Heath Carmody | Flat vs. Concave (Black Swan Comparison) @heathcarmody2867 | Uploaded April 2023 | Updated October 2024, 7 hours ago.
This is a rough comparison of an observation against a flat geometric prediction. There is no comparison to a convex surface globe model in this video. In this case we are measuring upward displacement caused by downward refraction over an assumed flat plane water surface, and the apparent height limit that this effect was occurring.
This is a typical "black swan" observation, where the water surface appears concave (rising up with distance) from lower elevations. There is considerable compression, miraging and distortion, but no obstruction. Nothing can be obstructed above eye level, although targets can be compressed and visually obscured beyond recognition.
I've been working on this video off and on since March 19th (Shelter Bay observation #3) and I keep going back to make things more accurate as I confirm heights and remeasure everything. Still, I can't guarantee the accuracy of this analysis. It's a good starting point and I'm confident that everything is close, but I'm also open to any suggestions for getting more accurate results. At some point I'll provide a more detailed look at how I determined the rough heights of everything.
This is a rough comparison of an observation against a flat geometric prediction. There is no comparison to a convex surface globe model in this video. In this case we are measuring upward displacement caused by downward refraction over an assumed flat plane water surface, and the apparent height limit that this effect was occurring.
This is a typical "black swan" observation, where the water surface appears concave (rising up with distance) from lower elevations. There is considerable compression, miraging and distortion, but no obstruction. Nothing can be obstructed above eye level, although targets can be compressed and visually obscured beyond recognition.
I've been working on this video off and on since March 19th (Shelter Bay observation #3) and I keep going back to make things more accurate as I confirm heights and remeasure everything. Still, I can't guarantee the accuracy of this analysis. It's a good starting point and I'm confident that everything is close, but I'm also open to any suggestions for getting more accurate results. At some point I'll provide a more detailed look at how I determined the rough heights of everything.