Recommendation for the channel author, if you want to see all the comments, when uploading the video (or you can edit the settings after uploading), sort them by "Newest first". Thank you.
I was expecting to see bare dirt bluffs and houses beyond the horizon. And that is what I saw. Some people expected 2nd and maybe third horizons out farther!
@@fromjesseit looked curved in youre foreground and not your background. That division is interesting. Like do you see Chicago physically where it is so that you can traverse to it in good faith… without projected penguins hopping above the line
This is not black swan. Protection island is the mile marker you yearn for: its 5 miles out, right where the horizon should be (and is be!) Search Google maps for port Williams sequim then measure the distance to protection island. It's right where the globe model prediction says it should be!
> _I'm willing to bet this is a black swan, to bad you don't have any mile markers._ OK I did your homework for you. Here are the coordinates and distances of the two Buoys seen. BUOY YELLOW FLASH 2.5S 48.205927,-123.109623: 8.05 miles. BUOY RED FLASH 4S 48.192316,-123.094622: 6.92 miles. What we don't know is how tall they are. Obviously we are not seeing all of them, and clearly the one that's a mile closer has a whole lot more showing. Even at 8.05 miles, WITHOUT THE AID OF REFRACTION, the hidden height is still only 7 feet. I'm pretty sure those buoys are taller than 7 feet! At 6.92 miles, WITHOUT THE AID OF REFRACTION, the hidden height is only 2.94 feet, and we KNOW those markers have to be taller than that!!
@@fromjesse It's still curving up , just refracting more which makes it appear lower than it actually is. (It's backwards for concave as you know, so we want to make sure we use the correct inversions when considering it)
@@ConcaveHollowEarth Yeah yeah yeah, I know you think it is actually concave even though it looks and measures for all the globe like umm a convex surface of a sphere :D
@@fromjesse When searching for the true path of light, and factoring in all considerations earnestly, one is required to also invert the proper variables when testing for, say, the possiblity of earth being concave and light bending up. We cannot ignore the fact that, with increased refraction, light bends UP at a GREATER rate in the concave earth, causing light to appear lower than it actually is. This is specifically the reason how, if were concave, we would see the horizon dip more and more as we go up higher and higher like we do. The reason is because we are seeing light further away, which takes a greater curved path upwards, which to the observer makes it appear lower than it actually is We can't just simply-only look at eye level, beneath eye level, and above eye level. We need to penetrate deeper
@@ConcaveHollowEarth Don't forget our deal: You need to get a least one concave earth convert who can then tell me all about concave earth. So far you have not presented a single bit of evidence as to why light would be curving the opposite direction that we measure it. I have talked with your concave leaders and they don't have an answer either.
The flat surface on which you are standing should never run exactly across the center of the theodolite. One plane is where you stand, the other is the center of the level. Why should they meet at the same level if they are at different heights? Yes, the perspective will bring them closer, but this is just an illusion, the zoom will again increase the height difference between them. This is nonsense that the vast majority of people believe. And if you still think that the horizon of a flat surface should be straight, like a stretched string, then you are seriously mistaken. And if you realize that the horizon should always be slightly curved, you will also realize that this would contradict the concept of supposed "eye level."
So, on a flat earth, just how far do you think the horizon should be? What should the angle to the horizon be? Can you calculate that? My optical center was 15.5ft above the surface of the water. The horizon was about 5 miles away. (Protection Island is 5 miles away.) So what angle do you predict I will measure to the horizon?
@@fromjesse I am ONLY talking about the plane, and what it should look like without the effects of the Atmosphere. When I say Atmosphere, I mean that which contains the so-called "waves" and so on, and I don't mean changing humidity, temperatures and that which is relatively temporary. So why do you ask a lot of irrelevant questions, why do you need to know that angle? What does it change? Again, if you don't realize that the horizon of the plane should ALWAYS be slightly curved, then you're just standing still, even though you think you're moving.
@@fromjesse Look, let's take this option. I can see a mountain 206 kilometers away at 15 meters above sea level. The mountain is visible 800 meters more than it should be on a round earth. So if the light were to bend down at a height of 15 meters, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to see the mountain more than the shape of the earth's surface would allow. But as the light bends upwards, part of the mountain is obscured for me as it optically settles down. Exactly the same applies to the SURFACE OF THE SEA, it sits down and forms a sharp boundary of the horizon. This is logical in both cases, but illogical if the light were to bend downwards.
@@fromjesse Great question! arccos=3959/3959.00293561=4'11.2" to the geometric horizon. I have the refraction angle at 18.8" (assuming standard refraction) Shaving off the assumed refraction the angle becomes 3'52.4". With one FL and one FR lands you in the 68% confidence.
Recommendation for the channel author, if you want to see all the comments, when uploading the video (or you can edit the settings after uploading), sort them by "Newest first". Thank you.
What were you expecting to see?
I was expecting to see bare dirt bluffs and houses beyond the horizon. And that is what I saw. Some people expected 2nd and maybe third horizons out farther!
@@fromjesse so what is your conclusion if any?
@@profphilbell2075 I conclude that the water sure looks like it's curved!
@@fromjesseit looked curved in youre foreground and not your background. That division is interesting. Like do you see Chicago physically where it is so that you can traverse to it in good faith… without projected penguins hopping above the line
@@fromjesseand you can’t actually conclude some curve from this? In your mind!? What are you talking about?! There’s no curve.
I'm willing to bet this is a black swan, to bad you don't have any mile markers.
This is not black swan. Protection island is the mile marker you yearn for: its 5 miles out, right where the horizon should be (and is be!)
Search Google maps for port Williams sequim then measure the distance to protection island.
It's right where the globe model prediction says it should be!
> _I'm willing to bet this is a black swan, to bad you don't have any mile markers._
OK I did your homework for you. Here are the coordinates and distances of the two Buoys seen.
BUOY YELLOW FLASH 2.5S 48.205927,-123.109623: 8.05 miles.
BUOY RED FLASH 4S 48.192316,-123.094622: 6.92 miles.
What we don't know is how tall they are. Obviously we are not seeing all of them, and clearly the one that's a mile closer has a whole lot more showing.
Even at 8.05 miles, WITHOUT THE AID OF REFRACTION, the hidden height is still only 7 feet. I'm pretty sure those buoys are taller than 7 feet!
At 6.92 miles, WITHOUT THE AID OF REFRACTION, the hidden height is only 2.94 feet, and we KNOW those markers have to be taller than that!!
I’m willing to bet that you would lose your bet.
Curving up !
Not this time. Here is curving down!
@@fromjesse It's still curving up , just refracting more which makes it appear lower than it actually is. (It's backwards for concave as you know, so we want to make sure we use the correct inversions when considering it)
@@ConcaveHollowEarth Yeah yeah yeah, I know you think it is actually concave even though it looks and measures for all the globe like umm a convex surface of a sphere :D
@@fromjesse When searching for the true path of light, and factoring in all considerations earnestly, one is required to also invert the proper variables when testing for, say, the possiblity of earth being concave and light bending up.
We cannot ignore the fact that, with increased refraction, light bends UP at a GREATER rate in the concave earth, causing light to appear lower than it actually is.
This is specifically the reason how, if were concave, we would see the horizon dip more and more as we go up higher and higher like we do. The reason is because we are seeing light further away, which takes a greater curved path upwards, which to the observer makes it appear lower than it actually is
We can't just simply-only look at eye level, beneath eye level, and above eye level. We need to penetrate deeper
@@ConcaveHollowEarth Don't forget our deal: You need to get a least one concave earth convert who can then tell me all about concave earth.
So far you have not presented a single bit of evidence as to why light would be curving the opposite direction that we measure it. I have talked with your concave leaders and they don't have an answer either.
The flat surface on which you are standing should never run exactly across the center of the theodolite. One plane is where you stand, the other is the center of the level. Why should they meet at the same level if they are at different heights? Yes, the perspective will bring them closer, but this is just an illusion, the zoom will again increase the height difference between them. This is nonsense that the vast majority of people believe.
And if you still think that the horizon of a flat surface should be straight, like a stretched string, then you are seriously mistaken. And if you realize that the horizon should always be slightly curved, you will also realize that this would contradict the concept of supposed "eye level."
So, on a flat earth, just how far do you think the horizon should be? What should the angle to the horizon be? Can you calculate that?
My optical center was 15.5ft above the surface of the water. The horizon was about 5 miles away. (Protection Island is 5 miles away.)
So what angle do you predict I will measure to the horizon?
@@fromjesse I am ONLY talking about the plane, and what it should look like without the effects of the Atmosphere. When I say Atmosphere, I mean that which contains the so-called "waves" and so on, and I don't mean changing humidity, temperatures and that which is relatively temporary.
So why do you ask a lot of irrelevant questions, why do you need to know that angle? What does it change? Again, if you don't realize that the horizon of the plane should ALWAYS be slightly curved, then you're just standing still, even though you think you're moving.
@@fromjesse Look, let's take this option. I can see a mountain 206 kilometers away at 15 meters above sea level. The mountain is visible 800 meters more than it should be on a round earth. So if the light were to bend down at a height of 15 meters, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to see the mountain more than the shape of the earth's surface would allow. But as the light bends upwards, part of the mountain is obscured for me as it optically settles down. Exactly the same applies to the SURFACE OF THE SEA, it sits down and forms a sharp boundary of the horizon. This is logical in both cases, but illogical if the light were to bend downwards.
@@fromjesse Great question! arccos=3959/3959.00293561=4'11.2" to the geometric horizon. I have the refraction angle at 18.8" (assuming standard refraction)
Shaving off the assumed refraction the angle becomes 3'52.4". With one FL and one FR lands you in the 68% confidence.
@@algirdasbartusevicius473 Whats the height of the mountain?