OOAK Table Tennis Forum


A truly International Table Tennis Community for both Defensive and Offensive styles!
OOAK Forum Links About OOAK Table Tennis Forum OOAK Forum Memory
It is currently 29 Jan 2020, 12:21


Don't want to see any advertising? Become a member and login, and you'll never see an ad again!



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 836 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56
Author Message
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2020, 20:44 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 23 Oct 2009, 02:57
Posts: 751
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 19 times
Zoom in with and the more of the sun will reappear again. I encourage all those with a zoom lens to do their own experiments.

Here is a good example of this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_contin ... oBmNe13AVE


Top
 Profile  
 


PostPosted: 09 Jan 2020, 21:46 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 17 Oct 2019, 18:38
Posts: 39
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Blade: stiga ebenholz nct VII
You can't be serious posting this video.
No solar filter.You present a zoom in zoom out to the reflections of sun.And its obvious that from the first second that the sun is fully visible.You said that you believe only in your eyes.So tell me , do you see the whole sun from the first second or not?Either you consider us fools or you are a paid troll.
Even with this video i have another question.The sun during sunset in this video seems to be rather in low altitude.After some hours will it be higher?
How does this work on flat erath system.The sun has always the same distance from earth or gets lower and higher during the 24hrs?
The funny thing is that you encourage us to do experiments but you never do.After all these pages you still cant understand that you started it and you have to convience us for something that for us till now is clearly wrong.You have to present us your experiments, or answer to us with your experiments.
You must be very thankful to this forum that after at least those last two totally stupid videos , we still confront you with such a civilized manner.I mean really, after those last two videos the next one should be a cartoon.Or a kids drawing. The videos you post are really an abuse of the time spent from anyone tried to discuss with you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2020, 23:58 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 23 Oct 2009, 02:57
Posts: 751
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 19 times
Your above posts reads like a rant so its difficult to find anything in it to respond to. In future i am not going to respond to anyone that replies in such an uncivilised way.

In the video the sun is clearly much higher in the sky when the camera is at full zoom even taking in to account the absence of a solar filter


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2020, 02:01 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 17 Oct 2019, 18:38
Posts: 39
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Blade: stiga ebenholz nct VII
Υou said that you will not respond to my rant but you responded about how the sun looks when zoomed in and zoomed out.
You found the rant excuse just for not responding about the sun's altitude alterations during the day.Its more than obvious.
You did what you always do. You choosed what to answer. This time you also found an excuse.good job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2020, 02:32 
Online
Goes to 11
Goes to 11
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2014, 20:27
Posts: 9007
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1088 times
Er.. I'd suggest those with a zoom lens to NOT do this "experiment". You will (1) damage your eyes, and (2) burn a hole in the focal plane shutter or film or irreparably damage the sensor. If you're going to attempt to photograph the sun you will need a solar filter, or at the least, a 100X neutral density filter. Even if you didn't damage your eyes or your camera the amount of lens flare get will never reveal the true shape of the sun's disc, which is why flat earthers make all sorts of claims about the sun's supposed size.

Mac, didn't we establish that you first have to start with something where the bottom half has disappeared over the horizon first? If the sun isn't actually at the point where it's half set, and is still fully above the horizon, of course it's going to "come back", just like boats which haven't sailed over the horizon yet. And the amount of time the sun takes to rise or set, where it's crossing the horizon, lasts only two minutes (longer if you're at high latitudes, where the sun doesn't rise or set vertically).

Image

I've also never seen a good flat earth explanation why the sun sets at all. On a flat earth the sun (even in Australia) should just continue to curve around to the North, and should never set. Night shouldn't exist. You should be able to "zoom in" to the sun even though it's at night.

Iskandar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2020, 14:18 
Online
Goes to 11
Goes to 11
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2014, 20:27
Posts: 9007
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1088 times
Here's the video Mac posted (it's only 45 seconds long so it's OK to watch).



Here's the sun "zoomed out".

Attachment:
Yodelcurve11a.jpg
Yodelcurve11a.jpg [ 85.09 KiB | Viewed 96 times ]


and the sun "zoomed in".

Attachment:
Yodelcurve11b.jpg
Yodelcurve11b.jpg [ 39.51 KiB | Viewed 96 times ]


What's this... the sun SHRINKS when you zoom in?? Why isn't it covering the entire frame (since the P900 has something like a 40X zoom)? Simple. Flare. To achieve that gigantic zoom range the P900 has a lens with many elements, so light from anything bright like that will bounce back and forth between the lens elements and make the object appear a lot bigger than it is. That "sun" at the beginning is actually a blob caused by lens flare, the actual disk of the sun is much tinier. You really need a solar filter to view the sun properly. When you zoom in, the effective aperture of the lens shrinks (i.e. it lets in a lot less light) so the actual disc of the sun is actually visible. You can see there that the sun is one and a half diameters from the horizon - which means it would take another 4-5 minutes before it's half-hidden by the horizon. Which means this video doesn't prove that zooming in to the sun that is half-hidden by the horizon would make it "come back". In fact, in another 7 minutes the sun would be hidden totally by the horizon - surely Mac doesn't think it's going to "come back" once it's set altogether, does he?

Iskandar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2020, 22:45 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 19 Mar 2015, 14:09
Posts: 209
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 32 times
iskandar taib wrote:
Here's the video Mac posted (it's only 45 seconds long so it's OK to watch).



Here's the sun "zoomed out".

Attachment:
Yodelcurve11a.jpg


and the sun "zoomed in".

Attachment:
Yodelcurve11b.jpg


What's this... the sun SHRINKS when you zoom in?? Why isn't it covering the entire frame (since the P900 has something like a 40X zoom)? Simple. Flare. To achieve that gigantic zoom range the P900 has a lens with many elements, so light from anything bright like that will bounce back and forth between the lens elements and make the object appear a lot bigger than it is. That "sun" at the beginning is actually a blob caused by lens flare, the actual disk of the sun is much tinier. You really need a solar filter to view the sun properly. When you zoom in, the effective aperture of the lens shrinks (i.e. it lets in a lot less light) so the actual disc of the sun is actually visible. You can see there that the sun is one and a half diameters from the horizon - which means it would take another 4-5 minutes before it's half-hidden by the horizon. Which means this video doesn't prove that zooming in to the sun that is half-hidden by the horizon would make it "come back". In fact, in another 7 minutes the sun would be hidden totally by the horizon - surely Mac doesn't think it's going to "come back" once it's set altogether, does he?

Iskandar

Thank you so much for responding to mac's attempt at proving something. When I saw it I just sat shaking my head. At times the idiocy just reaches such mammoth proportions that I simply don't know how to respond. I mean, does he seriously not realise what the horizon is? Can he not tell the difference between something above the horizon and something below the horizon? Is there no limit to this stupidity?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2020, 02:27 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 19 Mar 2015, 14:09
Posts: 209
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 32 times
mac33 wrote:
I watched this 3 minute clip last night. It shows the Brisbane skyline from a claimed 47 kms away.

Notice the boat disappears completely from view but when he zooms in to the city skyline the whole of the boat reappears again.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=93TzAQP5RY0


Oh, mac. What's going on here? Brisbane from 47 km away. As it so happens, I've spent most of my life living in and around Brisbane, so you're in dangerous territory now. Brace yourself.

Did you even watch the video you posted? Trying to be as objective as possible, here's what I see:

First 25 seconds of video - the Brisbane skyline. wobbling around a hell of a lot. What does this tell us?
    For a start, this tells us the operator isn't even serious enough to use a tripod. As a consequence, there's zero quality in the images and we have to invest in an awful lot of interpretation.
    Secondly, from what is visible, we're only seeing those parts of the skyline which are well above ground level. Even with a cursory glance, it's possible to tell that huge amounts of land at ground level are missing. In fact whole suburbs are out of sight below the horizon.
    Thirdly, Brisbane is inland. The buildings you're looking at are at least 10km (6 miles) inland! (By car, using the most direct route, from Kangaroo Point to Lytton is 19km (>10 miles).) Why can't we see all of the country between the coastline and the city? (I'll give you a clue: it's something to do with the horizon.)

At 26 seconds - the Stradbroke Island ferry is visible.
    The Straddie ferry isn't particularly big. It's not on the same scale as a container ship.
    Which means, at this point the camera is magnifying what we see an awful lot. Iskander calls this zoomed out; I'm an Australian and call it zoomed in. Terminology not particularly important.
    The line of the horizon is clearly visible behind the ferry. Which means it's never going to disappear behind the horizon.

25 seconds to 35 seconds - Brisbane disappears!!!!!!!!!!! (Except it really doesn't deserve all those exclamation marks.)
    The camera pulls all the way back. From fully magnified to zero magnification. Objects grow increasingly smaller and eventually disappear from view.
    Has anything gone "beyond the horizon"? NO! Is anyone claiming anything is beyond the horizon? NO.
    What about all that haze? Even at full magnification, it's obvious there's some degree of haze, attributable either to heat or smog or both. This is so commonplace in Brisbane as to be a given.
    When the camera zooms out / pulls back, small objects become impossible to see through the haze/refraction. There's nothing mysterious or magical going on here.
    Brisbane doesn't disappear. It just becomes impossible to see through the haze. (And if this is difficult for you to understand, just think about driving in fog. Objects which are close can still be seen. Objects further away "disappear".

From 35 seconds to the end - the camera zooms in and out revealing the Brisbane skyline is still visible, until it disappears back into the haze. Does this prove anything?
    It's worth stopping the video at 1:04. There's a white building visible quite low down above the horizon. If you use that building as a reference point, and check when it appears elsewhere - 0:02, 0:13, 0:14, 0:23, 0:49, 0:51, 0:54, 0:58, 1:16, 1:18 - it's obvious that the building retains the same height relative to the horizon regardless of the magnification. It does not get higher when the camera zooms in; it does not get lower when the camera zooms out. Relative to the horizon, the building remains in a fixed relationship.
    Nothing which is above the horizon ever goes below the horizon. Nothing which is below the horizon ever goes above it.
    We know there is an awful lot of land between the camera and the city skyline which never, ever appears, even when the camera is at full magnification. Don't believe me? Get out google maps and look for the suburbs Manly, Wynnum, Wynnum West, Murrarie, and Morningside. These are all in a line between the position of the camera and the Brisbane skyline. They are all below the horizon and not visible. Brisbane is very hilly to the west, but flat on the floodplain between the city and sea. All of these suburbs sit below the horizon even when the camera is at full magnification.

Thank you for posting the link to this video. It proves the earth is a globe!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2020, 02:59 
Offline
Do you feel lucky (young) punk?
Do you feel lucky (young) punk?
User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 12:57
Posts: 5585
Location: USA
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 177 times
Blade: Juic Hinoki One Ply
FH: Tibhar 5Q
BH: Scandal
Mac can not use google maps. They are generated from satalites. They don't work with a flat earth. They do work with a globe. He will have to explain what holds them up over a flat earth. :rofl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2020, 03:43 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 17 Oct 2019, 18:38
Posts: 39
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Blade: stiga ebenholz nct VII
He's not going to explain anything.The last two videos took him long time to find them and were terrible.Its hard thing trying to prove a theory with other people's childish experiments .
Most probable is to find some innovative way to blame anyone for their behaviour and the forum for censorship and wait sometime till some new victim falls in his flatearth theory net.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2020, 20:35 
Online
Goes to 11
Goes to 11
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2014, 20:27
Posts: 9007
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1088 times
The person who posted that video had just received the P900 which he bought on ebay, and he was on his way to pick up his cat when he passed by the coast right at sunset, so he decided to try out the P900. Not having a tripod, he set the camera up on a wall. For those of you who'd like to repeat this "experiment", I'd suggest carrying around a beanbag (or better yet, a bag of lead-free shot), and perhaps a Gorillapod (which would be useful if there was something to wrap the legs around). An actual tripod would be nice but they take up space and a good one is fairly heavy. The little toy ones and even the larger ones they sell in department stores are flimsy and lead to camera shake. Of course, it would help to wait until the sun really WAS half behind the horizon, otherwise it proves nothing. And you will need a solar filter. Turns out they're very available on AliExpress - don't buy the ones for the eyepiece, get one for the front lens of a telescope. Once the camera is in place you can then just hold the filter over the front of the lens.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32787447370.html

Iskandar


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 836 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Copyright 2018 OOAK Table Tennis Forum. The information on this site cannot be reused without written permission.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group