Bobby Shafto | Comparing Flat and Globe Models to Reality @bobshafto | Uploaded October 2021 | Updated October 2024, 5 hours ago.
I manually modeled the Provence Cross to Canigou observation for both a globe earth and a flat earth to compare with the actual images.
I've be asking flat earthers in the comments section of previous videos for specifics regarding location of "eye-level," angles, distances if we assume the earth is flat and have not been able to extract any specific, quantified values. So I've done it myself and am presenting it in this video.
I've used Walter Bislin's application to help visualize the origination of mountain summit, distance shoreline, horizon and near coastline smokestacks. See http://walter.bislins.ch/CurveCalc
He has both globe earth and flat earth models.
This comparison intentionally holds off on applying refraction or other optical factors than may alter the model. This is strictly a basic foundation applying only geometry and the principles of perspective. It's a starting point from which any optical or atmospheric adjustments can be made. But you'll see that the flat earth model has a larger gap to adjust for than does the globe earth model. The globe earth model need just apply a standard atmospheric refraction adjustment and it matches the observed image capture closely. While there is a litany of claims for adjusting the flat earth model based on optical considerations, no method or technique has yet been offered. Perhaps this presentation will encourage that effort.
Imagery;
"Canigou" by Bruno Carrias
flickr.com/photos/76574511@N02
instagram.com/brunocarrias/?hl=en
Sounds:
"Krishna's Callipo" by Jesse Gallagher
I manually modeled the Provence Cross to Canigou observation for both a globe earth and a flat earth to compare with the actual images.
I've be asking flat earthers in the comments section of previous videos for specifics regarding location of "eye-level," angles, distances if we assume the earth is flat and have not been able to extract any specific, quantified values. So I've done it myself and am presenting it in this video.
I've used Walter Bislin's application to help visualize the origination of mountain summit, distance shoreline, horizon and near coastline smokestacks. See http://walter.bislins.ch/CurveCalc
He has both globe earth and flat earth models.
This comparison intentionally holds off on applying refraction or other optical factors than may alter the model. This is strictly a basic foundation applying only geometry and the principles of perspective. It's a starting point from which any optical or atmospheric adjustments can be made. But you'll see that the flat earth model has a larger gap to adjust for than does the globe earth model. The globe earth model need just apply a standard atmospheric refraction adjustment and it matches the observed image capture closely. While there is a litany of claims for adjusting the flat earth model based on optical considerations, no method or technique has yet been offered. Perhaps this presentation will encourage that effort.
Imagery;
"Canigou" by Bruno Carrias
flickr.com/photos/76574511@N02
instagram.com/brunocarrias/?hl=en
Sounds:
"Krishna's Callipo" by Jesse Gallagher
