|
Post Content
|
As expected: bullshit video #51 Distance = 123 miles Observer height = 63 meters (Point Dume, Malibu) Target height = 3302 meters (Mt. San Jacinto) Applying standard refraction 1880 meters of Mt. San Jacinto is hidden and 1422 meters are visible. The buildings visible in the foreground are from the Marina del Rey at a distance of 31 km. Given the observers height, less then 10 cm are hidden of the buildings. [ link to www.metabunk.org (secure)] Why do these flat-earth-distance-fuckwits never take atmospheric refraction into account? Is it on purpose, to deliberately deceive the watchers, or is it stupidity? The mountains should not be visible, if the curve were true (your having a functional disconnect here). But they are, which means, there is no curve. Refraction or not, it would not cause the entire mountain range that would be behind a curve to magically appear over the horizon. Refraction/mirages do not work that way at all. The only thing visible at that camera altitude if we were on a globe, would be a section of the top of the mountains - but instead we can clearly see it way more than just the peak, ... I gave you the link to a correct calculator for calculating what part of an object is hidden and what is visible: [ link to www.metabunk.org (secure)] Only if atmospheric refraction is not taken into account, only a small part of the mountain should be visible. Unfortunately, for the flattards, atmospheric refraction is real - and applying standard refraction, from the 3302 meter high mountain 1880 meters are hidden and 1422 meters are visible. And, isn't it funny, that it fits with the numbers (in feet) given in the video at 5:00. [ link to www.youtube.com (secure)] (I hope you can convert meters into feet.) ... some of it hidden obviously because of distance and where the sky meets the land horizon line, but at that distance its called convergence and the image gets so tiny it gets compressed visually but nothing drastic like a mirage, and it certainly would not magically lift a mountain over the horizon because were using infared.
Quoting: Doctor Manhattan Does that gibberish make any sense? No. I don't get why so many refuse to see that, the end result is better anyway and more logical, God is real. Would you rather God not be real and us a random speck like they want to sell you, because the price ain't worth it.
Quoting: Doctor Manhattan So your god can only create a pizza earth? My God can create a complete universe from a single, tiny point. A universe that develops itself into galaxies, stars, planets, .... You should feel intense shame that you diminish God by claiming, he can only create a pizza-earth. . Your mocking shit you don't understand at all. "a pizza earth" Guess what, that "pizza earth" is providing everything right now, its your existence, so you can mock all you want. Your god is nothing but CGI and AI, and the elite controlling pawns like you. If fine dude, believe the earth is round, because they tell you, ignore reality. and this part, I was just typing too fast and annoyed by ignorant cunts like yourself, I deal with oblivious people all the time you're no different.
"... some of it hidden obviously because of distance and where the sky meets the land horizon line, but at that distance its called convergence and the image gets so tiny it gets compressed visually but nothing drastic like a mirage, and it certainly would not magically lift a mountain over the horizon because were using infared."
Quoting: Hydra what I was wanting to write was , ...some of it is hidden obviously because of distance (more distance, the more the visual drop of an object behind the horizon/over the curve), also right above the buildings where the buildings and mountains meet at the horizon level, theres a small section thats cut off visually because its too far to visually render the base of the mountain where it meets the top of the buildings at the horizon level. In a mirage, you can clearly see the horizon line by the mirroring effect, which is literally non existant in the infrared video. Aside from very small compression - which won't "lift" the mountain's into view. Sorry, that is not logical at all. Refraction means nothing in the infrared video which is the point i was trying to make. Changing optics won't make the mountains magically appear, using any of your words, just because. It would only show a small portion/peak right over the buildings, but you don't understand that. The only way for the mountain to be in view like it was in the video, if we were on a Globe, the camera altitude would have had to been few thousand feet up. But the Camera is at ground level, and we see the mountain... (this is where your common sense should kick in) especially since theres no/minimal refraction/optical illusions to hide behind. Again, going back to, we see too far.
|
