Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 12 Apr '18 16:28
    YouTube

    You always asked for a zoomed-in/zoomed-out from a 31-mile distant shot.
    Here's one from that distance using a P900 camera from Nikon showing the Rogers Center from across the water... which should be completely out of the line of sight, but clearly is completely visible.

    For what it's worth.
  2. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    12 Apr '18 16:32 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    [youtube]__liPsAYnJs[/youtube]

    You always asked for a zoomed-in/zoomed-out from a 31-mile distant shot.
    Here's one from that distance using a P900 camera from Nikon showing the Rogers Center from across the water... which should be completely out of the line of sight, but clearly is completely visible.

    For what it's worth.
    That's a Fata Morgana...for what its worth.

    Here is a similar phenomenon on the same lake, you can easily see the atmospheric distortions when the photographer zooms in!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage)#Lake_Ontario
  3. 12 Apr '18 17:07
    Originally posted by @joe-shmo
    That's a Fata Morgana...for what its worth.

    Here is a similar phenomenon on the same lake, you can easily see the atmospheric distortions when the photographer zooms in!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage)#Lake_Ontario
    It would appear as so... at first.

    The Fata Morgana (fairy sea dwellers, for one definition from the Italian to the English via the Welsh) is...
    "... an unusual and complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon."
    "... a mirage consisting of multiple images, as of cliffs and buildings, that are distorted and magnified to resemble elaborate castles."
    [and it will]
    "... significantly distort the object or objects on which they are based, often such that the object is completely unrecognizable."

    From Wikipedia, with emphasis added:

    The optical phenomenon occurs because rays of light are bent when they pass through air layers of different temperatures in a steep thermal inversion where an atmospheric duct has formed.
    (A thermal inversion is an atmospheric condition where warmer air exists in a well-defined layer above a layer of significantly cooler air.
    This temperature inversion is the opposite of what is normally the case; air is usually warmer close to the surface, and cooler higher up.)


    Not only are the temperatures relatively the same in both spots, they are relatively the same at both spots, too.
    Meaning, there doesn't exist a steep thermal inversion in temperature as no atmospheric duct has formed.

    Additionally, not only are none of the objects distorted, none of them are oriented to the land upon which they rest if that land is indeed curved away from the observer.
    In other words, they aren't angled away from the observer, but rather, at 90° to the ground around them.
  4. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    12 Apr '18 18:00
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    It would appear as so... at first.

    The Fata Morgana (fairy sea dwellers, for one definition from the Italian to the English via the Welsh) is...
    "... an unusual and complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon."
    "... a mirage consisting of multiple images, as of cliffs and buildings, that are distorted and ma ...[text shortened]... words, they aren't angled away from the observer, but rather, at 90° to the ground around them.
    I should probably just stop but...

    "Not only are the temperatures relatively the same in both spots, they are relatively the same at both spots, too.
    Meaning, there doesn't exist a steep thermal inversion in temperature as no atmospheric duct has formed."

    I don't know what you are getting at here. The atmospheric distortion of the light is evident in the video. If you cannot see the image shimmering you should take a visit to the ophthalmologist!

    "Additionally, not only are none of the objects distorted, none of them are oriented to the land upon which they rest if that land is indeed curved away from the observer.
    In other words, they aren't angled away from the observer, but rather, at 90° to the ground around them."

    We are talking about absolute worst case a deviation from normal of 0.446 degrees. What ultra precise measurements did you ( or the video taker) perform on that day to confirm that the buildings were not foreshortened by the miniscule 0.003 % ? What specifically leads you to believe that the image is perpendicular to the observer as opposed to 90.45 degrees relative to the observer?
  5. 13 Apr '18 14:23
    Originally posted by @joe-shmo
    I should probably just stop but...

    "Not only are the temperatures relatively the same in both spots, they are relatively the same [b]at
    both spots, too.
    Meaning, there doesn't exist a steep thermal inversion in temperature as no atmospheric duct has formed."

    I don't know what you are getting at here. The atmospheric distortion of the light is e ...[text shortened]... the image is perpendicular to the observer as opposed to 90.45 degrees relative to the observer?[/b]
    I don't know what you are getting at here. The atmospheric distortion of the light is evident in the video. If you cannot see the image shimmering you should take a visit to the ophthalmologist!
    Yes, heat waves are emanating off the water’s surface, magnified by the camera lens.
    The visible images, however, are neither separated from the surface or distorted to an unrecognizable degree, as is observed in fata morgana images otherwise.


    We are talking about absolute worst case a deviation from normal of 0.446 degrees.
    The bigger point, of course, is how objects which--- in their entirety--- are visible at all.
    There shouldn’t be even one building to observe, and yet the cityscape is perfectly and proportionately represented, exactly on the horizon where one would expect to see it.
  6. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    13 Apr '18 15:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    [b]I don't know what you are getting at here. The atmospheric distortion of the light is evident in the video. If you cannot see the image shimmering you should take a visit to the ophthalmologist!
    Yes, heat waves are emanating off the water’s surface, magnified by the camera lens.
    The visible images, however, are neither separated from the surface ...[text shortened]... fectly and proportionately represented, exactly on the horizon where one would expect to see it.[/b]
    "On 25 August 1894 Scientific American described a remarkable mirage seen by the citizens of Buffalo, New York.[34]


    Mirage of the Canadian coast as seen from Rochester, New York on 16 April 1871
    A Mirage Seen at Buffalo, N.Y. The people of Buffalo, N.Y., were treated to a remarkable mirage, between ten and eleven o'clock, on the morning of August 16, 1894. It was the city of Toronto with its harbor and small island to the south of the city. Toronto is fifty-six miles from Buffalo, but the church spires could be counted with the greatest ease. The mirage took in the whole breadth of lake Ontario, Charlotte, the suburbs of Rochester, being recognized as a projection east of Toronto. A side-wheel steamer could be seen traveling in a line from Charlotte to Toronto Bay. Two dark objects were at last found to be the steamers of the New York Central plying between Lewiston and Toronto. A sail-boat was also visible and disappeared suddenly. Slowly the mirage began to fade away, to the disappointment of thousands who crowded the roofs of houses and office buildings. A bank of clouds was the cause of the disappearance of the mirage. A close examination of the map showed the mirage did not cause the slightest distortion, the gradual rise of the city from the water being rendered perfectly. It is estimated that at least 20,000 spectators saw the novel spectacle. This mirage is what is known as that of the third order; that is, the object looms up far above the level and not inverted, as with mirages of the first and second orders, but appearing like a perfect landscape far away in the sky. — Scientific American, August 25, 1894."

    In the past 44,895 days since this event why has the city of Toronto not been visible in Buffalo?
  7. 13 Apr '18 21:08
    Originally posted by @joe-shmo
    "On 25 August 1894 Scientific American described a remarkable mirage seen by the citizens of Buffalo, New York.[34]


    Mirage of the Canadian coast as seen from Rochester, New York on 16 April 1871
    A Mirage Seen at Buffalo, N.Y. The people of Buffalo, N.Y., were treated to a remarkable mirage, between ten and eleven o'clock, on the morning of August 16 ...[text shortened]... n the past 44,895 days since this event why has the city of Toronto not been visible in Buffalo?
    In the past 44,895 days since this event why has the city of Toronto not been visible in Buffalo?
    Good question.
    The event described isn’t a fata morgana, if the account is accurate.
    The person describes a scene wherein no distortion is prevalent, one which “showed the mirage did not cause the slightest distortion, the gradual rise of the city from the water being rendered perfectly.”

    In very nearly all accounts of the phenomena, the clarity of distant objects is so poor as to make distinction next to impossible.
    Those who don't report distortion don't report anything other than g
    Additionally, the images people report observing otherwise are inverted, not upright.


    Here’s some pics of different types of mirages from academia.edu, by Defrizal Markoni:

    file://dta0099p01/userdata/w625mgr2/Documents/Fata_Morgana_mirage.pdf

    Among other highlights…

    Fata Morgana mirages distort the object or objects which they are based on significantly, often such that the object is completely unrecognizable.


    In another article, from the Clinical Experimental Optometry (2003; 86: 2: 109–120)
    The Min Min light and the Fata Morgana: An optical account of a mysterious Australian phenomenon
    By John D Pettigrew

    This explanation is based on the inverted mirage or Fata Morgana, where light is refracted long distances over the horizon by the refractive index gradient that occurs in the layers of air during a temperature inversion.


    And another targeting mirages in general, from Andrew Young:

    https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirintro.html

    In all of these pics and descriptions, the images are distortions of objects distant to the observer, caused by atmospheric refraction.

    The list of such observances is long, but the parameters are the same.
    Without the ideal temperature conditions, these mirages simply do not appear.
    Contract that dependency to the reliability of observation of distant objects regardless of temperature and another bigger question arises.
    Namely, why are distant objects which are thought to be beyond the horizon observable all the time?

    As I’ve described many times during the conversations on the topic, from my vantage point on Lake Erie, we are able to see objects 20 and 30 miles across the water which ought to be completely out of sight.
    These objects are distinguishable, and do not appear to float in the air or even above the horizontal line.
    They are visible during the day or night, on any given calendar day regardless of season.
    One impediment to their visibility: bad weather, or haze.
    Otherwise, anyone can see them at any time.
    The reason I posted this video is because one particularly obstinate poster charged me with lying (makes literally zero sense and is unsupported by any such behavior) and further challenged me to provide a photograph of the same.
    Since I don’t own a camera beyond my phone, this video’s maker used a kick-ass Nikon P900 which provided an excellent example of zoom in/zoom out from the recorder’s vantage point in order to allay concerns of cheating.

    These types of recordings and images are abundant all over the internet; ones which show the exact same reality, none of which can be attributed to atmospheric refraction causing mirages.
  8. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    13 Apr '18 23:24
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    [b]In the past 44,895 days since this event why has the city of Toronto not been visible in Buffalo?
    Good question.
    The event described isn’t a fata morgana, if the account is accurate.
    The person describes a scene wherein no distortion is prevalent, one which “showed the mirage did not cause the slightest distortion, the gradual rise of the ...[text shortened]... e exact same reality, none of which can be attributed to atmospheric refraction causing mirages.[/b]
    YouTube&t=317s
  9. 15 Apr '18 01:58
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcdBFfoi3uU&t=317s
    Other videos of Saltair have already proven that Cody's calculations are wrong.
    You asked for a video of an object 20-30 miles distant which showed the zoom in as well as the zoom out and an established point of origin.
    The video posted does exactly what you asked for.
    That observation is possible on nearly any given day of the year, removing mirage from any possibility as the cause.
    Without coincidence, the same is true of my (nearly) daily observations across Lake Erie.

    The purpose of posting wasn't to start a dialogue--- although I'm not opposed, given certain parameters, of course--- as much as it was to deliver on the request.

    What you do with it is your choice.
  10. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 Apr '18 22:02 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    Other videos of Saltair have already proven that Cody's calculations are wrong.
    You asked for a video of an object 20-30 miles distant which showed the zoom in as well as the zoom out and an established point of origin.
    The video posted does exactly what you asked for.
    That observation is possible on nearly any given day of the year, removing mirage fr ...[text shortened]... of course--- as much as it was to deliver on the request.

    What you do with it is your choice.
    I posted a video of a guy who looked across some lake at buildings then went to a higher altitude, not all that much higher either, where now the view showed more of the bottoms of the buildings but you rejected it out of hand because it didn't suit your agenda.

    YouTube

    If I remember you said you couldn't see the buildings because of the waves, even though the tips of the waves were clearly measured in inches, a very calm sea for this video.

    Or this:

    YouTube
  11. 17 Apr '18 00:45
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    I posted a video of a guy who looked across some lake at buildings then went to a higher altitude, not all that much higher either, where now the view showed more of the bottoms of the buildings but you rejected it out of hand because it didn't suit your agenda.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bco_p4V7-QU

    If I remember you said you couldn't see the b ...[text shortened]... ches, a very calm sea for this video.

    Or this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs
    There is no agenda.
    I honestly don't know what to make of it.
    What is unmistakable is that we are able to see distant objects which are mathematically impossible to see on a curved surface, and that (for the most part) none of this visibility has anything to do with mirages or refraction.
    We're not seeing the results of bent light: we're seeing the objects themselves.
  12. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    17 Apr '18 02:03 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    There is no agenda.
    I honestly don't know what to make of it.
    What is unmistakable is that we are able to see distant objects which are mathematically impossible to see on a curved surface, and that (for the most part) none of this visibility has anything to do with mirages or refraction.
    We're not seeing the results of bent light: we're seeing the objects themselves.
    "We" are seeing the evidence of a curved Earth at face value. "You" are not.

    Incidentally here is another mirage on the shores of lake Michigan. Pretty darn clear image if you ask me.

    YouTube
  13. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 Apr '18 16:55 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    There is no agenda.
    I honestly don't know what to make of it.
    What is unmistakable is that we are able to see distant objects which are mathematically impossible to see on a curved surface, and that (for the most part) none of this visibility has anything to do with mirages or refraction.
    We're not seeing the results of bent light: we're seeing the objects themselves.
    You don't seem to be able to understand the image you see are due to atmospheric effect, your agenda is clearly to show Earth is flat. You now deny this? You just said you don't have an agenda.

    You also dismiss my statement that on the moon, no atmosphere or any other moon or planet with no atmosphere, there will NEVER be the chance of seeing over the horizon because with no air there is no bending of light, except for the tiny tiny relativistic effect of the mass of the object, if it is massive enough there will be visible bending but that is for masses like the mass of the sun squashed down to the size of Manhattan. Other than that there is ZERO bending of light to the horizon on the moon or any other airless body out there. The sun bends light passing near the surface at that famous angle, 1.75 seconds of arc, discovered by Einstein, or in radians about 8E-6 (8 millionths of a radian, a radian being about 57 degrees)

    So your agenda will immediately segway to: Dismiss as irrelevant since you 'know' Earth is flat, period, no other option possible.
  14. 21 Apr '18 20:05
    Originally posted by @joe-shmo
    "We" are seeing the evidence of a curved Earth at face value. "You" are not.

    Incidentally here is another mirage on the shores of lake Michigan. Pretty darn clear image if you ask me.

    [youtube]vbn9BBppR5g[/youtube]
    Except the evidence you are citing doesn't support such a conclusion.

    If mirages appear under certain conditions, any image perceived without those conditions present must necessarily be something other than a mirage.

    Since the appearance of distant objects is not attributed to mirages in far more situations than any example we have of the mirages, how can we explain the appearance of distant objects otherwise?
  15. 21 Apr '18 22:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @joe-shmo
    "We" are seeing the evidence of a curved Earth at face value. "You" are not.

    Incidentally here is another mirage on the shores of lake Michigan. Pretty darn clear image if you ask me.

    [youtube]vbn9BBppR5g[/youtube]
    Edit:
    Unintentional double-post.