This blog is for nonprofit, educational purposes - media is incorporated for educational purposes as outlined in § 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.

Friday, October 13, 2017

Deconstructed - Auguste Piccard: “It seemed a flat disk with upturned edge”

Deconstructed - Auguste Piccard: “It seemed a flat disk with upturned edge”

Is it possible he means it looked like an upturned disk?  As in, you see a bit of horizon curvature?

Stratobowl image from 1935

The human eye has a wide field of view so you see a bit more of the Horizon Circle than most images and thus more curvature, all else being equal. One reason for this is that this is NOT the "curvature of the Earth" -- this is the curvature of the Horizon Sagitta viewed nearly on edge.  This is a mistake I constantly see people making.  So it's not a circle of 3959 miles diameter that curved downward, but an OVAL that you are in the middle of with, in this case, a 300 mile radius and viewed on edge at a 4.8° angle -- and this oval curves 360° around YOU.

As to why it looks flat, it's because the terrain is far away and the curvature is fairly slight and you're looking down on it.  We just cannot see the geometry under these conditions.  You can't even see the giant hills and valley's of the Dakota's in Steven and Anderson's image.

Google Earth view from 14mi

The elevation variation across just the Black Hills area is about 3700 feet and you can't see ANY of it.  It "looks flat" because it should.  But where the features are located and how far we can see are the unmistakable markings of a Globe.

How far back is this speaker tilted?

How much are these two images of this building tilted?

If you cannot measure these tilts how do you think you can see the shape in patterned ground from 100's of miles away to see a small change in the terrain that is Earth's curvature?

Curvature on Parade: The Turning Torso video by Mathias Kp

This is a really nice video of a building called the Turning Torso done by Mathias Kp, complete with GPS stamps at different distances (slightly different heights but generally around 3 meters).

He's also got the images stored in flickr so you can download them and he has some nice overlays and analysis already done (including one that looks at possible refraction coefficient in each shot).  I took one and added some additional analysis to it, I assumed a fixed refraction for this analysis because all the buildings are scaled to match the first one.

I took the image with nearly the whole building and used the visible section to estimate the number of pixels per meter.  This gives me a rough way to convert the Hidden Height values to pixels so we can see about where the bottom of the building would be and see how those match up -- it's not perfect, but since the building is very vertical and the distances are large the error is fairly small.

I calculated the estimated Height of Distant Object Hidden for each Observer Height and Distance recorded using an estimated 20% refraction using my FEI calculator.

Unsurprisingly, the results show that the missing height of the building estimated puts the bottom of the building in a fairly consistent location.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Flat Earth Follies: Magic Fish-Eye Holes in Airplane Windows

The Hilarious Claim (showing very poor reading comprehension)

In response to @turner_d posting this image to show that airplane windows limit your field of view which makes it harder to see any curvature at altitude:

Figure 1

This guy posts the AIRPLANE WINDOW HOLE nonsense!


Read that again carefully... to explain why we CANNOT see curvature from airplanes the Flat Earther says it's because the window is a fish-eye lens...

Let me rephrase as a positive statement:  You COULD see the curvature but the magic window hole makes it a fish-eye lens.

Ok, I know that isn't what he MEANT, but that is what he said because he didn't bother to read or try to comprehend what David had said.

More Reality

As explained in US5988566A the purpose of the hole is to allow the pressurized cabin to primarily put force on the outermost pane of glass first.  Should the outer pane break the next pane will hold and not allow rapid cabin depressurization (the tiny hole isn't going to leak much).  It's a super cheap way to make sure the outside pane breaks first by unloading the inner pane.

I'm always amazed at the STUPID crap these people come up with.

Figure 2. Ridiculous Flat Earth lies

If they want to create a magic "lens" window to deceive everyone they would not put in this inlet port and instead control the pressure between the outer and middle panes.  This claim is stupid on the face of it.

Oh yeah, Flat Earth'ers are also liars who changed the labels on the original diagram too:

Figure 3. original diagram exposing Flat Earth lies

Meme Version

Quick Post: Explorer II, 1935 High Altitude Balloon flown by Stevens and Anderson, first image from the Stratosphere

On the 11th of November 1935, over the skies of South Dakota, a new altitude record of 72,395 feet would be set in High Altitude ballooning and photography by Stevens and Anderson flying the Helium filled Explorer II.

The first Explorer balloon used the more efficient and more dangerous Hydrogen, the fabric tore, and the balloon burst into flames with the two passengers narrowly escaping via parachutes.

This was the first High Altitude flight to feature a camera.

First photograph clearly showing Earth's Horizon sagitta curvature. [src]
From its vantage point 72,395 feet in the air, the highest point ever reached by man, the camera registers the horizon 330 miles away, sweeping like a great arch across the photograph. The straight black line ruled across the top brings out the curvature of the Earth.

The first few seconds of this video shows some of the video footage they recorded (unmarked up):

British Pathé footage:

Book on early ballooning with lots more detail and information on many flights:

The Pre-Astronauts: Manned Ballooning on the Threshold of Space

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

OH Buoyancy! Flerfers are at it again

OH Buoyancy!

There are 100's more of these -- many of them exact duplicates across numerous accounts which makes me suspicious... but on to the science.

So how does a force that pulls everything towards the center of the Earth manage to push lighter things up?

tl;dr version of Archimedesprinciple

Cut a small hole in the bottom of a bucket
Feed a string through, tie it to a small ball
Fill bucket with BBs
Pull string really hard
Observe that the BBs rise as the ball burrows down, displacing the BBs
Pulling the string applied greater FORCE to the Ball than the BBs

A little bit more science G

First of all, the gravitational force on every molecule is F=m*'g' -- since 'g' is basically the same for all matter near Earth's surface this means that the F -- or FORCE, is proportional to the MASS of that object, times 'g' which is the effective acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface or roughly 9.8m/s².

This follows directly from the more general equation: F = G×m×m/r² where we know one of the masses is Earth (5.972 × 10²⁴ kg) and the distance [r] is 3959 miles (6371393 meters), which just leaves the familiar F=m*g from simple algebra:

F = G×m×m/r² = m×G×m/r²
-- so we can solve G×m/r²
F = m × [(6.67408 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²) × (5.972 × 10²⁴ kg)  / (6371393 m)²]
F = m × [9.818 m/s²]

So the force (F) pulling down each individual water molecule is actually extremely small, and the force is only slightly greater on an insect (rigid bodies share the force more than fluids so we can say the insect feels the combined force, as we do).  Sure, the total force over all the water molecules on Earth is a lot of Force combined - but that isn't what Gravity is doing in the scientific model -- that is only in the uneducated brains of Flat Earthers because they don't understand the difference between an acceleration (which is roughly the same for all objects) and the force (which is proportional to the mass of that object).

What often isn't stated clearly is that 'g' is not a constant but is a local value, a simplification.  Since 'r' is large even an airplane at 10km doesn't change the value much [9.788 m/s²].  You can watch this change in action in Wolfie6020's video.  So when you change the distance the value of 'g' changes, even here on Earth.

Get on with it already

In a medium where the molecules are (fairly) free to move around, like water or the air (usually called a 'fluid'), everything is competing for that space at the bottom. This gives rise (pun!) to Archimedes' Principle which says that there is a force counter to the acceleration of gravity on a submerged object that is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.

In our bucket-of-BBs example the Ball displaced some volume (V) of the BBs, which also had some density (p), so the total mass displaced would be the volume (V) times the density (p).  But since we need weight we also have to multiply that times the acceleration, in this case the acceleration of gravity, or 'g'.

If you try to submerge a 24-inch beach ball in a pool you can feel just how tremendous that force can be, it would have a volume of about 31 1/3 gallons or 261.5 pounds [1163.2 N] of water displaced.

So putting that into mathematically terms is very straight-forward:

Buoyant Force = WeightDisplaced
Buoyant Force = MassDisplaced × accelerationOfGravity
Buoyant Force = (DensityofFluid × DisplacedVolume) × accelerationOfGravity

Also written: Bf = p × × g

If that Buoyant Force is greater than gravity then the thing will go up until this force is is equalized -- and it will go down so long as gravity is the greater force.

Imagine that you have a jar of water with a ping pong ball floating on the water. And you allow the Jar to free fall. What happens to the ball? If DENSITY alone explained the buoyant force then it should still float, but it doesn't - the buoyant force drops to zero because we have taken away the acceleration so 'g' becomes zero and p×V×0 = 0

And we know this acceleration changes things in other ways -- this is how a centrifuge works for example, it increases the acceleration factor which increases the buoyant force.

So my question to someone wishing to disprove this, do you have any compelling evidence that buoyancy works without an acceleration or that such an acceleration just happens to magically exist but isn't what we call 'gravity'?

Flat Earthers like to say that 'Gravity doesn't exist' and in a sense they are right.  At least in the sense that gravity works like no other force.  If I apply any other kind of force to my phone the accelerometers will register an acceleration.  But, if instead, I drop my phone and let it free fall, I can very clearly watch it accelerate towards the ground at 9.8m/s² (I needed my phone to film, so this is a ball, obviously):

while that same accelerometer will show as zero acceleration:

Figure 1. iPhone 7 Plus in Free Fall from ~3.4s to 3.95s

This is why Einstein said that gravity doesn't exist and is instead the geometry of spacetime itself.

Meanwhile, my phone sitting on my desk is recording a 1G acceleration upwards because that is the force of the table pushing it up against gravity. So the entire WAY gravity works is different from every other force.

Here is another good video showing that 'density' doesn't do anything in free fall:

So that about wraps it up for this Flat Earth myth.

I welcome any proof that the felt force of gravity is not proportional to the mass.

You can scream 'flefuoyancy' all you want but that isn't evidence or proof.  You'd have to show me a fairly conclusive experiment that shows the well-documented, well-tested model is wrong.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Rob Skiba's Second Balloon Launch - Image Analysis at 95,733 feet

Rob Skiba's Second Balloon Launch - Image Analysis at 95,733 feet (29179 meters)

I've been vaguely aware of this for a while but I haven't really had a chance to go look at it before now:

I gotta say, huge thanks to Rob Skiba for proving the Earth is a globe -- so I'm going to keep this one fairly short and simple.

It's a shame that they didn't use something like the Canon 11mm lens on a real camera (126° FOV!) -- but we will have to make do with their tiny 47° Field of View 7.2mm GoPro "non-fish-eye lens".

So around 1:48:30 in the video we are treated with the following view from 95,733 feet up -- according to Rob Skiba and friends:

Figure 1. Rob Skiba YouTube video circa 1:48:30

There is very clearly about 10 pixels of what I call the 'apparent horizon Sagitta'.  The horizon is curved, it matches what we expect on a Globe of approximately 3959 miles radius.

Flat Earth is DONE... Right? (LOL if you think Flat Earthers will believe their OWN evidence you are INSANE!)

But WHY would we expect this on the Globe?

If you recall back from my post describing what the Horizon IS, it is a circle formed where your line-of-sight hits tangent to the Spheroid of the Earth -- aside from terrain differences (almost irrelevant from this high up unless you are looking at high mountains) it is roughly equidistant from you all the way around.

This example figure would be a height of roughly a thousand miles up and the Green Circle would be the horizon.  If the Earth were smooth you wouldn't be able to see any of the Earth past this circle (but mountains and tall buildings can stick up past it).

So the Apparent Sagitta here is a small section of this arc being viewed nearly on edge (a true Sagitta is the arc formed by a chord on a circle, I call this "Apparent Sagitta" because we're viewing it sharply rotated).

You can also see how this works in Walter Bislin's Horizon rendering tool, which will we revisit below.

Figure 2. Horizon geometry

Since your height here in a balloon, even at 100k feet, is VERY SMALL.  For comparison here is the view from the ISS, 400 kilometers up.

Figure 3. Horizon to Scale for ISS (4x higher than this balloon)

Here is what we get from Walter Bislin's site for 29179 meters and a 47° field of view:

Figure 4. Walter Bislin's Horizon Rendering

And here is the overlay with Rob Skiba's video -- an incredible match for all that "fake Globe math"?

Figure 5. Overlay of Rob Skiba video with Walter Bislin's horizon


So this is pretty much EXACTLY the amount of horizon droop (or Apparent Sagitta) we would expect on the Globe.

See Also:

Sly Sparkane's analysis video, which covers Skiba's first Balloon launch which they apparently lost.

Teme Wilson also did an Earth rendering in Blender to compare the horizon:

Monday, October 9, 2017

Flat Earth Follies: Nikon P900 Superzoom: FLAT EARTH PROVEN- Superdome Seen From 26.55 Miles Away

The claim:

The "evidence":

A blurry white splotch in a shitty P900 video:

Figure 1. I'm pretty sure I see bigfoot in this image (why is all their evidence blurry?)
Wow, that's pretty incontrovertible, I can see why Flat Earthers immediately scream "FLAT!"

Figure 2. Google Earth Eagle's Eye View - 26.45 miles

I get 26.45 miles (139656 feet), but ok.  But that's a LOT of city missing to get to the Superdome.

Here is what our skyline should look like from this angle, according to Google Earth.

Figure 3. Skyline From This Viewpoint

Let's sketch out the skyline from the video in this frame:

And now we can scale and overlay our skyline

The Superdome is 253 feet high so yeah, refraction would be required to bend light towards the Earth because it is, generally speaking, more dense.

I freely admit that without refraction you wouldn't be able to see the Superdome from here -- but we DO have an atmosphere and it varies in density vertically and this causes Refraction.

If you could see the BASE of the buildings along Lake Pontchartrain then I would be worried, but Flat Earth is missing 100's of feet with no possible explanation -- Refraction bends light downwards which accounts for being able to see further than expected.

What you need to do is take time lapse videos of this view and see how the Refraction varies with conditions, that would give you a better.

If you want to TRY to estimate this with Refraction you can use ATY's 'Calculating Altitudes of Distant Objects'.  I can only throw sample values at this because I don't know the conditions at the time of observation.

For Observer at 82°F, Height 5 feet, 1°C/km lapse rate, Target Height 250 feet we get 2.86 minutes of arc which is about 117 feet of deflection at 139656 feet.

Which makes it effectively 253+117=370 feet -- the video suggests refraction was perhaps slightly greater than this but not by much because that's about what we see.

The "dome" is extremely flattened in this video also, so there are likely other refractive effects between the viewer and the dome.