Thank you, Mathias. Very interesting indeed. (1) Observation (2) Collation of data (3) Presentation of data (4) Interpretation of data. Good science! From this, can you produce a hypothesis that addresses the FE assertion that loss of image from the bottom up (e.g. at the horizon) is caused solely by compression? Kind regards.
Thanks. Well it might be difficult to do only using these observations, but take a look at drive.google.com/open?id=1zgYrqXzVz4EFBOWd-MeTdvHDFalNGziE there I have compared observations from different days. And the less visible distortions, the better the match for a globe Earth is. So essential one could ask the question: Is the shape of the Earth best represented when we are seeing the most or the least amount of distortions? But then again, my first vide of Turning Torso should be enough evidence th-cam.com/video/MoK2BKj7QYk/w-d-xo.html
I wonder whether you are seeing compression here as a result of the top being compressed downward. I think that you are seeing compression as a result of the bottom being compressed upward. The most compression at the lowest viewpoint, the largest deviation from expected hidden and the weather conditions point imo in that direction. It was summer, so the temperature of the water is probably lower than that of the air, which produces looming, an effect that is stronger in the first 10 meters above sea level and diminishes higher up.
That’s a good question. I also would guess it is the bottom being compressed upwards. Here drive.google.com/open?id=1zgYrqXzVz4EFBOWd-MeTdvHDFalNGziE you can see a side by side comparison I did of observations on different days but from the same location. I aligned all the photos so the top with no distortion matches. And if you look at the third photo from the left, it also shows how more of Turning Torso (horizon lower on the building) is visible but in less amount of space (the horizon appear higher relative to the other photos). A little difficult to explain but look at the image and you will see what I mean.
@@MathiasKp I'm glad you agree with me. It's important, because flerfers claim that the compression is causing the bottom to disappear. But the opposite is true: the compression shows more of the bottom than should be expected without any refraction being present. It's a very interesting series of photographs you have shown me, maybe you could make a video about that. It clearly shows which way the compression works and that inferior mirages don't block things, they show even more of the tower (the horizon being much lower still). I think it could end the discussion about atmospheric effects obstructing your view at the bottom of objects (quod non). Although I'm afraid nothing will convince flerfers of their erroneous beliefs.
@@frankdebrouwer-leiden _”… I think it could end the discussion…”_ After watching Flat Earth videos for three years now, I’m pretty sure no amount of evidence will ever convince them. But then again, this is not my purpose, only to provide solid observations we can trust, and then maybe fewer people will fall for the disinformation out there. I have been contacted by education organizations that wanted to use my observations, so I guess that in the future they will try to educate children a little better using actual real life observations they can do themselves. So when asked why they think the Earth is a sphere they will be able to answer better than most people today. I have like 5-10 videos coming up, one of them of the photo series I showed you. I have also over two years of observations from 65m flic.kr/p/2asHbQ3 where I can use the top of buildings to find intersection height on Turning Torso and model what best fit FE or GE. I’m so lucky to have access to a LiDAR scan which will give me very accurate building heights. And from 65m of altitude the amount of change in refraction is almost gone, so every photo I have taken so far shows the same intersection height. Tomorrow I hope to have a several day long timelapse of the view from about 40m of height (though not of Turning Torso) to be able to further justify that variable refraction is not a thing in the intermediate atmosphere (20/30m - 100m). Other videos like of this flic.kr/p/WcGDHb where I used a very close to rectilinear lens centre frame (many actual have a little distortion also centre frame) to capture the “horizontal” curve of the horizon and funny enough it matches with the expected curve of a globe Earth. But it takes some time to get all the details right distortion test, calculation etc. I will guess that I within the next maybe two months will have released most of these videos that should cover what to expect from refraction both variable and constant ( mathscinotes.com/2013/08/distance-to-the-horizon-assuming-refraction/ ) but as you point out yourself properly nothing will make them changes their minds. But I still find joy in going out and be able to make these observations and I have learned a lot the last three years both about science but also about the strange mind of us humans.
@@MathiasKp I enjoy your videos very much and I look forward to the upcoming ones. I myself have stopped making videos. Indeed, it is useless to try to convince flerfers and besides, I got insulted a few times too much. Probably because I dealt with the theoretical side of the question. I see that you get a lot less insults in the comment section. I think it is because your pictures are rock solid and can´t be interpreted any other way. I referred a lot to your turning torso videos and I found that that shut flerfers up rather definitively. Keep up the good work.
Godt arbejde. Gode observationer. Sådan ser virkeligheden ud! Må din video bruges af andre? Mere specifikt, må jeg vise dine observationer på flat earth debate?
Takker, du må gerne vise videoen hvor du nu skulle have behov for. Ja virkeligheden er lidt anderledes end man lige umiddelbart tror, jeg har i hvert fald lært rigtig mange ting jeg ikke kendte til før jeg havde hørt om FE. Lige disse observationer er fra en sommerdag, tænker at jeg også vil prøve at gøre det samme en vinterdag. Jeg har også lavet nedenstående sammenstilling af observationer fra forskellige dage, du måske finder interessant. Jeg har endnu ikke lavet en video om disse, men gør det på et tidspunkt. Turning Torso, forskellige dage: drive.google.com/file/d/1zgYrqXzVz4EFBOWd-MeTdvHDFalNGziE/view
+Brenda, _"Can you do these experimenta you are doing from a different location..."_ Do you mean different distances like in this other video I did? th-cam.com/video/MoK2BKj7QYk/w-d-xo.html
@@brendahernandeznazario6740 I did these other observations of an island with some small buildings on changing the observer height from 4m to 10m th-cam.com/video/0AlPl9XVPA0/w-d-xo.html
@@brendahernandeznazario6740 _”Now, what do you think about this experiment”_ It shows the same as my own observations, close to the surface of Earth the variable refraction is very large and can bend light in various ways. Making the outcome unpredictable. I did a test with three 3m sticks flic.kr/p/22AHP1g , and around sunset within 40min my observations both matched a hollow Earth/globe Earth/flat Earth. We need to observe from a greater height if we want to be able to trust our observations not to change the amount of bend, preferable from over 20 or maybe 30m of height. In this article you can read some more about how much the refraction changes at different altitudes agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014067
@@sasilik Above the water has evaporation increasing not only humidity, but heterogenety of the enviroment. By the way...the great error of mathias is to compare differents heights. He should make several observations from the same height and so make the analysis....how do you want compare something in a place if you change your position?
@@MatrixTerraPlana, water does not evaporate significantly and does not increase humidity in such factor that it affects anything. Provide observations with data and measurements otherwise you are making things up. And look at the video. There is text at the upper part where it is written what he does and why. You literally stated here that you didn't watch the video but just commented and made up some BS.
@@sasilik Dude if you want a true about that you should make observations from the same place. Match frequency of light, moisture and temperature. At the same place the sight gonna be change...so he can make analisys. Remember....ANALISYS AT THE SAME PLACE under severals conditions of temperature, moisture and, of course, frequency of the light. Dont you know that we see further in red light? If mathias was took his footage at dusk he will see more. Hugs buddy
@@MatrixTerraPlana, what are you talking about? Why there is need for such multiple observations from same place? His goal with these observations was to determine how observer height affects the atmospheric compression seen near horizon. How in the hell you determine that if you don't change your observation place and altitude? As I said, you didn't even watch the video but just went to comment and made up some BS.
Thank you, Mathias. Very interesting indeed. (1) Observation (2) Collation of data (3) Presentation of data (4) Interpretation of data. Good science!
From this, can you produce a hypothesis that addresses the FE assertion that loss of image from the bottom up (e.g. at the horizon) is caused solely by compression?
Kind regards.
Thanks. Well it might be difficult to do only using these observations, but take a look at drive.google.com/open?id=1zgYrqXzVz4EFBOWd-MeTdvHDFalNGziE there I have compared observations from different days. And the less visible distortions, the better the match for a globe Earth is. So essential one could ask the question: Is the shape of the Earth best represented when we are seeing the most or the least amount of distortions? But then again, my first vide of Turning Torso should be enough evidence th-cam.com/video/MoK2BKj7QYk/w-d-xo.html
I wonder whether you are seeing compression here as a result of the top being compressed downward. I think that you are seeing compression as a result of the bottom being compressed upward. The most compression at the lowest viewpoint, the largest deviation from expected hidden and the weather conditions point imo in that direction. It was summer, so the temperature of the water is probably lower than that of the air, which produces looming, an effect that is stronger in the first 10 meters above sea level and diminishes higher up.
That’s a good question. I also would guess it is the bottom being compressed upwards. Here drive.google.com/open?id=1zgYrqXzVz4EFBOWd-MeTdvHDFalNGziE you can see a side by side comparison I did of observations on different days but from the same location. I aligned all the photos so the top with no distortion matches. And if you look at the third photo from the left, it also shows how more of Turning Torso (horizon lower on the building) is visible but in less amount of space (the horizon appear higher relative to the other photos). A little difficult to explain but look at the image and you will see what I mean.
@@MathiasKp I'm glad you agree with me. It's important, because flerfers claim that the compression is causing the bottom to disappear. But the opposite is true: the compression shows more of the bottom than should be expected without any refraction being present. It's a very interesting series of photographs you have shown me, maybe you could make a video about that. It clearly shows which way the compression works and that inferior mirages don't block things, they show even more of the tower (the horizon being much lower still). I think it could end the discussion about atmospheric effects obstructing your view at the bottom of objects (quod non). Although I'm afraid nothing will convince flerfers of their erroneous beliefs.
@@frankdebrouwer-leiden _”… I think it could end the discussion…”_ After watching Flat Earth videos for three years now, I’m pretty sure no amount of evidence will ever convince them. But then again, this is not my purpose, only to provide solid observations we can trust, and then maybe fewer people will fall for the disinformation out there. I have been contacted by education organizations that wanted to use my observations, so I guess that in the future they will try to educate children a little better using actual real life observations they can do themselves. So when asked why they think the Earth is a sphere they will be able to answer better than most people today.
I have like 5-10 videos coming up, one of them of the photo series I showed you.
I have also over two years of observations from 65m flic.kr/p/2asHbQ3 where I can use the top of buildings to find intersection height on Turning Torso and model what best fit FE or GE. I’m so lucky to have access to a LiDAR scan which will give me very accurate building heights. And from 65m of altitude the amount of change in refraction is almost gone, so every photo I have taken so far shows the same intersection height.
Tomorrow I hope to have a several day long timelapse of the view from about 40m of height (though not of Turning Torso) to be able to further justify that variable refraction is not a thing in the intermediate atmosphere (20/30m - 100m).
Other videos like of this flic.kr/p/WcGDHb where I used a very close to rectilinear lens centre frame (many actual have a little distortion also centre frame) to capture the “horizontal” curve of the horizon and funny enough it matches with the expected curve of a globe Earth. But it takes some time to get all the details right distortion test, calculation etc.
I will guess that I within the next maybe two months will have released most of these videos that should cover what to expect from refraction both variable and constant ( mathscinotes.com/2013/08/distance-to-the-horizon-assuming-refraction/ ) but as you point out yourself properly nothing will make them changes their minds. But I still find joy in going out and be able to make these observations and I have learned a lot the last three years both about science but also about the strange mind of us humans.
@@MathiasKp I enjoy your videos very much and I look forward to the upcoming ones. I myself have stopped making videos. Indeed, it is useless to try to convince flerfers and besides, I got insulted a few times too much. Probably because I dealt with the theoretical side of the question. I see that you get a lot less insults in the comment section. I think it is because your pictures are rock solid and can´t be interpreted any other way. I referred a lot to your turning torso videos and I found that that shut flerfers up rather definitively. Keep up the good work.
Godt arbejde.
Gode observationer.
Sådan ser virkeligheden ud!
Må din video bruges af andre? Mere specifikt, må jeg vise dine observationer på flat earth debate?
Takker, du må gerne vise videoen hvor du nu skulle have behov for.
Ja virkeligheden er lidt anderledes end man lige umiddelbart tror, jeg har i hvert fald lært rigtig mange ting jeg ikke kendte til før jeg havde hørt om FE. Lige disse observationer er fra en sommerdag, tænker at jeg også vil prøve at gøre det samme en vinterdag.
Jeg har også lavet nedenstående sammenstilling af observationer fra forskellige dage, du måske finder interessant. Jeg har endnu ikke lavet en video om disse, men gør det på et tidspunkt.
Turning Torso, forskellige dage: drive.google.com/file/d/1zgYrqXzVz4EFBOWd-MeTdvHDFalNGziE/view
Can you do these experimenta you are doing from a different location, and still get the same results???
+Brenda, _"Can you do these experimenta you are doing from a different location..."_ Do you mean different distances like in this other video I did? th-cam.com/video/MoK2BKj7QYk/w-d-xo.html
No; I mean like from a different place, observing a different building or buildings. Perhaphs a lighthouse, or a bridge... located in another place.
@@brendahernandeznazario6740 I did these other observations of an island with some small buildings on changing the observer height from 4m to 10m th-cam.com/video/0AlPl9XVPA0/w-d-xo.html
Ok. Perfect. Thanks. Now, what do you think about this experiment: m.th-cam.com/video/ZNgE0hU1J7w/w-d-xo.html
@@brendahernandeznazario6740 _”Now, what do you think about this experiment”_ It shows the same as my own observations, close to the surface of Earth the variable refraction is very large and can bend light in various ways. Making the outcome unpredictable.
I did a test with three 3m sticks flic.kr/p/22AHP1g , and around sunset within 40min my observations both matched a hollow Earth/globe Earth/flat Earth. We need to observe from a greater height if we want to be able to trust our observations not to change the amount of bend, preferable from over 20 or maybe 30m of height.
In this article you can read some more about how much the refraction changes at different altitudes agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014067
You decreased refraction by decreasing moisture as you going up
Do you have any data about humidity at different altitudes on current day and location or you are just making it up?
@@sasilik
Above the water has evaporation increasing not only humidity, but heterogenety of the enviroment.
By the way...the great error of mathias is to compare differents heights. He should make several observations from the same height and so make the analysis....how do you want compare something in a place if you change your position?
@@MatrixTerraPlana, water does not evaporate significantly and does not increase humidity in such factor that it affects anything. Provide observations with data and measurements otherwise you are making things up.
And look at the video. There is text at the upper part where it is written what he does and why. You literally stated here that you didn't watch the video but just commented and made up some BS.
@@sasilik
Dude if you want a true about that you should make observations from the same place.
Match frequency of light, moisture and temperature. At the same place the sight gonna be change...so he can make analisys.
Remember....ANALISYS AT THE SAME PLACE under severals conditions of temperature, moisture and, of course, frequency of the light.
Dont you know that we see further in red light?
If mathias was took his footage at dusk he will see more.
Hugs buddy
@@MatrixTerraPlana, what are you talking about? Why there is need for such multiple observations from same place? His goal with these observations was to determine how observer height affects the atmospheric compression seen near horizon. How in the hell you determine that if you don't change your observation place and altitude? As I said, you didn't even watch the video but just went to comment and made up some BS.