And had you watched the video with the mirror experiment, you would know they gave over double the height of both the camera and the mirror and accounted for the believed refraction as well.
And had you watched the video with the mirror experiment, you would know they gave over double the height of both the camera and the mirror and accounted for the believed refraction as well.
You posted a video that was ridden with heat mirage. Light refraction wasn't taken into account in that video. The car literally appeared 20 feet in the air at times.
Smarter people than me need to talk about this subject and examine this upcoming experiment but I know that air density, mirage, etc bends light. Water is also extremely reflective.
Picture from one of the links I posted above.
Look I'm all for finding proof either way but it needs to be done correctly with everything taken into account.
I'm just glad you haven't tried to use planes flying off the earth as an argument lol.
Maybe you should reread the part where I said smarter people than me would need to talk about and examine as I'm not an expert. I do know that water reflects and light can bend due to atmospheric factors. So for something like this I would think reflection and refraction needs to be taken into account.
The empirical evidence for my previous post is the screen shots of the vehicle doing it's best impression of a GTA floating car cheat code.
Maybe you should reread the part where I said smarter people than me would need to talk about and examine as I'm not an expert. I do know that water reflects and light can bend due to atmospheric factors. So for something like this I would think reflection and refraction needs to be taken into account.
The empirical evidence for my previous post is the screen shots of the vehicle doing it's best impression of a GTA floating car cheat code.
OK, you know, but don't know the formula which is easily obtainable and does not come close to accounting for many of the scenarios discussed.
And now, to be fair, include the screen shots of the vehicle clearly on the ground. No one denies that under certain conditions these "mirages" happen. But, when we can replicate the identical scenario multiple times under different conditions, refraction cannot be the excuse.
For example, the video with the mirror experiment, they gave over double the height of both the camera and the mirror and accounted for the believed refraction as well. You claim flat earthers lie about this, but there is video evidence of proof that they gave NASA believers all the extra help in the world - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND AS YOU CLAIMED.
Please, seriously now, give me an honest 39 seconds of your time and watch the video below. Watch it twice, three times, as many times as you like and tell us...
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE CONFUSED THINGS MOVING BEHIND A CURVED HORIZON WITH A VANISHING POINT?
Did you read the above post, lol? I mentioned he will be doing the same experiment, but over a 30+ miles distance. This will be live on the 2nd. We all should watch the above video and then watch live on the 2nd.
OK, you know, but don't know the formula which is easily obtainable and does not come close to accounting for many of the scenarios discussed.
And now, to be fair, include the screen shots of the vehicle clearly on the ground. No one denies that under certain conditions these "mirages" happen. But, when we can replicate the identical scenario multiple times under different conditions, refraction cannot be the excuse.
For example, the video with the mirror experiment, they gave over double the height of both the camera and the mirror and accounted for the believed refraction as well. You claim flat earthers lie about this, but there is video evidence of proof that they gave NASA believers all the extra help in the world - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND AS YOU CLAIMED.
I'm not watching a 53 minute video and probably not watching on sunday.
Since you watched it was reflection off water mentioned? They accurately accounted for the reflection, refraction, angles of camera & mirror, etc in combination with atmospheric conditions? What I mean by angles is for the perception of reflection. I can go look at a pool and change the reflections by changing my angle, height, distance. Those reflections can also change by angle of light and light conditions. A mirror reflecting light actoss a surface that reflects seems flawed from the start imo. Like for example if you watch a sunset on water you get a reflection from essentially horizon to shore line.
I did not claim anyone lies or call anyone a liar. One of your links I didn't see a factor added, maybe I missed it but if I did you could have pointed it out when I posted my link showing the formulas I thought to be correct. I pointed out what I perceived as flaws. I just think these things are extremely complicated to test and accurately account for all conditions if you want to prove one thing or the other. A reason why I wouldn't try to make one of these experiments as definitive proof.
Honestly though most of that video was pure mirage, if you pause on "stuck" at the end there is a clear horizon line and nothing but miraged salt, sky and car for idk 20+ feet.
Please, seriously now, give me an honest 39 seconds of your time and watch the video below. Watch it twice, three times, as many times as you like and tell us...
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE CONFUSED THINGS MOVING BEHIND A CURVED HORIZON WITH A VANISHING POINT?
I'm not watching a 53 minute video and probably not watching on sunday.
Since you watched it was reflection off water mentioned? They accurately accounted for the reflection, refraction, angles of camera & mirror, etc in combination with atmospheric conditions? What I mean by angles is for the perception of reflection. I can go look at a pool and change the reflections by changing my angle, height, distance. Those reflections can also change by angle of light and light conditions. A mirror reflecting light actoss a surface that reflects seems flawed from the start imo. Like for example if you watch a sunset on water you get a reflection from essentially horizon to shore line.
I did not claim anyone lies or call anyone a liar. One of your links I didn't see a factor added, maybe I missed it but if I did you could have pointed it out when I posted my link showing the formulas I thought to be correct. I pointed out what I perceived as flaws. I just think these things are extremely complicated to test and accurately account for all conditions if you want to prove one thing or the other. A reason why I wouldn't try to make one of these experiments as definitive proof.
Sure
Honestly though most of that video was pure mirage, if you pause on "stuck" at the end there is a clear horizon line and nothing but miraged salt, sky and car for idk 20+ feet.
"Stuck" is towards the end. If you use the scroll bar you should find it pretty quickly. It's the final position of the car then they cut to talk about it.
"Stuck" is towards the end. If you use the scroll bar you should find it pretty quickly. It's the final position of the car then they cut to talk about it.
Did you read the above post, lol? I mentioned he will be doing the same experiment, but over a 30+ miles distance. This will be live on the 2nd. We all should watch the above video and then watch live on the 2nd.
Started watching video. Eyes rolled back in my head. I've no aptitude for science and don't care enough to overcome it. I believe that @RerouteToRemain can launch a projectile into a target at great distance with mathematically-enhanced accuracy. And that that math would take into account gravity and curvature equations. I believe that this contest is a stacked deck and that nobody here has been clever enough to expose the magician's trick. Lastly, I don't think this forum has the exposure to and confidence in our scientific members to extract any meaningful truths here.
Still don't know what I'm looking for on the 2nd, but if it's past 10pm Hawaii I'm out.
Started watching video. Eyes rolled back in my head. I've no aptitude for science and don't care enough to overcome it. I believe that @RerouteToRemain can launch a projectile into a target at great distance with mathematically-enhanced accuracy. And that that math would take into account gravity and curvature equations.
This isn't about launching anything. One guy goes to a shore with a mirror. Miles away, on the other side, someone starts shooting with a high-zoom camera. If he can see the mirror's reflection, there is no curvature unless you want to believe that it's possible to see through buildings that are several miles high.
I believe that this contest is a stacked deck and that nobody here has been clever enough to expose the magician's trick. Lastly, I don't think this forum has the exposure to and confidence in our scientific members to extract any meaningful truths here.
If replicable science based on our scientific method is stacking the deck unfairly against the globe believers, then they might wish to rethink their position, no?
It is 39 seconds showing a lighthouse with a high-zoom. As the camera pulls back, it disappears along with the land that is clearly seen. The point is that we must never conflate a vanishing point with the belief that these objects are somehow over a curved horizon since we have PROVEN THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE!
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.