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?
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.
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: Doctor Manhattan 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.
So the base of the mointain isn't visible because it is to far but the more distant peak of the mountain is well visible? Did you think that up yourelf or is the gibberish a lesson from the University of YouTube?
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.
Quoting: Doctor Manhattan How do you come to the conclusion that refraction means nothing in the near infrared between 800 nm and 1000 nm? Another gibberish lesson from the UoY?
The drop in the refraction index in the visible range of light is just 0.01 per mille: 1.000299 at 400 nm and 1.000291 at 800 nm. [
link to aty.sdsu.edu (secure)]
If you claim that the drop is significant heigher in the near infrared range, you have to provide evidence for your claim.
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.
Quoting: Doctor Manhattan You didn't have a look at the calculator I linked too, did you? [
link to www.metabunk.org (secure)] No, you didn't since it would burst you flat bubble.
Btw.: The camera was not at ground level but at 60 meters (197 feet), a big difference in what you see and what you don't see.
And again: If you claim that refraction does not apply in the near infrared range, you have to provide evidence for your claim.
Again, going back to, we see too far.
Quoting: Doctor Manhattan Wrong. We see exactly what we should see given the distance, the observer height and the target height, regardless of visible light or near infrared.
.
