Пікірлер

• 
  @carljelliff31568 сағат бұрын

  We’re looking at you, Travis… give us the cab driver take on Jesse’s demonstration 🙂

• 
  @fromjesse8 сағат бұрын

  And PS Travis, watch out for guys with trundle wheels! I'm hoping more people will help in this experiment!

• 
  @JesseKozlowski12 сағат бұрын

  I did something similar measuring both latitude and longitude in the shape of an "L" N 40-00-00 W 75-00-00 work in progress 8/14/17 - Aug 14, 2017 kzread.info/dash/bejne/e3mW062Qj5a5daQ.html N 40-00-00 W 74-59-55 - Aug 14, 2017 kzread.info/dash/bejne/qmyixLKrkbHSh7g.html N 39-59-55 W 75-00-00 - Aug 14, 2017 kzread.info/dash/bejne/iYuhyMWLlpaTYNY.html Reciprocal Zenith Angles - Aug 14, 2017 kzread.info/dash/bejne/ea6ouMuGcb2YXc4.html Reciprocal Zenith Angle Projects jessekozlowski.wordpress.com/2020/06/09/reciprocal-zenith-angle-projects/

• 
  @fromjesse8 сағат бұрын

  That's great! Thank you!

• 
  @user-gc9fl6vd6f16 сағат бұрын

  The earth it fix and flat

• 
  @fromjesse16 сағат бұрын

  Fortunately it measures as spheroidal and rotating :D

• 
  @mike-yx7zd18 сағат бұрын

  Does the top rubber knob on the shift lever screw or slip off? You have to take that off to slide the new boot on right?

• 
  @fromjesse18 сағат бұрын

  The top rubber knob slides of and does have to come of. As an update, the top end of the rubber boot has cracked where it was stretched over the rod. Its not perfectly water proof now but still better than it was. I think the uv got to it.

• 
  @user-fh9xf2ni7s18 сағат бұрын

  На моей 56 широте, одна минута равна всего 1040 метров :)

• 
  @fromjesse18 сағат бұрын

  This experiment would be easier for you than it was for me! You have to push the wheel less distance!

• 
  @user-fh9xf2ni7s17 сағат бұрын

  Да

• 
  @realcygnus19 сағат бұрын

  & yet even more legit/competent adult evidence that clearly shows how well the globe works & just how ridiculous flat erf claims indeed are. 👍Wonder if I even want to know the backstory to this 🤔

• 
  @fromjesse18 сағат бұрын

  Backstory is that as more people do this it debunks flat earth because obviously on a flat earth, the length of an arcminute of longitude will simply increase linearly with distance from the center. However, on a globe -- And in Reality -- the length of a longitudal arcminute gets longest at the equator, then starts getting smaller as you progress southward beyond the equator. So this is basically checkmate against flat earth because anybody anywhere can use simple tools to measure the length of a minute of longitude at their location, and this shows that the surface is not flat. I am hoping more people all around the globe will do this experiment and publish their results!

• 
  @realcygnus16 сағат бұрын

  @@fromjesse Gotcha, nice work as always. I figured that was the main idea but just thought maybe it also was in response to some recent specific bit of derp. I wouldn't use the word faith but it really is something how they don't at least "trust" science & the thousands of experts who got us where we are since the dawn of BIG thinking. & not only that but, to actually proclaim they know WAY better while simultaneously providing literally nothing except nuh uh is what makes this whole FE phenomenon sad, absurd, aggravating & funny AF, all in one. Anyway, it's like a catch 22, on one hand the best thing we could do is just ignore them but on the other, there clearly ought to be at least 100 debunks for every single one of their silly public proclamations. Which is why I learn towards supporting any such informative/educational content, it's about the only silver bullet IMO.

• 
  @sendintheclowns730515 сағат бұрын

  @@fromjesse Since the flerfs love Google Earth they could easily find East/West runways all around the world and test this for themselves with very little effort and zero expense. They won't even do that so don't hold your breath waiting for them to do a real experiment like you have. Great video!!!

• 
  @realcygnus8 сағат бұрын

  @@sendintheclowns7305 Yup, I think it was either wolfie or wally who had already done just that several years ago now.

• 
  @sendintheclowns73057 сағат бұрын

  @@realcygnus I think it was Wally who did it with runways and others have done it using roads and even entire countries. CHL did something similar using Australia vs the USA if I recall correctly. Flerfs will of course avoid any such experiment like the plague.

• 
  @georgejo790519 сағат бұрын

  Just a technology grad here . Robotics and controll systems. I had this same idea about the experiment and Lewin himself told me I was uneducated and went on spewing jargon. I really think scientists make poor experimentalists and should defer to engineers regarding apparatus.

• 
  @fromjesse17 сағат бұрын

  Yeah, Dr. Lewin loves to put on a great magic show, and doesn't appreciate it when people point out his sleight of hand. He called me a "Flat Earther" for daring to question him about his claims regarding KVL! haha!

• 
  @georgejo790512 сағат бұрын

  @@fromjesse just my naive (practical) interpretation noticed it was coupled inductors , a transformer. he maintained it was the E field which of course would be feeble at this freq and disregarded the well known rf principle of near field coupleing being inductively reactive at less than wavelength

• 
  @intothebreak57121 сағат бұрын

  Thanks for the conversations and these demonstrations.

• 
  @fromjesse18 сағат бұрын

  Thank yo for checking it out!

• 
  @feedingravens23 сағат бұрын

  Great to have that demonstrated how much effort that is to determine one single measurement. Hours of work, hours of preparation, 25 minutes of video to halfway explain it - and the flat earthers demand "prove to me the earth is a spinning globe, without numbers, without formulas, without images, but it must be totally convincing for me. You have 10 seconds. Go."

• 
  @fromjesse18 сағат бұрын

  That pretty much sums it up most of the time, but now and again I do have an interesting discussion!

• 
  @gowdsake710323 сағат бұрын

  great perseverance utterly beyond flattards

• 
  @dogwalker66623 сағат бұрын

  Excellent piece of work.

• 
  @bArraxas7 күн бұрын

  This vidéo is not fair. We can see, the gyro speed is really slow. Try the same with max speed, the sound will be different and his reactivity too. Nice try bro... Misinformation here.

• 
  @fromjesse6 күн бұрын

  LOOOOL. I love how people, like you, who know nothing and have never done anything in their life come along and dis on people who actually do stuff! But no, the toy gyro was brand new at the time and had not been dropped yet (LOL) and was very well balanced and just running very quietly. I had spun it up with it's little motor and it was working as good as it could. If you don't think so, get one and try it yourself!! If you really think that stainless on stainless pressure ball pivots have zero drag then you are just wrong. Go try it yourself before call stuff misinformation! You're the one spreading misinformation!

• 
  @bArraxas6 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse I believed that because didn't see a 1:47 a micro cut (clock behind 6:23 -> 6:25) and then gyro was stoped. Where can I buy a real gyro in belgium please ?

• 
  @fromjesse5 күн бұрын

  @@bArraxas said: > _I believed that because didn't see a __1:47__ a micro cut (clock behind __6:23__ -> __6:25__) and then gyro was stoped._ Correct. Up to 6;23 on the stove clock the gyro was spinning. I was demonstrating the gyro effect. Then I paused the camera and stopped the gyro, then started the camera at 6;25 on the stove clock in order to show the bearing friction without the gyro spinning. Sorry if that confused you. > _Where can I buy a real gyro in belgium please ?_ How much money do you have to spend on it?

• 
  @bArraxas5 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse 250 euros is it enough ?

• 
  @fromjesse5 күн бұрын

  @@bArraxas I'm afraid the best you could get for that is a "Heading Indicator" which is the type of aircraft gyroscope shown in this video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qoKNuZqDh7C8f7w.html They are not as perfect as is ideal, but if you are careful like I show in the link I just gave you, you can objectively test and see the 15 degrees per hour. But you have to be very careful and it is tedious. But it can be done.

• 
  @bArraxas7 күн бұрын

  How can you explain than the gyro-compass doesn't lose 1° each 4 minutes because earth's rotation ?

• 
  @fromjesse6 күн бұрын

  Watch this carefully a couple times. Once you understand how they work, you'll understand how they track without losing angle: kzread.info/dash/bejne/d4Fkl5OCiK2qabQ.html

• 
  @Synaptic_gap8 күн бұрын

  You truly have a saintly amount of patience with the Earth Awakening crowd! Listening to Geo, at the moment, trying to tell you how to do surveying when he clearly has not studied it (he was wrong about the geodetic process as well) it's a toss up as to whether, aside from hubris, he's blinded by massive confirmation bias or it's a blatant case of Dunning Krueger. Whatever the case, you have to feel at least a little bit insulted in their refusal to acknowledge the countless hours you have put into studying the subject material, as well as purchasing and practicing with a variety of precision instruments. I seriously doubt that there is any measurement you could make, no matter how precise and carefully done, that would sway their (seemingly) cult like beliefs.

• 
  @Synaptic_gap8 күн бұрын

  Above all, Geo is clearly NOT arguing in good faith as he simply delivers monologues peppered with what seem to be rhetorical questions while never allowing you time to answer any questions or explain, in detail, the procedures that you've used. Maddening to listen to and I doubt I'd be able to remain calm under those circumstances.

• 
  @Merilix29 күн бұрын

  Nice Setup because thats the only seen so far where measuring lines are not affected by the magnetic flux change. One measurement I missed. Right in the middle between top and bottom copper. Because we had discussion in a forum where we disagree if that shold be zero or not.

• 
  @fromjesse9 күн бұрын

  I think top and bottom would only be zero if the two resistors were equal. If its really important I can set up and measure top to bottom for you.

• 
  @Merilix27 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse Thanks. Cyriel Mabilde made that measurement and results are as KVL says for our resistor ratio: 0.4V ;) (0.9-0.5 = -0.1+0.5 = 0.4) His setup was quite similar to yours with radial and movable probelines. 0.4 was the same result as I got for a simulated DC net with rings of batteries instead.

• 
  @johanesaci14689 күн бұрын

  how much

• 
  @fromjesse9 күн бұрын

  6km

• 
  @mingus070611 күн бұрын

  I need the video that shows how to get that dash/cowling off but I think this is our problem, too. Thanks for the fix!

• 
  @fromjesse10 күн бұрын

  Wow I don't remember exactly how I got the panel off, maybe it was some screws or plastic fasteners? I don't think it was too much trouble.

• 
  @mingus07063 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse yep; it was easy to pop off

• 
  @fromjesse3 күн бұрын

  @@mingus0706 Good to hear! Was your plastic screen chewed through? (Or were the holes big enough for mice?)

• 
  @algirdasbartusevicius47312 күн бұрын

  1:00 Regular manipulation. You raised the flow of light in the beginning. What prevented you from bending more of the metal plate so that the light line runs exactly parallel.

• 
  @fromjesse12 күн бұрын

  I don't understand your question.

• 
  @algirdasbartusevicius47312 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse I'm saying that the way you draw your diagrams is the way you do your experiments. You raise the light stream upwards by manipulating it as if the light in the atmosphere initially rises up. This is not a question, but a remark that you are deceiving yourself.

• 
  @fromjesse12 күн бұрын

  @@algirdasbartusevicius473 I am not deceiving myself or anybody else. We can discuss this experiment once we get some basics settled, I asked you a question in another thread, and I will continue to ask it until you answer it.

• 
  @algirdasbartusevicius47312 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse Trying to prove that light in the atmosphere bends down, but at the same time pointing the laser light up, is cheating and manipulation. I will also repeat this until you understand it.

• 
  @fromjesse12 күн бұрын

  @@algirdasbartusevicius473 You really don't understand density gradient refraction do you, even after literally seeing it in action in full color HD video. Maybe this will help. Light travels slower through more dense medium. In a gradient, this causes the light to veer towards the more dense medium. It doesn't matter whether the light starts with an initial upward, level, or downward slope, it steel veers more downward. Check out this video. It shows all kinds of different beam angles, and you can see I'm not forcing a particular outcome by fine tuning my entrance angle of the laser beam. kzread.info/dash/bejne/nZyD3MR8iKrUh5M.html

• 
  @Waterman6312 күн бұрын

  🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓

• 
  @realcygnus12 күн бұрын

  safe bet its not long enough or some shite 🤪

• 
  @fromjesse12 күн бұрын

  Yup, that's what I'm getting... Even though at 58ft my horizon is around 9 miles on the water, at 1.5mm observer height the horizon should be at 4.5feet... But it's not.. So they just say "You gotta do it bigger" but they provide no logical or mathematical reason as to why, or as to how much bigger.

• 
  @realcygnus12 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse intuition bro 🤣

• 
  @brianleake776213 күн бұрын

  You demonstrated nicely.Looks to me like another 30 or 40 feet and your light would not show up to the camera.Your camera was already showing less and less of the light in that short distance

• 
  @ConcaveHollowEarth12 күн бұрын

  Lights bending up

• 
  @brianleake776212 күн бұрын

  @@ConcaveHollowEarth seems to be

• 
  @ConcaveHollowEarth12 күн бұрын

  @@brianleake7762 Consequence of light bending up, is it makes things APPEAR lower than they actually are -- the more so the greater upwards bending path of the light. So if the more so light is further away, it'll be taking a greater bent upwards path to the observer, making it appear more lower than it is This also (atleast for concave earth) explains the horizon dip as we go more up and up. To when you're in ISS territory, it "appears" like a convex globe but it isn't. Even sunsets and the like are explained with this same reason. The sun moon and planets are orbiting the celestial sphere up above us. They are small and contained within the earth, so why don't we look up and see Halo Earth and see the other side? The reason for this is because again light is bending up. The other side of the world the light never reaches the observer because it bends up towards the center of the earth....and the stars and sun seem to envelop us and go beneath us, but that's only because of an illusion caused by the upwards bending light. Rather than look up and see the celeestial sphere, its light is warped and bent around us like a tent... For concave earth, when we see boats bottoming out, it's really the light bending up at a ggreater rate than the curvature of the earth itself. THe difference between them makes it appear like its curving down but it isn't

• 
  @ConcaveHollowEarth12 күн бұрын

  ​ @brianleake7762 Consequence of light bending up, is it makes things APPEAR lower than they actually are -- the more so the greater upwards bending path of the light. So if the more so light is further away, it'll be taking a greater bent upwards path to the observer, making it appear more lower than it is This also (atleast for concave earth) explains the horizon dip as we go more up and up. To when you're in ISS territory, it "appears" like a convex globe but it isn't. Even sunsets and the like are explained with this same reason. The sun moon and planets are orbiting the celestial sphere up above us. They are small and contained within the earth, so why don't we look up and see Halo Earth and see the other side? The reason for this is because again light is bending up. The other side of the world the light never reaches the observer because it bends up towards the center of the earth....and the stars and sun seem to envelop us and go beneath us, but that's only because of an illusion caused by the upwards bending light. Rather than look up and see the celeestial sphere, its light is warped and bent around us like a tent... For concave earth, when we see boats bottoming out, it's really the light bending up at a ggreater rate than the curvature of the earth itself. THe difference between them makes it appear like its curving down but it isn't

• 
  @fromjesse12 күн бұрын

  The laser spot should have appeared less bright at greater distance because the extreme angle means that only a very thin sliver is visible to the camera. This is just geometry. But the important thing is that every bit of the surface is still visible. You say I needed "another 30 or 40 feet." How do you determine that? If I did it with 50 more feet, would you just say I needed another 100 feet? And so on? The fact is, when I'm at 58 foot observer height at the boat launch, the horizon is about 9 miles away. On the scale model, the eye-height was 1.5mm above the surface, and by the same ratio as real life shows at 58ft observer height, the horizon should have been at 4.2 feet. And yet it wasn't anywhere even in 9 feet. 58 feet / 9.3 miles = 0.0011811665 1.5mm / 4.167 feet = 0.00118100788 So what gives? I recreate an exact scale model of a real-world observation I have, and it doesn't work. What basis do you have for saying I need more distance? I've got more than TWICE the distance I should need. Do you have some mathematical formula that predicts this phenomena? Or do you just say "Well if it didn't work you need to make it bigger because earth is flat and so it has to work on flat earth?" I mean I realize it's a tough point for flat earth. If you can't create a horizon on a flat surface without using bending light and temperature gradients, then you have no explanation for sunsets or bottom up obstruction in reality. But at the end of the day, as honest people, we need to come to grips with the fact that flat surfaces in and of themselves may not actually cause horizons like you think they do.

• 
  @theubercaste13 күн бұрын

  Oh, Jesse. He he. You’re so clouded in your mind. Your limitation here is the counter top length. It’s always distance and angles, and your set up is too short.

• 
  @fromjesse13 күн бұрын

  Do tell! What distances and what angles are needed for a horizon to form on an equal temperature flat surface?

• 
  @theubercaste13 күн бұрын

  @@fromjessemore than you have here Dude. Equal temperature. That’s hilarious. Also, who says flat surfaces “inherently” cause anything? Who? When we are looking out over the water to the horizon, it is not the surface causing anything. Ok? The surface is circumstantial, just like the sky. The cause of the limitation of view is always distance and elevation/angle, and the conditions of the medium. Have you seen SKYFREE? They do micro demos where they create horizons in their home as well as out in the field. Take a look at their work.

• 
  @fromjesse13 күн бұрын

  @@theubercaste > _Have you seen SKYFREE? They do micro demos_ I have. They used a WARM FLOOR under COLD AIR. Not equal temperature. Light curves towards the more dense region, so of course the warm floor would have a horizon under cold air. But the fact is, we have horizons on the ocean and lakes all the time when the water is not warmer than the air. > _more than you have here Dude._ Well, if you don't know how much, then how can you say I don't have enough? If I doubled it, you'd still say not enough. Your only criteria is that if it doesn't show what you wish it showed, it isn't enough. But that's circular logic. That's affirming the consequent: You're using your belief in flat earth to prove flat earth.

• 
  @theubercaste13 күн бұрын

  Ugh. You’re so tedious dude. You have claims here YOUVE NOT PROVEN. How about start with those. Look back at your comment and find your claims about bendy this and temperature that, and demonstrate your claim. The fact that you doubled down on the distance comment that I made, it’s just proof you’re thick as a brick dude

• 
  @theubercaste13 күн бұрын

  Ugh. You’re so tedious dude. You have claims here YOUVE NOT PROVEN. How about start with those. Look back at your comment and find your claims about bendy this and temperature that, and demonstrate your claim. The fact that you doubled down on the distance comment that I made, it’s just proof you’re thick as a brick dude. And no, if you doubled your distance I wouldn’t say that…bc you haven’t doubled your distance yet. So, put up, or shut up.

• 
  @carljelliff315613 күн бұрын

  This video reminds me that I have a lot of weed eating to do when the rainy weather ends 😂

• 
  @carljelliff315613 күн бұрын

  I can’t decide what I think about this until Travis @theubercaste offers his opinion 😐

• 
  @FlatEarthMath13 күн бұрын

  There are several problems with this demonstration. The laser is the wrong color. The phone is the wrong brand. The mirror wasn't shiny enough. The countertop had two holes in it. You've just proven Our Glorious Flat Earth™! In other news, this demonstration is fantastic. You did something quite extraordinary (and unexpected): showing the far edge of the countertop with the laser, even though the angular size of that patch is ridiculously small! In other words, the exact opposite of what Gary Wybenga is always saying! Nicely done. 🙂

• 
  @fromjesse13 күн бұрын

  Ha! In my rough quick calculation, the angular size of the laser spot on the counter top at the far point would be about 0.0002 degrees or so. That would be about 1/200th of a single pixel! Waaay below the resolution limit of the camera. And yet still visible.

• 
  @FlatEarthMath13 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse It must be magic. That laser should have disappeared into the vanishing point, according to the laws of Flerspective.

• 
  @profphilbell207513 күн бұрын

  If you ask Oakley, the flat table proves earth is flat. Especially if you use it to get an angle of elevation.

• 
  @dogwalker66613 күн бұрын

  A sharp horizon is impossible on a space pizza.

• 
  @DJRonnieG13 күн бұрын

  Yeah, but your table is too short to exhibit the "vanishing point" 😉 🥞 Jokes aside, I've encountered that talking-point before but it's pretty meaningless and is thus it is effectively an invalid cointrtargument.

• 
  @profphilbell207513 күн бұрын

  The flerfs can go to the shore and get up 20ft or however high they want to. The ships will still disappear bottom first over the horizon.

• 
  @theubercaste13 күн бұрын

  Ffs

• 
  @user-kn1yc6pu5h14 күн бұрын

  What about at the equator where the stars diverge

• 
  @fromjesse13 күн бұрын

  The stars don't diverge. They only appear to because of the distortion of the lens. If you actually MEASURE the ANGLE between any two stars throughout the night, you will find that the angle between them actually remains CONSTANT.

• 
  @user-kn1yc6pu5h13 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse so they don’t 100%?

• 
  @Baron_Rutledge14 күн бұрын

  Yup this can only happen on a globe. Unfortunately most people won’t understand this and how it demonstrates a shape. They’ll look at the manipulation of the foot screw as being deceptive. However this is a great thought experiment. You’re up in the ring of fire correct?

• 
  @fromjesse14 күн бұрын

  I'm 100 miles east of the West Coast, (Sequim, WA) so I really never thought of myself as being in the ring of fire. Earth quakes and volcanoes is something we here just never think about unless it's on the news from California or something.

• 
  @Baron_Rutledge14 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse can you get elevated enough to sight Shasta?

• 
  @fromjesse14 күн бұрын

  @@Baron_Rutledge It's 450 miles from me, so I think not since I have no practical way to get 65000 feet high. However, when I was in California visiting family only 105 miles away from Mt. Shasta, I did get up on an 8900ft tall mountain and could see it! kzread.info/dash/bejne/fGabzNeaf5TOdZc.html

• 
  @fromjesse14 күн бұрын

  @@Baron_Rutledge I'm all the way up near the Canadian border :D

• 
  @Baron_Rutledge14 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse 😂I didn’t do my research on that one!

• 
  @algirdasbartusevicius47315 күн бұрын

  Recommendation for the channel author, if you want to see all the comments, when uploading the video (or you can edit the settings after uploading), sort them by "Newest first". Thank you.

• 
  @dogwalker66616 күн бұрын

  Facinating little bug.

• 
  @DJRonnieG16 күн бұрын

  Nice catch. I whould upload the vid of the plump spider that was on my telescope today.

• 
  @user-fh9xf2ni7s16 күн бұрын

  Что тут происходит? Джесси, снова унижает жителей плоской земли? :)

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  Not intentionally. But I think observable reality tends to do that! We got the horizon drop, we got the bottom up obstruction, we got everything you'd expect from a globe!

• 
  @user-fh9xf2ni7s16 күн бұрын

  Понятно

• 
  @ConcaveHollowEarth16 күн бұрын

  Curving up !

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  Not this time. Here is curving down!

• 
  @ConcaveHollowEarth16 күн бұрын

  ​@@fromjesse It's still curving up , just refracting more which makes it appear lower than it actually is. (It's backwards for concave as you know, so we want to make sure we use the correct inversions when considering it)

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  @@ConcaveHollowEarth Yeah yeah yeah, I know you think it is actually concave even though it looks and measures for all the globe like umm a convex surface of a sphere :D

• 
  @ConcaveHollowEarth16 күн бұрын

  @@fromjesse When searching for the true path of light, and factoring in all considerations earnestly, one is required to also invert the proper variables when testing for, say, the possiblity of earth being concave and light bending up. We cannot ignore the fact that, with increased refraction, light bends UP at a GREATER rate in the concave earth, causing light to appear lower than it actually is. This is specifically the reason how, if were concave, we would see the horizon dip more and more as we go up higher and higher like we do. The reason is because we are seeing light further away, which takes a greater curved path upwards, which to the observer makes it appear lower than it actually is We can't just simply-only look at eye level, beneath eye level, and above eye level. We need to penetrate deeper

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  @@ConcaveHollowEarth Don't forget our deal: You need to get a least one concave earth convert who can then tell me all about concave earth. So far you have not presented a single bit of evidence as to why light would be curving the opposite direction that we measure it. I have talked with your concave leaders and they don't have an answer either.

• 
  @wynand98816 күн бұрын

  Would you say the first mountain range you see behind the Dungeness peninsula is Mount Tuam and then the first hills you see after you started panning to the right could be the Henry Island Preserve at 56kms or Straut Island behind it at 65 kms?

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  I haven't looked into that.

• 
  @Amanlikeme17 күн бұрын

  I'm willing to bet this is a black swan, to bad you don't have any mile markers.

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  This is not black swan. Protection island is the mile marker you yearn for: its 5 miles out, right where the horizon should be (and is be!) Search Google maps for port Williams sequim then measure the distance to protection island. It's right where the globe model prediction says it should be!

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  > _I'm willing to bet this is a black swan, to bad you don't have any mile markers._ OK I did your homework for you. Here are the coordinates and distances of the two Buoys seen. BUOY YELLOW FLASH 2.5S 48.205927,-123.109623: 8.05 miles. BUOY RED FLASH 4S 48.192316,-123.094622: 6.92 miles. What we don't know is how tall they are. Obviously we are not seeing all of them, and clearly the one that's a mile closer has a whole lot more showing. Even at 8.05 miles, WITHOUT THE AID OF REFRACTION, the hidden height is still only 7 feet. I'm pretty sure those buoys are taller than 7 feet! At 6.92 miles, WITHOUT THE AID OF REFRACTION, the hidden height is only 2.94 feet, and we KNOW those markers have to be taller than that!!

• 
  @carljelliff315613 күн бұрын

  I’m willing to bet that you would lose your bet.

• 
  @Amanlikeme17 күн бұрын

  Both of these videos are black swans, how far is the buoy from your observation point? The horizon, according the sphere's math, must be, has to be, can not be any further than 4.9 miles away. I'm sure you don't know how far the buoy is, probably on purpose, you shouldn't even see it at all if it's more than 4.9 miles. That's 422 feet of missing curvature if I'm guessing right. How far are the buoys?

• 
  @awatt17 күн бұрын

  I've looked really hard at this video, many times now and I can't see any swans, black or otherwise.

• 
  @primonomeultimonome17 күн бұрын

  Oh look, ALiarLikeMe still posting FE BS after all these years. Flerfs never get tired of lying.

• 
  @scott_meyer17 күн бұрын

  Twit

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  > _Both of these videos are black swans_ They are black swans against flat earth. They are not possible on a flat earth :D > _how far is the buoy from your observation point?_ I didn't even know that buoy was out there till I saw it in the camera! There was a couple of them. I don't know how far they are. However, I do give my observer location and I tell you when I'm pointing at the tip of Dungeness Spit so maybe you can work it out, and next time I'm out there maybe I can measure exact angles to them and we can figure it out! > _The horizon, according the sphere's math, must be, has to be, can not be any further than 4.9 miles away_ Yeah, 4.9 to 5. Remember, light DOES bend towards the more dense region in a gradient, and air IS at a greater pressure at lower level, so this WOULD extend the horizon a little. But anyway, Protection island IS at about 5 miles and DOES appear right at the horizon. > _I'm sure you don't know how far the buoy is, probably on purpose,_ LOL. You're silly :D I give my location and tell you where I'm pointing the camera, why don't you go look on public websites and try to figure out what buoys those are? Every buoy has an ID number and published Coordinates. > _you shouldn't even see it at all if it's more than 4.9 miles._ Well, when the air is warmer than the water it can intensify the refraction and allow one to see way too far. But I don't think that was happening this day in this region. This isn't California :D > _That's 422 feet of missing curvature if I'm guessing right._ How do you figure? I think you forgot to take into account observer height of 15.5 feet. Try your maths again :D > _How far are the buoys?_ I don't know but I gave you my observer location and approximate angle to the buoys so have fun and see if you can figure it out!

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  > _How far are the buoys?_ If you look near the end of the Dungeness Spit on this boaters map, you will see TWO buoys near the end of it -- so the distance is probably around 7 miles. That's why some of the bottom of them is cut off - they are channel markers and are there so that ships can see them from a long distance to help guide them into the channel at night. www.usharbors.com/harbor/washington/dungeness-wa/map/

• 
  @theubercaste17 күн бұрын

  4:41 that’s not the horizon line unless you are creating a new reference point. But also notice there at the focal point of your center of vision where the water apparently ends-there’s an electric looking white line of noise. See it? 6:47 What are the distances? What about the bluffs from earlier? 7:26 so, for myself, having made these observations for six years-I’ve never ever thought, Huh! I’m looking over curvature! So, my question to you Jesse is this-what do you think you’re seeing in these 9 minutes? Is this a spot you can access easily? Maybe try to get some stills of targets to compare displacement that you will see but might not understand is occurring without a control image.

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  > _4:41__ that’s not the horizon line unless you are creating a new reference point._ What do you mean that's not the horizon line? It sure looks like the TRUE WATER HORIZON line to me. It's a hard cutoff beyond which the surface cannot be seen. > _But also notice there at the focal point of your center of vision where the water apparently ends-there’s an electric looking white line of noise. See it?_ Yup, there's a little haze over the water. > _6:47__ What are the distances? What about the bluffs from earlier?_ Protection Island is at about 5 miles, and the land directly beyond Protection Island is about 15 miles roughly. For the rest, open up google earth and search for Port WIlliams Sequim and measure whatever distances you want. > _7:26 so, for myself, having made these observations for six years-I’ve never ever thought, Huh! I’m looking over curvature! So, my question to you Jesse is this-what do you think you’re seeing in these 9 minutes?_ It is EXACTLY what we would see on a globe. I know not all temperature conditions yield EXACTLY what we would see on a globe - but on this day it was a textbook ideal day: The horizon drop was exactly what it should be, the distance to the horizon was exactly what it should be, and the bottom up obstruction was just right too. > _Is this a spot you can access easily?_ It's a 15 minute drive each way. It was only like 7 minutes before I moved. > _Maybe try to get some stills of targets to compare displacement that you will see but might not understand is occurring without a control image._ I've gotten all the other types of photos too with stuff appearing lifted up above eye-level when it is geometrically below eye-level.

• 
  @carljelliff315613 күн бұрын

  The average IQ of entire east coast of the United States is a full point lower because you live there, Travis🙄

• 
  @ZX7RPANDA17 күн бұрын

  #flat lol

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  haha hey buddy! How's it going?

• 
  @theubercaste17 күн бұрын

  Maybe an NDR filter would clear up your footage next time. Any thoughts on that ship you saw? How far away it is? What about meteorological profile? I would consider this an example of extension(or, looming). Since there is no curve, looming is a misnomer; hence, “extending the floor,” Is a more appropriate term.

• 
  @primonomeultimonome17 күн бұрын

  Pathological denial of reality is a more appropriate term for FE believers.

• 
  @awatt17 күн бұрын

  Globe confirmed 💯 🌎

• 
  @fromjesse16 күн бұрын

  I don't think an ND filter would have helped. All they do is reduce light a certain percentage. I had the exposure correct. There was just very low contrast at 15 miles that day. I have no information on the ship, and no information on the met. I could tell you that it was cool and very breezy but I won't tell you that since I didn't measure that with an instrument. What do you consider to be extension/looming about this? I measured the angle to be -0.065139 below eye-level and at 5 miles which is EXACTLY where the globe model says it should be. The horizon line was BELOW eye-level. Nothing was distorted out of it's correct width-height ratio. What exactly do you suppose was extension/looming? If earth was flat, the horizon was dropped DOWN to match the globe. Why would a DROPPED DOWN horizon cause bottom up obstruction?

• 
  @carljelliff315613 күн бұрын

  Travis - are you in a weird competition for the dumbest comments on KZread? If so, this one is a winning candidate 👍

• 
  @ICANanimations17 күн бұрын

  you are amazing!

• 
  @NicoLeDahut17 күн бұрын

  I’m impressed on how leveled is your camera. Meaning horizon stays mostly in the same position.

• 
  @fromjesse17 күн бұрын

  My DIY tripod head has a bubble level and a theodolite base hehe. kzread.info/dash/bejne/Zpafpq-gfqvedM4.html

• 
  @intothebreak57117 күн бұрын

  Okay I will be on fed tomorrow. Very good line of sights

• 
  @larryscott398217 күн бұрын

  First

• 
  @fromjesse17 күн бұрын

  I'll second that!

• 
  @awatt17 күн бұрын

  🥇