Can someone explain this visual or lens phenomena?

[Telecaster]

IMO the best way to deal with claim-makers is to insist that they deliver the goods. Take 'em out of their comfort zone. Then you'll find out how serious they are.

Responding to Robert's post: In my own experience and observation, refusing to accept this or that despite evidence and even repeatable demonstration…it's usually about something else the person believes deeply but chooses not to acknowledge publicly. The thing being refuted or denied would, if acknowledged as being real or genuine, undermine (in the mind of the person in question anyway) that deeper something else.

Then there are the hucksters and chain-pullers. But they're generally not hard to spot.

-Dave-

[Phil Indeblanc]

IMO the best way to deal with claim-makers is to insist that they deliver the goods. Take 'em out of their comfort zone. Then you'll find out how serious they are.

Responding to Robert's post: In my own experience and observation, refusing to accept this or that despite evidence and even repeatable demonstration…it's usually about something else the person believes deeply but chooses not to acknowledge publicly. The thing being refuted or denied would, if acknowledged as being real or genuine, undermine (in the mind of the person in question anyway) that deeper something else.

Then there are the hucksters and chain-pullers. But they're generally not hard to spot.

-Dave-

very well said

[Phil Indeblanc]

I'll just note that figuring out the (not perfectly) spherical nature of our planet took both the capacity and the willingness to notice things most people didn't. Read up and watch video on Eratosthenes.

The history of human scientific & technological achievement is about a relative handful of people running ahead of the herd and pulling everyone else along with them. Without those people we'd all still be living in caves. Well, some of us would. Most of us would've never been born. Some of us clearly resent being pulled along at all.

-Dave-

I did just now!
Interesting what it suggests...
First, due to it being 250 Before Chris, I had to be forgiving :-)

I first questioned his level of accuracy for measuring the 5000 stads, no prob, that can be a looser given (could be just a small number error that makes little difference for the overall suggestion/theory).

But also, I questioned the suns rays being parallel! Hello! As we today can extrapolate that they are not parallel.

This is another reason why we photographers have an advantage and should INDEPENDENTLY test... Not some authoritative figure or even company, or anything like that claim one way or the other and we swallow information as if it were fact. We can test things with what we have!
Math is obviously not to blame, its the application on theory that can sometimes end up distorted and false.

So we know that the sun rays going through atmosphere is certainly not parallel do to refraction. This alone would suggest that his test, while great for the time of 250BC was greatly based on the assumption that light from the sun is parallel.  Something else as photographers know by scientific observation...We understand concave vs convex. When we pass light through a convex curvature we know that wavelengths merge together vs spread out. So even if it was something considered back then in 250BC, it would not make sense with our current abilities. There are things that don't need theories any longer. We can simply observe them, and witness it.

So, while a great test for his time, surely something that was based on theory that was FALSE. As now we can observe and calculate with modern tools, and mechanical devices.

I know it was not that directly related to the test I was considering, but surely tells you something else. I don't think we use it for current developed theories..I would hope not!!

[Telecaster]

Phil, for sure Eratosthenes got some important stuff wrong. But he did well for his time. Most significantly he noticed phenomena other people didn't notice (or were uncurious about), thought about what those phenomena might mean and then gathered further info to help him understand. He was inquisitive and iterative. It's possible to hold him up as a scientific pioneer despite his mistakes because he got the basic process right.

-Dave-

[Farmer]

I apologize, but I cannot take your given perspectives thus far into account in this test. You are expecting me or others put energy and to test something at 2 points to be "level to level" with something we believe to be up high millions of miles away. Why even make such a proposterous suggestion? Please I would love to hear your ideas, as I think anyone is capable of valid input, but they have to be of constructive and apples to apples rational thinking. Perhaps you have some resistance to this, and you have ridicule in mind.

See my previous post about the 3 different reactions people get when they do something challenging to something you either whole heart-idly believe, or whole heart-idly have interest in not being , etc

This is the point you either join in a simple test, maybe best as observer.... or storm off with insults of lunacy (not that I want to involve anything lunar).
:-)

It's very simple, Phil.  Try it.  There's no ridicule, it's just a simple experiment.  It shows that the object blocking your view of the sun is curved.

[Rob C]

I remember when my daughter wanted to give me my first computer. I recall telling her that there wasn't much point, as I had no intentions of computing anything. From the name, I assumed it was for doing calculations.

Anyway, I brought the thing (an old Mac she wanted rid of) back from Scotland in the car, thus losing the trunk space I'd hoped to fill with a couple of boxes of French wine.

Only later did I discover it was for writing letters and entertainment...

Frankly, I don't know if I'd have been better off with the wine. It certainly changed my habits, but years later, I still don't really know if that was a good thing or not.

Rob

[Phil Indeblanc]

It's very simple, Phil.  Try it.  There's no ridicule, it's just a simple experiment.  It shows that the object blocking your view of the sun is curved.

Farmer, if you cant see the setup for failure in such an experiment, I honestly don't have much advice for you. Your suggestion is not only impractical, its MAJORLY flawed. Let me put it this way....

If you wanted to know if the table you are sitting at is level, would you take a straight edge and put it up against the table or would you do something else? Like see if its in the line of sight with the wall someplace?
You need to see my post about people that either have a well vested interest of not wanting a simple test conducted, suppressing true information, or you are just not logical enough, but likely a very good student and can process information you are given.

[Farmer]

Impractical?  I suppose if you are never likely to be near a beach that might be the case.  If it's majorly flawed, list a few of the flaws.

Your comparison to the table and being level is unrelated to the experiment of watching the sunset twice.  Level and straight are not the same thing.

I've listed numerous things that show that the flat Earth video that you posted is flawed and in fact proves that the Earth is curved.  You fail to address any of the issues raised by myself and others from a practical point of view and instead introduce vague sophistry that sounds somewhat philosophical and implying that we're all just not seeing the point.  Yes, we are.  The point is the Earth is curved and it's easy enough to prove.  Sure, spend a moment or two now and then to reconsider the evidence in light of any new observations that come along - that's the scientific method - but ALL (since you like shouting for emphasis) flat Earth hypothesis are routinely disproved through pretty simple science.

Thanks for your attempted character assessment, too, it made me laugh.  If you can present a logical argument supported by peer reviewed study and evidence, we can probably have a discussion.  Otherwise, it's just silly babbling and Rob's reminded me that there's not enough time devoted to drinking wine to waste it on extensive babble.

[Rob C]

I think I've discovered the truth at 2.01:

http://www.sammorganmoore.com/

If you check out 2.01 of the showreel, you'll see that the Earth is actually not flat, but concave (or convex, depending on your political point of view, and whether you are insider or outsider) and an enormous globe - possibly oblate spheroid - and you can't ever see the opposite sides because they are too far away for light to travel, which explains everything.

Rob C

[Farmer]

Indeed :-)

[N80]

Nature will be grateful, although it will do fine/better without humans.

That's an odd response. Science tells us that we humans are no more or less a part of nature than any given tree, rock, reptile or mammal. And nature, given that nature is only the collection of randomly arranged energy and matter, cannot be grateful for anything. Further, given that nature is only the collection of randomly arranged energy and matter, it cannot do "fine" or "better" or bad or worse. It is what it is at any given moment. What we do to it is no different from what an ant does to it...........unless we assign designations like "fine" and "better", which is silly.....if its all just protons, neutrons and electrons.

You're contradicting yourself. If the observations were only from the last century and a half, then how could we know what the temperature and CO2 concentration was during any Ice Age?

Not really. The Little Ice Age was in that late 1700s. But double, triple or x10 my assessment of 150 years or so. In terms of global history that frame of time is statistically insignificant.

[N80]

3. You have open eys, and you accept things only as science and reality allow you to test them, and simply draw observations and facts based on testing, and using the scientific method. You are open to different forms of thinking. This is usually an independent, or classic educated with zero badges or diplomas enlarged on his wall behind the desk. Truely someone who loves the observation of science, and not the business of.

It seems to me that you have put up a few ad hominem barriers up yourself. Diploma=closed mind?

It seems that you have also taken liberty with the word "reality". Science has been excellent at providing us with practical reality. It has been far less successful at providing us with ultimately measurable and quantifiable reality. Quantum physics being the best example, maybe.

I also see a role for the skeptic. It is okay to ask the question without having the ability to answer it. I find the climate change dialogue to be ironic in this regard. There is this notion that climate change science cannot be questioned. The first problem, of course, is that climate change science is quite broad and is built upon layers and layers of premise and consensus. Some of it is quite solid. Some of it is quite weak. The second, elephant in the room problem, is that science can become a cult when there is an environment in which it cannot be questioned. It becomes god-like and the average citizen, the well informed citizen and even the skeptic are asked (commanded) to accept certain tenets on faith. Failure to do so results in ridicule, typically equating the skeptic with some backwards sect or other, and the voices that question are drowned out. Excommunicated. And this is not science.

I also find a disparate popular response to those who are thoughtfully skeptical of portions of climate change science. You are equated with those who reject climate change science without understanding the science. You are stupid. On the other hand, those who incorporate climate science into their worldview who also have no understanding of the science are typically considered smart and on point. Both of these parties are accepting beliefs on faith. Both are equally guilty. Only one is ridiculed. This damages the credibility of the science in question.

[jeremyrh]

Amusing though it is to imagine that someone in 2016 still believes in flat earth, it is also a little scary to think that someone with similar views may soon be in charge of education in the US.

[jeremyrh]

I also see a role for the skeptic. It is okay to ask the question without having the ability to answer it. I find the climate change dialogue to be ironic in this regard. There is this notion that climate change science cannot be questioned. The first problem, of course, is that climate change science is quite broad and is built upon layers and layers of premise and consensus. Some of it is quite solid. Some of it is quite weak. The second, elephant in the room problem, is that science can become a cult when there is an environment in which it cannot be questioned. It becomes god-like and the average citizen, the well informed citizen and even the skeptic are asked (commanded) to accept certain tenets on faith. Failure to do so results in ridicule, typically equating the skeptic with some backwards sect or other, and the voices that question are drowned out. Excommunicated. And this is not science.

I also find a disparate popular response to those who are thoughtfully skeptical of portions of climate change science. You are equated with those who reject climate change science without understanding the science. You are stupid. On the other hand, those who incorporate climate science into their worldview who also have no understanding of the science are typically considered smart and on point. Both of these parties are accepting beliefs on faith. Both are equally guilty. Only one is ridiculed. This damages the credibility of the science in question.

I don't know of anyone who claims that climate science cannot be questioned - I suppose that there are such people but I haven't see them as a significant voice. What I would say, though, is that if you wish to question the science you first have to understand exactly what you are questioning. This is the step that many skeptics seem to want to skip, choosing the alternative and wholly unsatisfactory route of Philosophy 101.

[N80]

This is the step that many skeptics seem to want to skip, choosing the alternative and wholly unsatisfactory route of Philosophy 101.

Not sure what you mean by your reference to Philosophy 101.

There is often conflict between the sciences and philosophy. It is a lopsided relationship. Science has little to say about the ultimate concerns of philosophy. Philosophy has a lot to say about the ultimate concerns of science.

[jeremyrh]

Not sure what you mean by your reference to Philosophy 101.

Probably I maligned philosophers - I had in mind the sort of piffle of which there are reams above^^^^^^^

[Phil Indeblanc]

I think I've discovered the truth at 2.01:

http://www.sammorganmoore.com/

If you check out 2.01 of the showreel, you'll see that the Earth is actually not flat, but concave (or convex, depending on your political point of view, and whether you are insider or outsider) and an enormous globe - possibly oblate spheroid - and you can't ever see the opposite sides because they are too far away for light to travel, which explains everything.

Rob C

In this 2:01 example, it is a convex, since we would be considering the inside of the earth to take the cancave point of view...But we know for a fact that the earth is not level, and while this would be nice there ARE actually a few other parts in this footage that DO show a level plane. 2:13, 2:18 are not things to base anything on, but they are suggestive that it is a rectilinear lens and that looks flat to me. But we need more than this snippet.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Impractical?  I suppose if you are never likely to be near a beach that might be the case.  If it's majorly flawed, list a few of the flaws.

Your comparison to the table and being level is unrelated to the experiment of watching the sunset twice.  Level and straight are not the same thing.

I've listed numerous things that show that the flat Earth video that you posted is flawed and in fact proves that the Earth is curved.  You fail to address any of the issues raised by myself and others from a practical point of view and instead introduce vague sophistry that sounds somewhat philosophical and implying that we're all just not seeing the point.  Yes, we are.  The point is the Earth is curved and it's easy enough to prove.  Sure, spend a moment or two now and then to reconsider the evidence in light of any new observations that come along - that's the scientific method - but ALL (since you like shouting for emphasis) flat Earth hypothesis are routinely disproved through pretty simple science.

Thanks for your attempted character assessment, too, it made me laugh.  If you can present a logical argument supported by peer reviewed study and evidence, we can probably have a discussion.  Otherwise, it's just silly babbling and Rob's reminded me that there's not enough time devoted to drinking wine to waste it on extensive babble.

I'm sorry for this thread, with your suggestions,  I do have to move on and not waste time. Feel free to join in constructively..

Keep in mind. You suggested I measure a surface being plane and level on the ground, by measuring it using the sun.

[Phil Indeblanc]

It seems to me that you have put up a few ad hominem barriers up yourself. Diploma=closed mind?

It seems that you have also taken liberty with the word "reality". Science has been excellent at providing us with practical reality. It has been far less successful at providing us with ultimately measurable and quantifiable reality. Quantum physics being the best example, maybe.

I also see a role for the skeptic. It is okay to ask the question without having the ability to answer it. I find the climate change dialogue to be ironic in this regard. There is this notion that climate change science cannot be questioned. The first problem, of course, is that climate change science is quite broad and is built upon layers and layers of premise and consensus. Some of it is quite solid. Some of it is quite weak. The second, elephant in the room problem, is that science can become a cult when there is an environment in which it cannot be questioned. It becomes god-like and the average citizen, the well informed citizen and even the skeptic are asked (commanded) to accept certain tenets on faith. Failure to do so results in ridicule, typically equating the skeptic with some backwards sect or other, and the voices that question are drowned out. Excommunicated. And this is not science.

I also find a disparate popular response to those who are thoughtfully skeptical of portions of climate change science. You are equated with those who reject climate change science without understanding the science. You are stupid. On the other hand, those who incorporate climate science into their worldview who also have no understanding of the science are typically considered smart and on point. Both of these parties are accepting beliefs on faith. Both are equally guilty. Only one is ridiculed. This damages the credibility of the science in question.

You are right I think... I don't say diploma is closed mind exclusively. Yet I can understand that for us that have one some can take it with a little insult. I didn't mean all. Sorry. I am just saying there are those that do have a study and a authorship of the subject that may have much vested interest to protect what they believe.

Yes, perhaps I agree. I don't pretend to know any of the workings of quantum physics.

What I am saying is very simple.

If some ball has a curvature to it. Lets take a proven formula, and apply it! This has NOTHING to do with what one may believe, or what ever the earth is, or what it suggests.

We have basic tools:
Plumb bob
High power lens(rectilinear)
Gimble, gyroscope
Math

Sometimes theories have been passed to us as law, because we didn't have the mechanical and capable tools to measure with higher precision in the past. Now we have better tools that doesn't take a authorship in the subject, but a open mind, a logical person, with understanding of the tools used in measuring, and some good math.

I do understand the skeptic point of view, and I can surely fit the bill. But lets not complicate the task at hand with the idea of those that are skeptic means that they all are some how against Climate Change. You are doing the same thing your first sentences suggested I was, and I noted it.

Did I take liberty with the word "Reality" ? You maybe right. I don't mean to do such. I will agree that science has been excellent at providing us with practical reality. What can be observed and what can be repeated and measured.
This is why this is a simple test.  Yes, and a lot of science has been based on theories that we have applied so much calculations atop that it has manifested itself as a given. Which makes sense IN THE theoretical MODEL, but not when tested in practical science. Because it cannot be put to practical test. 

So I simply believe that we do need to confirm our practical scientific understanding. Is this soooo hard to consider? Why ALL the fuss? Why not just leave out for a minute what we may have learned in the past 70 years, which is really a short time...and say...Well, lets just confirm a few things.

Why do we have to show or prove one is right or wrong with what we think we know? Well this is harder for those in position, and why I said it N80.

So not take a clear fresh look? The tools I know are listed above.
What gives us photographers a little advantage is the fact that some of us have decades of experience looking at imagery and understand a pretty good amount of it. Also lenses, and a gimble we know a little about also. Math, well, many engineers I'm sure. 

All I am suggesting to do is look at a body of water across a long distance and simply measure the curvature.  So far, a number of people with pretty darn respectable technical backgrounds are doing it, and I don't think they have ill reason to show what they found...But who cares! why not just do this test.  It would be pretty straight forward to show.

[N80]

You are right I think... I don't say diploma is closed mind exclusively. Yet I can understand that for us that have one some can take it with a little insult. I didn't mean all. Sorry. I am just saying there are those that do have a study and a authorship of the subject that may have much vested interest to protect what they believe.

Agreed. We can all be attached to what we believe is true for many many reasons.

I don't pretend to know any of the workings of quantum physics.

Me either. I'm not sure theoretical physicists do either. In a nutshell, the big picture of quantum physics suggest that almost anything is possible. Probabilities and not 'laws' seem to rule that field.

Sometimes theories have been passed to us as law, because we didn't have the mechanical and capable tools to measure with higher precision in the past.

Agreed. And I think scientists and the popular culture confuse what is a fact, or a law or the 'truth' with is often just the best science that we are capable of bringing to bear on a subject. But there can a huge difference between the best science available and good science. Popularizing the best we can do as rock solid science sows the seeds of legitimate skepticism. Which is often fruitful and not necessarily destructive.

I do understand the skeptic point of view, and I can surely fit the bill. But lets not complicate the task at hand with the idea of those that are skeptic means that they all are some how against Climate Change.

Agreed. I find myself less a skeptic of the basic tenets of climate change, even man made issues, than the calls to action which have far less real science behind them. I have just found that questioning climate change at all seems to provoke ridicule. Usually from people who are no more or less qualified than I am to examine and process the evidence. Maybe others have had better experience than I have.

You are doing the same thing your first sentences suggested I was, and I noted it.

I'm not sure what you mean, but you are probably right.

Did I take liberty with the word "Reality" ? You maybe right. I don't mean to do such. I will agree that science has been excellent at providing us with practical reality. What can be observed and what can be repeated and measured.

And we all get in trouble when we talk about 'science' as if it is a large, cohesive body of work that all agrees and supports one another. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unified field theory eludes us still. For 100 years in which the tools of science and the volume of data has grown exponentially. And yet, if you want to land something on Jupiter, the physics remain largely Newtonian.