Making a YouTube video together

You are not free thinking if you discount something no matter what.

If you can see something every clear day rather than occasionally on clear days then it becomes more interesting.

The way i think about things i imagine if i were to check out this view of corsica i will find pages of information on how it can be typically seen in definate meterological conditions. 

The free thinker allows what he sees to be revealed to him.  He does not begin with an idea then require things fit no matter what.

It appears the so called mirage of Corsica is a seasonal thing and can also be seen from Nice in France.

I could not find much about it though.

If it were there every clear day it would, for sure, get my attention..........but that is not happening so it does not get my attention.

I totally have no problem believing the corsica mirage only happens occasionally.

From the very little i know about it so far, the corsican mirage generally appears early mornings and evenings and additionally there could be a seasonal factor to its appearance

100% guaranteed it is not visible on all extremely clear days!

I suspect we would learn more about it if we could translate the video commentary.

 

And in fact we can read the comments!

translate.google.fi/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=https://www.youtube.com/all_comments%3Flc%3DjiDIZNbbT0PcwcWc2fVDeKCIrli6Jdu3innFsquorJg%26v%3DTg2KAoZNHA8&prev=search

The video uploader says we can google this wonder of nature under 'Mirage Superior'.   It is there under Superior mirage.

Ok lets have a break.  

Before i go though if you are italian, before you invest time and energy in a video I think you should visit Genoa on a perfectly clear day and see for yourself what you can see there, talk to locals and so forth.

Oh wow, I didn't think it'd be so easy:
Flat Earth - Curvature formula vs. lighthouses

I ended up taking snapshots of my post, and making a short video with them, as a slideshow. Hopefully now we will get some visitors. I put a link to this thread at the bottom of my video.

Interesting that he claims lighthouse range includes a height of 15 foot for the viewer. 

I will address here all the objections to my video here:


Which is in its text form here:
serendipitous.boards.net/thread/83/youtube-video?page=2&scrollTo=900

Then, eventually, I will post my answer to these objections, here and on YouTube as well, so that, little by little, in the next few weeks, I will come up with a complete proof of flat earth, even addressing all these objections that I disagree with.

1) "Wikipedia data is not reliable"
First of all, not true. And second: what is the chance that the data will be wrong for all lighthouses? Lighthouses want to provide reliable data, to avoid risks of lawsuits.

2) "You have to include refraction in your calculations"
Would the lighthouses risk being sued because they count on refraction to add a 33% of range to their lighthouses? I think they will not risk that. Not even a car manufacturer will give you the speed of a car with the wind in its favor. Why would lighthouses take such risks as to give you range data in the most favorable conditions?

Furthermore, even if we were to allow refraction, its effect is not 33% but 8%:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Effect_of_atmospheric_refraction

Well, Planier Light according to the Pythagorean theorem has a range of 29 km, whereas according to Wikipedia it has a range of 43 km. That is not an 8% increase.

3) "range" really means "longest ever recorded range"
Again, risks of lawsuits, and not a typical interpretation of "range": I think it means instead "reliable range, that you can count on in most weather conditions".

4) "You need to account for the height of the boat".
Oh, OK, so now you are telling me that lighthouses authorities will provide values that only work for sailors whose ships are beyond a certain height? So someone who is on a small sailboat will have to crash against the rocks? Or you are telling me that those range values were achieved in record conditions from the tallest boats available? In that case, go to #3. If instead you're just telling me that a height of 1 meter is a reasonable assumption for a boat, then go ahead and plug that value in this "horizon calculator":
members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm



There. Even if I add 5 meters as a height, I still do not get that range of 43 km listed on Wikipedia, but only 37 km.

5) "The lighthouse is actually taller, because it stands on something else".

OK, let's look at Planier Light again, and tell me how many more meters do you want to add to its 66 meters:



Is a 10% more good enough? Fine, now it is 72 meters tall (provided that they weren't already taking whatever is on the bottom into account). OK, so what is the range now according to the "horizon calculator"? 38 km, even adding the 5 meters to the ship's height, which is like adding all your objections together. Oh, and even adding another 8% for refraction, we still would not get to 43 km, but only 42 km.

Now imagine if you were the lighthouse authority and gave the 43 km range value as reliable, and then added a little footnote saying that the ship vantage point has to be 5 meters high, you need refraction to be working, you need perfect weather conditions, you need to hope for the rocks below the lighthouse to be adding 6 meters to it... and you still would not see the light.

I just read the same objection on Facebook, saying that 43 km is the luminous power potential for the light, IF the earth were flat. And they argued that the real range is the one according to the official publication List of Lights...
msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/NIMA_LOL/Pub113/Pub113bk.pdf?hc_location=ufi#page=16

...at page 155... where they list 43 km as the range (converted from nautical miles). So the List of Lights is going to be sued as well, unless they are relying on a flat earth.

OK, step by step, we'll get to the bottom of this. I've already addressed more objections than any other flat earther, except those who write books.

No, by that day I had been banned for almost a week. I will study the Isle of Wight next, so I can convince you of flat earth.

Good news then, because that will probably prove my points even better. Short and powerful, best potential for convincing people. Biggest discrepancy between curvature and visibility.

flat earth truth aliveandkicking

See what I found about the lighthouses in Encyclopedia Britannica:



Link: www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/340721/lighthouse/72157/Rectangular-and-drum-lenses

Here is something else from a book called The Annapolis Book of Seamanship: Third Edition: Completely Revised

I decided to look at calculating the distance. There are big problems!

1. I do not know the radius of the Earth at the Isle of wight and a point 30nm south west.

2. I do not know and am unsure how to measure how the radius of the earth changes with the tide of the earth created by the Sun and moon

3. I do not know on what basis Trinity house has declared the light is visible at up to 30nm. Is that unusual or just a regular distance. Height of boat and so forth.

I am not sure any ordinary person can provide a calculation that is accurate but it would be possible to provide a calculation with error bars for certain assumptions.

For example the radius of the earth varies from 6,353 km to 6,384 km. Depending on how you model the earth you arrive at a mean of 6371. We can do a calculation for 6353 and then for 6384 and see what kind of error bars we get.

Edit: The radius of the earth does not create more than a 1m difference for calculations using the two distances

The tide of the earths crust is only a few metres or less.

Thanks for all this research and detailed remarks. I am sorry I cannot provide you with valuable feedback on it. Obviously I have done a bit of work (cf. previous posts), and I did my best, but I realize it might not be satisfactory for you, given all this work you are doing.