Turning Torso obstruction, telescope video, 12th February 2019
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 січ 2025
- Video taken from 25km of distance and 3.85m of height.
Focal length: 2907mm, 1900mm telescope with a SLR camera with a crop factor of 1.53
Photographs:
2019:02:12 16:01:39, day flic.kr/p/SFZLay and with 3D model flic.kr/p/2fP5whP
2019:02:12 17:31:44, day/night flic.kr/p/24dCS5v
2019:02:12 18:35:47, night flic.kr/p/24dCRjH
Distance 25km
Observer height: 3.85m
Air/water temperature: 2-4°C, other weather data flic.kr/p/S7aa6i
Obscured observed: 21.3m
Obscured on a globe Earth, geometrical: 25.42m
Obscured on a globe Earth, geometrical with std. 7/6 refraction: 20.45m
Height of Turning Torso: flic.kr/p/2f28vnT
Observation point: www.google.dk/...
#TurningTorsoFlatEarth
I guess you uploaded this video because of the arguments of our genius Nathan Oakley, Gary Wybenga and others claiming a reduced angular resolution near water level?
I can see that the relation of the last visible row of windows compared to the window rows above is independend of the zoom factor.
And there is no change in the relation of the buildings (or what's remaining visible) in the foreground compared to the tower. 👍
Yes the flat earthers have many strange "explanations" for why obstruction occur. My video of Turning Torso from 2016 ua-cam.com/video/MoK2BKj7QYk/v-deo.html showed pretty much what there is to show. But I wanted a bit more clear and high resolution observation and also able to photograph at night so I bought a telescope and after a couble of months of trying this is the most clear undistorted result which I'm quite happe about.
Second!
A nice short video. Only a pity You didn't include the capture from another altitude. If You lowered the camera to 0.9m, the expected obscured height would've been ~10m or 50% greater (30.64m with std. 7/6 refraction).
P.S. Applying the dry adiabatic lapse rate of -0.00976[K/m], P=1026.8[mbar] (from the weather data provided) and the T= 275.15
- 277.15[K] to the more general estimation from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Terrestrial_refraction yields the refraction of nearly exactly 7/6 (k≈0.1674 for 2°C and k≈0.165 for 4°C).
Edit: Sorry, I forgot it's 1/(1-k) not 1+k as I thought, therefore the expected refraction was ~6/5 rather than 7/6. Still, that should yield close to 20m of obstruction and Your video shows that.
I actual took a photo from higher up with an observer height of 11.7m flic.kr/p/S7eRBv Since there is an island in the view it can be a little difficult to see the exact amount obscured but I guess around 9-12m.
In this other video I observed from four different heights, but there was a lot of atmospheric compression on that day ua-cam.com/video/yPfWEHVINss/v-deo.html
@@MathiasKp Oh, I personally don't mind compression, but I saw Your response to Ranty Flat Earth, so it's nice no visible compression is here. And that video You've linked to is really nice: viewer's elevations: 0.4m, 2.5m, 5.4m and 17.2m, distance: ~28.4km. Also, the island (Saltholm, I suppose) wasn't a problem from that location. Nice!
@@MCMaterac My first time here, but, I just found out that Ranty has recanted!! He now has a new YT page, with a growing bunch of GE videos! How about that!
@@rbtree Yes, I saw few months ago. Good for him :) Still ranting I guess, although now on the right side. I saw one of his videos - he has nice sense of humor.
So the distance to the horizon from that height is 7km (please feel free to check this in case I have it wrong). The wave height and swell (you assure us) is 1m. So where is the calculation for perspective? I assume what would be hidden (if the earth is indeed flat) would be perspective size of a one meter wave at 7km and (minus) the perspective size of the reduction in size of the buildings in the foreground of 18km. Does that make sense or do you not take perspective into consideration? (I do not know the values of the perspective reduction, I just want to know if they are considered as a factor in your observations and if not , why not?)
_"I assume what would be hidden (if the earth is indeed flat) would be perspective size of a one meter wave at 7km"_ The 7km is the horizon on a globe, not on a flat Earth. On a flat Earth you just need to have the camera above the height of the wave/swells and then the amount obscured (on a flat Earth) will be less than the height of the waves/swells.
It is only if you have a wave/swell larger than the camera that you will need to factor in the perspective size of the reduction. So if you have the camera at 0.5m and at 4km there is 1m tall wave then the distance to the Turning Torso (25km) divided by 4km will give the factor you can multiply with the wave/swell height to get the amount obscured on a flat Earth. 25/4=6.25 and 1m*6.25=6.25m, so then there would be 6.25m obscured on a flat Earth. Hope that cleared things up.
On second thought I see what you meant. On a globe with the horizon 7km away, we then get a perspective factor of 25km/7km=3.57 and 3.57*1m=3.57m so on a globe Earth the camera height, in this example, needs to be higher than 3.57m in order for waves/swells not to obscure parts of the building.
@@MathiasKp Thanks, but where does that rule come from regarding the camera height, surely perspective becomes an issue at the horizon not at the starting point? so if the wave height is 1m and the horizon is 7 km but the object being viewed is at 25 km then at 7km you effectively have the camera height below the wave height. Does that make sense. Appreciate the reply though.
@@Dilly972 You're right I wrote another reply, that crossed your reply. See above.
@@Dilly972 One way of avoiding too much guessing about the waves/swells is to have an object say halfway. On this photo flic.kr/p/2icBrNd there is a small house 1/3 of the way to Turning Torso, that is a good way to see if it is waves that blocks the view. Also here is video about that observation ua-cam.com/video/hEAyKb8wSZY/v-deo.html
Meget flot linse.
8 inches/mile squared. 25km= 15 miles. That's A LOT of curvature. About 7meters. You pretty much just prove that this globe model is bs. Thanks
On a globe Earth over 25km and from a height of 3.85m there will be about 20-25m obstructed. In this observation there is about 21m obstructed flic.kr/p/2fP5whP .
Curve calculator: www.metabunk.org/curve/?d=25&h=3.85&r=6371&u=m&a=n&fd=60&fp=3264
@@MathiasKp My math was off as well. As much as I still am a globe sceptic due to the massive lies, good video.
@@MartinLeifland Thanks, I try do as honest observations as possible. You may also like my first Turning Torso video where I observe from many different distances ua-cam.com/video/MoK2BKj7QYk/v-deo.html
@@MartinLeifland What globe lies? By whom? And why? It ain't flat. Be glad.