^ I purposely chose a clip with a lots of refraction, to show the fluid dynamics, to show that the image is in focus.  |
|
|
|
 It's got a hexagon. |
|
|
|
|
@iluvbitcoins NASA gets $60 million USD a day tax money.
|
|
|
|
Mars is a small, close light maybe 3,000 or so miles up; it's a disc of electrical plasma.  What these guys are selling is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen! |
|
|
|
Here's a P1000 video clip:  [Mars]Lets compare:  Somebody is selling you a fairly tale. |
|
|
|
@HI-TEC99,  Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USMMSRP: $89,579 USD vs. Nikon P1000 | Focal length (equiv.): 24–3000 mm MSRP: $999.95 USD |
|
|
|
@odolvlobo,  
@guigui371, "...Do they just turn if off on the ceiling (of the dome) ?..."
Such irrationality. The sun is a close small object made from electrical plasma and it travels in a circle above us around the north pole. The earth is large enough that the sun only lights up part of the surface at once. The sun also has a yearly bi-annual lateral movement that accounts for the seasons. |
|
|
|
@odolvlobo, "...So, if I put my eye at ground level the sun doesn't appear to set?..."
How do you come to such an irrational conclusion? Lowering your perspective will cause a uniform compression of the sun as it sets, it will vanish sooner because of more complete compression. The vanishing point and thus the horizon has a reduced distance with your ear to the ground. If you stand up the sun will reappear as the topmost part of the sun is expanded. It returns so it's within the confines of the observers angular resolution limit due, to an increased angle of attack. While the sun is being compressed and passing the vanishing point at the horizon, looming magnifies its size. Looming as I stated before is caused by suspended water droplets in the atmosphere that create a composite lens.  edit:Here's some P1000 footage with filmed with a solar filter: Mission Bay Sunset: Atmosplanic Compression -- https://youtu.be/JJqNe10tG7I |
|
|
|
|
@odolvlobo,
That diagram depicts convergence to a point. That point is called the vanishing point and it's the limit of the observers vision, the Angular Resolution Limit. What that diagram doesn't depict is what's going on at the vanishing point, we'd need a zoomed in view to see how the objects are vanishing:
If the observers eye level was zero i.e. their ear touching the ground, objects would be uniformly compressed as they approach the ARL until they vanish (narrow band superior mirages not withstanding). However if the observers eye level is elevated, it increases their angle of attack and objects are no longer uniformly compressed as they vanish, the elevated perspective causes objects to be compressed bottom up.
It should be noted that as the observers angle of attack (eye elevation) increases, the topmost part of objects that have been compressed beyond the ARL become expanded, thus bringing them back into view and increasing the distance to the vanishing point.
This optical compression effect known as foreshortening can be easily demonstrated by checking a pool cue for deformations.
|
|
|
|
^^^ There are different kinds of refractive effects, you're confusing those caused by differences in air density with one that's caused by suspended water droplets. Looming is the magnification of an object from a composite lens of suspended water droplets. Differences in air density can cause the entire filed of view to rise up and become distorted but that's a separate effect more closely related to superior mirages. Anyway, I don't understand how the combination of magnification and foreshortening can cause the sun to appear to go below the plane. Are you saying that it actually doesn't, and instead it is compressed so much vertically that it can no longer be seen? Yes the foreshortening is a bottom up vertical compression, looming then magnifies the compressed image. A narrow band superior mirage is often also present and mirrors the bottom half. |
|
|
|
^   |
|
|
|
^  |
|
|
|
@odolvlobo, "...looming is taken into account with the setting sun. It is what causes the sun to appear to flatten out as it sets..."
The flattening effect with the setting sun is caused by perspective, foreshortening occurs as the sun approaches the angular resolution limit of the observer. This is not a refractive effect. "...you are using looming/refraction here to explain why the sun does not shrink as it gets farther away, but I think that your explanation raises more questions than it answers.
Can the effect be enough to account for the 3x magnification that would be necessary for the sun to be the same size when it is overhead and at dawn and dusk at the equator, and the 6x magnification necessary at the southern edge?
Why aren't other objects magnified like this? As other objects get farther away, their sizes should also be magnified in the same way..."
Other objects are magnified via looming i.e. any object in the distance that is loomed... eh? The atmosphere is a plane thus the looming effect is linear in nature and a function of distance from the observer, it accounts for what is observed perfectly. "...The looming effect raises the apparent elevation of an object, and globe believers use this to explain how we can see the tops of objects that should be below the horizon. How can the flat earth model reject looming in this case but accept it as the reason that the size of the sun doesn't change? Actually, I don't understand how looming is associated with magnification in the first place..."
Looming raises the apparent elevation of an object because the object is enlarged, clearly I'm not rejecting the effect. "...How does the flat earth model explain the setting sun? It can't be looming or even refraction in general because those have the opposite effect..."
Your understanding of refractive looming is incorrect, it causes magnification not just an apparent elevation rise. That combined with perspective foreshortening accounts for what is observed at sunset. |
|
|
|
|
@Paashaas that Antarctic cruse story is literal fake news.
|
|
|
|
|
@ðºÞæ I don't like that first video, his excessively liberal use of the word proof just muddies the waters; it adds nothing to the discussion.
When the globe theory is tested experimentally it fails horrifically on multiple levels. The earth is flat for as far as modern optics can see and no motion can be measured.
The real argument here is about the firmament and intelligent design. I can go on about rainbows, meteorites and the fact a pressure gradient can't exist without a container next to a vacuum but, access to Antarctica could settle this question directly.
|
|
|
|
|
@odolvlobo, you're correct about the encyclopedia entry. The highlighted sentence is describing the features of the land. As you point out nearby mountains are referred to as "domes" due, most likely to their featureless nature.
edit:
In regards to the setting sun, the refractive effect of looming is not taken into account by "modern science"; the heliocentric model is assumed thus a refractive effect causing magnification due to an atmospheric plane is excluded from consideration. However when the scientific method is applied the refractive effect of looming can be experimentally observed to occur over relatively long distances and must apply to the sun.
You need to realize that "modern scientists" wander off through mathematical models based on assumptions and presuppositions and end up on a mad carnival ride spinning in their mind.
I can admit when I've made a mistake, can you?
|
|
|
|
A globalists conception of Antarctic circumnavigation: What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
Earl-eye in the morning
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning
Shave his belly with a rusty razor
Shave his belly with a rusty razor
Shave his belly with a rusty razor
Earl-eye in the morning
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning
Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter
Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter
Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter
Earl-eye in the morning
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
Earl-eye in the morning
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning
Put him in the back of the paddy wagon
Put him in the back of the paddy wagon
Put him in the back of the paddy wagon
Earl-eye in the morning
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning
Throw him in the lock-up 'til he's sober
Throw him in the lock-up 'til he's sober
Throw him in the lock-up 'til he's sober
Earl-eye in the morning
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
Earl-eye in the morning
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
What do you do with a drunken sailor
Earl-eye in the morning
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning! |
|
|
|
|
^^^ I'll admit it's possible I'm wrong about the encyclopedia entry, like you say it is a mainstream publication however, [80°22′S 77°22′E] is located 150 miles away from [80°S 90°E] so you're an idiot for claiming the entry refers to Dome Argus.
|
|
|
|
^^^ There is no outer space it's a hoax, there's a dome (firmament) covering the earth. The shore of Antarctica (the edge) is a wall of ice and yes you can fall back into the ocean. The entire heliocentric Copernican model goes in the trash, we are not a disc in space. The sun, moon and stars are small close objects inside the dome and are made of electrical plasma, they circle above the earth.
 |
|
|
|
^^^ Your attempt to debunk that encyclopedia entry with .gov propaganda and tar me as a fool is a bad joke, let me explain: The encyclopedia article says the dome is 13,000 feet high "at about latitude 80°S., longitude 90°E.", and you claim I'm a fool because there's a mountain at "80°22′ S 77°22′ E" with dome in its name. "this lack of knowledge and skill in math".   |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
