See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words (PT 14 & 15)
Source:
YT
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Y9cy6ujvc
Published: Dec 8, 2019
Author: ThePotter'sClay
Post Date: 2020-02-13 11:45:56 by Liberator
Keywords: TRUTH, EARTH, FLAT, NASA
Views: 1461
Comments: 30
Part 14: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Y9cy6ujvc Part 15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQV1I3T-XC8 Memes are effective and popular in that don't require much time and patience, yet....they provide instant, extensive information from which to process. These memes (Part 14 & 15) are the last in a series that thus far. They focus on Realm-Truths, reinforcing real-world observations, exposing and challenging life-long mental imprinting & programming, the scriptural reinforcement of our realm & reality, and...Common Sense. The 'ThePottersClay' YouTube website is a very worthy source of truth -- whether from a Christian viewpoint or secular viewpoint. YouTube Web Page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpEdOLvL6olNghR-BWghUQA
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#1. To: Liberator (#0)
What do sunrays and railroad tracks have in common? Both are parallel.
Both are parallel. Parallel sunrays. Yes. In certain cases. (Btw, how does one explain hundreds of miles of parallel train tracks AND no allowance made for any curve IF the earth's supposed curve is a given?) The sun's rays present a few conundrums for the realm/science curious... Parallel sunlight (especially shining on water lower in the sky) that is viewed straight from the horizon all the way to the observer on the beach is not possible were this realm were a globe; It's only possible on a FLAT surface. (Yes, I've watched several vids on this exact subject as well.) With respect to the sun's "parallel" rays, yes, they *may* look parallel, but then again, at times not so much. Ever hear of "Crepuscular Rays"? (I've quickly found these two vids): Moreover...those "Crepuscular Rays" as seen shining through the clouds? They can only be the result of a *local* sun -- not one that's 93 million miles away. Triangulation measurements indicate the sun is actually only around 3,000 miles away from earth, and within the Firmament. (I know, I know ;-)
No, they do not. They pose a conundrum only for flat earthers. I never heard of Eratosthenes. The image I posted shows how parallel lines can appear to not be parallel. Since railroad tracks don't actually converge, the photo illustrated how sun rays, "crepuscular rays" as I learned from you they are called, can appear to converge but actually not do so. The second video you posted shows this optical illusion, made possible by the fact that the extreme distance away removes the advantage of binocular vision giving depth perception. All the rays shown ARE parallel, but the portion of the rays near the earth surface are much, much closer than the portion of rays higher up, just as the RR tracks are far closer at the bottom of the pic then they are higher up. For that reason, placing a straight-edge ruler on the screen to estimate the altitude of convergence would fail or the same reason that doing it on the RR tracks in my pic would fail. For the Exact. Same. Reason. I honestly thought my posted pic would expose the "crepuscular rays" for the illusion that they are, or at least for what they could be. I was wrong. If we were to take that second video at face value and say it was not an optical illusion and did triangulation, the sun would only be about twice the altitude of the clouds, which would mean there's no way it could be 3000 miles away. It would be much more like 5000 to 15,000 feet up. Even if the sun were only 3000 miles away, rays from it would still be very close to parallel in the few miles field of view shown in 2nd video. The claim that the "official explanation" of these rays is that the atmosphere refracts the light is certain NOT true. That's a fake, strawman argument the narrator creates and then shoots down. While such atmospheric refraction does occur, it would not be noticeable to the naked eye for someone on the ground. The real reason: Optical illusion. I have to say I'm disappointed to have failed to convince you there's even one *possible* hole in this one single argument. I thought that would be easy with the pic I posted.
No, they do not. They pose a conundrum only for flat earthers. They obviously do. And did. But then again this is the case for EVERYONE because there are several points of contention even in your simple example as well as in my follow up. There are theories and observations that can be genuinely be challenged and contentious. And that is my point. I never heard of Eratosthenes. The image I posted shows how parallel lines can appear to not be parallel. Since railroad tracks don't actually converge, the photo illustrated how sun rays, "crepuscular rays" as I learned from you they are called, can appear to converge but actually not do so. To be honest, neither had I ever heard of Eratosthenes. But because Globe-Earthers now cite him as a scientific/mathematical formulaic source of the cosmological measurement, he's directly involved in the fray. Regarding your example of parallel/not-parallel... What *I* see: Flat earth on the horizon (no curve) Train tracks disappearing (or "converging") into the horizon due to perspective and a vanishing point. Our vision is obviously limited. (In either PT 14 or 15, even the end of a hotel hallway disappeared due to this same vanishing point.) In my vids, sunrays that splay in all directions (but on water surface, are actually seen as a parallel line of sunray.) I don't believe "Crepuscular rays" were what was in effect from the sun at the horizon over the train tracks. But do splay outward through clouds. They do appear to converge back into the seemingly apparently local sun location (not in your traintrack photo, but in my vids). The second video you posted shows this optical illusion, made possible by the fact that the extreme distance away removes the advantage of binocular vision giving depth perception. All the rays shown ARE parallel, but the portion of the rays near the earth surface are much, much closer than the portion of rays higher up, just as the RR tracks are far closer at the bottom of the pic then they are higher up. For that reason, placing a straight-edge ruler on the screen to estimate the altitude of convergence would fail or the same reason that doing it on the RR tracks in my pic would fail. For the Exact. Same. Reason. But see? Aren't you assuming an "optical illusion" AND "extreme distance" of the sun based on mathematical theories of cosmological distances? ( that's how Eratosthenes became involved in the 93 mil vs. 3,000 mi discussion.) Yes, there is some distortion and questions posed because of the fluctuations in lens focus; The vid is a shorty. It wasn't intended to resolve any question -- just demonstrate how parallel sunrays, angles, and distances are...THEORIES and relative. If you took your ruler and tried to measure angles according to formulas and convergence -- and as you say, "it failed," that *may* be true. But in every case? What if you're/they're using an erroneous baseline to begin with? (Just sayin') What I'm also saying is, we can't just take the word of mathematicians and scientists who devised the formula/theory 400 years ago as a default "fact." Heck -- we see the very same shut-down of challenge to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. We'd also seen the same of Darwin's Theory of Evolution banked and slammed in the vault of "established scientific" Dogma. I honestly thought my posted pic would expose the "crepuscular rays" for the illusion that they are, or at least for what they could be. I was wrong. Dunno if it was about you being right or wrong. Maybe its about why, who, and from whom a particular dogma was established and became etched in stone. If we were to take that second video at face value and say it was not an optical illusion and did triangulation, the sun would only be about twice the altitude of the clouds, which would mean there's no way it could be 3000 miles away. It would be much more like 5000 to 15,000 feet up. Even if the sun were only 3000 miles away, rays from it would still be very close to parallel in the few miles field of view shown in 2nd video. Well, maybe now in that case "optical illusion" is legit. It might provide a good challenge to those who claim the sun is indeed only 3,000 miles away. (Though it does appear to be MUCH closer than a sun that's "millions" of miles away. That number (3,000 miles) is actually one that has long been calculated and confirmed by several mathematicians/cosmologists between 1860-1920s. In 'Kings Detrones' (Gerrard Hickson), he addresses the calculations head on (short concise book, under 100 pages. Also a free read online.) Being a geometry guy, I'd assume you'd find his kind of stuff and tackling those formulas far more interesting than me. Exactly for the reasons you'd seek (either way of the debate.) The claim that the "official explanation" of these rays is that the atmosphere refracts the light is certain NOT true. That's a fake, strawman argument the narrator creates and then shoots down. While such atmospheric refraction does occur, it would not be noticeable to the naked eye for someone on the ground. The real reason: Optical illusion. Ping, that's ONE man's theory. Versus what seems to be a "scientific" consensus. Some of his own counter-theories may certainly be challenged. I'm not saying they can't. Two things are certain; "Optical Illusion" is a real phenomena. Both natural AND man-made. The problem seems to be that one side has on its side "Optical Illusion" for convenient cover; The other side, not so much, and NO benefit of doubt on *its* theories. That in itself creates a default censorship or shut-down if and when "scientific" Dogma is challenged. EVEN with respect to theories of Evolution, Big Bang, and the rest of that Magic Bag. I have to say I'm disappointed to have failed to convince you there's even one *possible* hole in this one single argument. I thought that would be easy with the pic I posted. Until or unless something or issue is *proven* without a shadow of doubt, there are always "holes" in any argument. Especially in and of Theories. The be honest, that photo was at best provided ambiguity -- as well as a few personal observations I'd shared. The "convincing" part from your perspective -- I didn't see it. Then again, I thought the balloon video of a non-moving, flat earth was "convincing."
Here is the effect of a wide angle lens. We can agree that the courtyard shown in actually flat, but the effect of the wide angle lensing is to distort the left/right outside edges -- that are below the center of the image -- upward. The L/R outside edges above the image center would be distorted downwards. Note the roof of the building appears almost flat, which is due to it being very close to image center. The balloon video shown, if it used a wide angle lens, which would be the recommended choice for such a high altitude video, would similarly distort the L/R edges below the image center upwards, resulting in less earth curvature being recorded. In the video, the earth horizon is indeed below the image center, and I contend the distortion of the wide angle lensing matched very closely the natural earth curvature resulting in what appears to be a flat horizon. Perhaps that was even by design. We can note that the horizon remains below the image center in the video and moves very little. If the camera moved up and down, the wide angle distortion would be readily apparent. In fact, perhaps it is apparent with the small movements if very careful analysis is done. It was not my intent to disprove flat earth with that simple image. It was only to point out that the Crepuscular ray visual effect alone does not prove the sun is very close to the earth. I.e. it was to poke a hole in that one single argument. If I have created room for doubt on that single argument, then I succeeded.
#14. To: Pinguinite (#11)
Note the roof of the building appears almost flat, which is due to it being very close to image center. Brutha -- We absolutely ad and certainly agree on the actual warping and distortion of lensing -- especially at the far outer edges as opposed to the center of the given subject. (cool photo btw.) In THIS case, even the photo-center and roofs aren't flat to my eyes; ALMOST, but, not really. The balloon video shown, if it used a wide angle lens, which would be the recommended choice for such a high altitude video, would similarly distort the L/R edges below the image center upwards, resulting in less earth curvature being recorded. In the video, the earth horizon is indeed below the image center, and I contend the distortion of the wide angle lensing matched very closely the natural earth curvature resulting in what appears to be a flat horizon. Perhaps that was even by design. [regarding the Balloon footage] We can note that the horizon remains below the image center in the video and moves very little. If the camera moved up and down, the wide angle distortion would be readily apparent. In fact, perhaps it is apparent with the small movements if very careful analysis is done. Even you have to concede -- your theory or possibility is a long stretch. Well...the camera IS attached to a balloon, remember. Why speculate and presume that camera to be a wide-angle lens whose distortion is creating an absolute level horizon? Would even a tiny bit of movement via scrutiny and analysis create distortion that would monetarily reveal even the most minute curvature?... IF this was the case, we can be absolutely positive Globe-Advocate would have exposed this anomaly, and...celebrating it. Even if we concede the slight possibility of a wide angle lens which might be distorting the far ends of the earth horizon, couldn't *that* be attributed more to limitations of our eye-sight? Maybe...maybe...the Horizon IS flat and level. And the "design" was merely to photograph the horizon's actual and true view. If there is a "natural earth curvature", how would we even determine it? Logic tells us NASA and its photos and vid should be THE gold standard. But oddly, its not the case 50 years later. Instead what we've gotten from NASA is...earth depicting far more extreme curvature than should be expected. And quite a bit of obvious fish-eye action. If anything -- and I think you'd agree -- NASA photographs and video have been consistently *inconsistent* and painfully lacking --if anything. For a Space agency that claims to have shot hundreds if not thousands of spacecraft and Satellites into earth orbit -- as well as several missions to the Moon and back -- wouldn't and *shouldn't* there be mountains of photographs AND video available of the Earth from countless angles and distances that put this entire question of the shape of our Realm/Globe to rest? It was not my intent to disprove flat earth with that simple image. It was only to point out that the Crepuscular ray visual effect alone does not prove the sun is very close to the earth. I.e. it was to poke a hole in that one single argument. If I have created room for doubt on that single argument, then I succeeded. Ping, I appreciate your perspective and challenge -- and any case, of any discussion. That's what a forum is about. Crepuscular rays. I agree. As stand-alone "evidence," is does not prove a "local, close sun." In *some* cases it may provide evidence that the sun is far closer than we are told. Moreover, as I've mentioned more than a few times, certain scientists & researchers (see Gerrard Hickson) have already concluded via geometric triangulation formulas that the sun is about 3,000 miles away. The subject of Crepuscular Rays does seem to pose additional challenges and questions for "Science" as well a mathematicians in re-explaining their original formulas for calculating distances to bodies in the Cosmos in the FIRST place. ALL unproven Theories should not be considered "Science" -- never mond dogma at that.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Pinguinite (#1)
What do sunrays and railroad tracks have in common?
#6. To: Liberator (#2)
The sun's rays present a few conundrums for the realm/science curious...
Triangulation measurements indicate the sun is actually only around 3,000 miles away from earth,
#10. To: Pinguinite (#6)
(Edited)
("The sun's rays present a few conundrums for the realm/science curious...")
#11. To: Liberator (#10)
Until or unless something or issue is *proven* without a shadow of doubt, there are always "holes" in any argument.
Replies to Comment # 11. Here is the effect of a wide angle lens. We can agree that the courtyard shown in actually flat, but the effect of the wide angle lensing is to distort the left/right outside edges -- that are below the center of the image -- upward. The L/R outside edges above the image center would be distorted downwards.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.