the oil-rigs to my refraction simulator, so people can experiment with what refraction is capable of doing. Also to demonstrate that you can't actually make a Flat Earth look round with refraction.

https://www.metabunk.org/refraction...*20Habitat*20Oil*20Rigs*20*28CLEAR*20DAY*29)_

About standard refraction:

Raised Platform Habitat, with stretched section:

Flat Earth looking round with impossible negative temperature gradient.

 

[Rodoxag]

I have a question. You've stated that a temperature gradient like the one necessary to simulate a curve on a flat earth is impossible (roughly decreasing 6°C in 110 ft, or -0.05°C/ft), but when simulating refraction on the globe you used basically the same gradient but as an inversion (increasing 4°C in 70 ft, which is 0.05°C/ft). How realistic is that temperature inversion? I couldn't find reliable measurements of temperature gradients within these altitudes.

 

[Mick West]

I have a question. You've stated that a temperature gradient like the one necessary to simulate a curve on a flat earth is impossible (roughly decreasing 6°C in 110 ft, or -0.05°C/ft), but when simulating refraction on the globe you used basically the same gradient but as an inversion (increasing 4°C in 70 ft, which is 0.05°C/ft). How realistic is that temperature inversion? I couldn't find reliable measurements of temperature gradients within these altitudes.

Good point. The reason it's possible to have warm air above cold air in a relatively steep gradient is that cold air sinks. If the ocean is cooling the air above it, then it's not going anywhere. But if the ocean is warming the air, then that air rises. Low altitude hot air is inherently unstable.

It would be interesting to get some numbers here, but there does not seem to be much of a focus on measuring over the first 100 feet. It would seem to be easy to do though, perhaps with a drone carrying a thermometer.

 

[Mendel]

It would be interesting to get some numbers here, but there does not seem to be much of a focus on measuring over the first 100 feet. It would seem to be easy to do though, perhaps with a drone carrying a thermometer.

I'm thinking that a drone might cause too much air flow and upset the gradient, perhaps a balloon on a kite line with length markers? There are cheap radio thermometer sensors for home use (so you can place a sensor on the outside wall without the need to drill a hole), but getting the balloon over the water probably requires a boat, making this setup more difficult to implement.

 

[Mick West]

I'm thinking that a drone might cause too much air flow and upset the gradient,

Yes, I was thinking of using a 50 foot line, with the sensor package suspended well below the drone.

 

[Rodoxag]

If someone could do it, it would be a great opportunity to truly validate your refraction model. Nervertheless, I was having a lot of trouble understanding the effects of refraction both on a globe and on a plane, but your model helped me understand a lot better.

Still, it's very interesting to note that these flatearthers claim that the picture in which the crane is behind the curve is under greater atmospheric effects than the one that appears flat, when actually the first one is clearer, and the other one is blurry and with serious distortion.

Spoiler: Picture