Stand Up to Detect the Curve of the Earth
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
-
- Tags
- curve flat earth
ThePlaneTruth
New Member
I was in the debate where the dual panel image was used to prove curvature. Mick, are you the source for the video? I believe the coordinates are incorrect bc I CANNOT find them as I hunt the pacific coast. The closest I can get is in the eastern side of San Clemente.
I believe it is irresponsible to post this image without adequate information. Which island is in front of you there?
Please update your location and how you changed your location in 7 secs to take the next shot.
Please include the focal length data
Please give us the swell data for that day if still available.
Do you have any video of this day?
Please watch my follow up video to the debate where I address "your" photo.
Infamous Slide #22
I believe it is irresponsible to post this image without adequate information. Which island is in front of you there?
Please update your location and how you changed your location in 7 secs to take the next shot.
Please include the focal length data
Please give us the swell data for that day if still available.
Do you have any video of this day?
Please watch my follow up video to the debate where I address "your" photo.
Infamous Slide #22
Catalina
I walked a bit, hardly moved. About 20 feet as I remember. But the GPS in the camera might be off.
Probably fully zoom on P900
Swell data, I don't know.
Yes I have video. Attached. It' my photos and video. The video shows me standing up. Handheld, unfortunately.
HOWEVER, I don't really think now this is a good example. Largely because of the potential for swell. A far better example is Catalina, viewed from the beach, then the pier, then the cliff. It's like 100 times better.
Bobby Shafto
New Member
I plotted the coordinates Mick gave to Santa Monica beach just south of the pier.
The island in the background is south end of San Catalina Island in the direction of Blackjack peak.
Travis,
I listened to your debate with Catz. I commented on one of Heath's videos that I would like to talk about these images in one of his [Heath's] live streams, if he's willing to host. He said sure. Hope we get the chance to explore a no-curvature analysis of slide #22. I may understand your theory better than any other globeling, but there are things I can't square.
Last edited:
You can just type them into Google Maps. Or use a regular map.
Like I said, it's not the best example, because there's too many unknowns (distance, waves, tilt of the boat). I noticed the boat becoming more visible standing up vs. crouched. (I don't think I moved much at all).
The better example of a "stand-up" difference is Malibu Beach Inn.
Bobby Shafto
New Member
Santa Monica buoy data: 1.18 metre ground swell from west (268°) at an average period of 9-10 secs.
The sight line bearing from Mick to the sailboat was about 173°.
I judge the boat to be about a 13-14 m fractional sloop.
Weather archive lists wind 6-7 knots SSW, which would correspond to the picture showing the boat on approximately an 080 heading (toward Marina Del Rey) and heeling to port.
Let's chat, with Heath hosting.
Last edited:
@ThePlaneTruth and @Bobby Shafto , I've moved the posts here as it's the original thread. I recommend reading through.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/stand-up-to-detect-the-curve-of-the-earth.8364/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/stand-up-to-detect-the-curve-of-the-earth.8364/
Bobby Shafto
New Member
It's not the best for this purpose, you're right; mainly because the boat has vertical motion and the water surface has both wind wave texture and groundswell that's going to swallow up whatever potential distinction there might be between a <1m and 2m observation height.
But it was the image of horizon obstruction that Conspiracy Catz used, which he did because he felt like it was an example of obstruction in the absence of distorting or miraging refractive conditions. I think TPT and I have both wound up here looking for more information on those photos than what Catz had available at the time.
Bobby Shafto
New Member
Could you post or share with me the original DSCN3193 photo file (sailboat shot from 2 ft on beach at Santa Monica)?
Attached. But again, I really don't think it's a very useful example. I regret using it in the book because there are too many unknowns - unlike with the Hotel, or Catalina.
Bobby Shafto
New Member
I understand. And don't disagree, as far as the "stand up to see the curve" approach is concerned.
I think I can make an argument just from the vertical angular comparison from horizontal between the sailboat and the mountain peak that the surface must be convex.
But that approach is not the focus of this thread. I'm just latched onto that photograph. Thanks.
Money4Nothing
New Member
If you want to "stand up to see the curvature of the earth", simply watch the sun set lying down, then stand up and watch the sun set again. You can do this anywhere on earth.
tevans9129
New Member
"...certain realities"
Am I missing something here? I thought "realities" was a good thing.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
5 years later and why no one doing this?
Not even defenders of the glode.
Not even defenders of the glode.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
No one? Really How do you know this? Have YOU tried it yet?
Mendel
Senior Member.
Mick has pictures in post #1, I don't quite understand what you mean when you say nobody did it. I've had a telescope close to water myself and saw the same thing with some land just far enough across the water. You need to start out very close to the water if you want to have the "standing up" effect, if you start out higher up, you need to cover more of a height difference, e.g. with a drone:
Source: https://ms-my.facebook.com/flatearthws/videos/sunset-and-dronehttpsflatearthwsdrone-sunsetflatearthws-flatearthws_drone_sunset/4581194531985526/
I also have this nice picture of a rocket launch , and have seen similar circumstances of bright clouds over a dark Earth myself. You can see the rocket trail climbing out of the shadow into the sun.
(Photo credit here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/beautiful-photographs-that-show-the-earths-curvature.11456/ )
Rory
Closed Account
No one's doing what? Standing up to see the sun set twice?
I did it a few weeks ago.
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
That's 'cause you were on the beach in Baja right?
Oh wait, I'll be there on Friday! Guess I'll have to give it a try.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Thanks for repeating that - what a stunning photo!
FatPhil
Senior Member.
That's 'cause you were on the beach in Baja right?
Pics or it didn't happen.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Agreed @FatPhil (I like to think of you as SveltPhil) but I ran into a bit of a issue. We were at our friends place on the Eastern and gulf side of Baja, thus the sun set behind the mountains like this:
Therefore I endeavored to try the concept in reverse; sit down and watch the sun rise again. This presented a bit of a conundrum as after full days and fun nights it requires one to drag their ass out of bed well before dawn. Ideally well, well before dawn so I could head a number of miles down to the waters edge before sun rise.
Just didn't happen, but I tried an different version. I managed to get up a little before sunrise and headed up to the roof top deck of our friends place to snap a photo of the sun just rising, then quickly, headed 1/2 way down the stairs to snap another photo.
Alas, it didn't seem to work:
If anything the sun was further up when I went lower down. According to my Gaia GPS app, I was 440' above sea level, so it seems the effect didn't work here. But then there is this clearly visible mountain across the gulf:
The Sonoran side of the gulf is around 80 miles away, with some mountains being around 110 miles away. And then there was this "glowing orb" in one of my photos:
So now I'm thinking maybe the Earth is flat and my friends place is haunted.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I've had a look at the curve calculator ( https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ ), and due to curvature and standard refraction, the horizon dip changes by 0.04⁰ from 0 to 6 feet (large person standing up right at the edge of the sea), and by only 0.016⁰ going down 40 feet from 440 feet elevation. The sun's size is 0.5⁰, and to cover that angle, you'd need to rise to 930' (210m) from the water's edge. (Compare the drone video in post #137.)
That means the physics that enable "stand up to see the sunset twice" have to do with refraction close to water, a kind of "ducting" zone that you can exit by standing up. (Heath Carmody has posted some fine observations of that phenomenon on a mountain lake with a multi-camera setup, on his youtube channel.)
The curve calculator also reveals that at 440' elevation, the refracted hidden size at 110 miles distance is under 4000', so a mountain like Sonora Peak with its height of 11464 should still be mostly visible under normal conditions.
That means the physics that enable "stand up to see the sunset twice" have to do with refraction close to water, a kind of "ducting" zone that you can exit by standing up. (Heath Carmody has posted some fine observations of that phenomenon on a mountain lake with a multi-camera setup, on his youtube channel.)
The curve calculator also reveals that at 440' elevation, the refracted hidden size at 110 miles distance is under 4000', so a mountain like Sonora Peak with its height of 11464 should still be mostly visible under normal conditions.
I believe that's an actual glowing orb, no need for "quotation marks".
Seeing a full sunset seemed unlikely. When people are talking about seeing the sunset twice they generally are referring to the last glimpse of the sun. And quite often the examples are with a land horizon, where there's a lot more parallax.
BUT, here's a Sun setup in the refraction simulator. With standard refraction with eye level at 0.5 feet we have:
Link
Changing to 5.5 feet, we have:
Not a lot.
With a warm ocean though, we have this at 0.1
And this at 5.5' - quite a dramatic difference
The sun travels 360° in 24 hours, or 0.25°, half its diameter, per minute. If you are running from 440 feet to 220 feet, that's a change in horizon of 0.1° to see that amount of the sun set again you'd need to do it in twice the time it takes the sun to move 0.1°, or about 24 seconds.
Assuming about 10% grade in the steps you'd have to do it at 60 mph. Anything slower than 30mph means you'd be losing ground.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
So was I on the right track, assuming I was at the water's edge does it work in reverse with a sun rise?
And I wasn't going from 440' to 220', I wasn't anywhere near that ambitious. I assumed the GPS was giving me the ground elevation, 440', at my location. I was then on a roof top deck around 10'-12' above the ground when I took the first photo of the sun just starting to rise. Then a few seconds later I snapped the second one from the half-way landing of the stairs, so I only changed my elevation by 5'-6' in a few seconds.
Still seems like I need to be closer or right at the waters edge to even try to make this work. Fun to try though.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Last edited:
I don't think so - more like "lie down to see the sunrise again" - like if you lie down (or crouch real low) within a few seconds of the the sun peeking above the horizon, then it will be obscured again. (near the water)
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
So "near the water" is the important part here. I'll try again next time we head down there, maybe in the fall.
Yeah, very near, as in feet getting wet.
Ann K
Senior Member.
I once traveled a highway in Cleveland OH that has a wide unobstructed view, and noted the time at which a massive distant thunderhead went into shadow, long after dusk at my location. I looked up our local sunset time in the paper when I got home (long before the days of the internet), gave the cloud a nominal height of (if I recall) 30,000 or 35,000 feet, and used the curvature of the earth to do a rough estimate of the distance, then told my husband that it was raining like hell in Erie, Pa, about a hundred miles away. The next day's paper confirmed the flooding after a huge storm in Erie. It was just an exercise for fun. I never dreamed at that time that the curvature of the earth would be a disputed concept.
Similar threads
