About a month ago I posted a video attempting to model a photo taken by Jesse Kozlowski of the Marriott hotel across lake Pontchartrain. I received one detailed comment by steemit user haveyouvisited, which I didn't get a chance to properly respond to. Here is the comment in it's entirety. Afterwords I'll address the claims.
Comment:
haveyouvisited (45) · 22 days ago
You didn't figure in the BASE of the height of the marriott. And i doubt your model figured in horizon drop. This is just first glance.
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
So, just on first glance that you did not take the base of the height of the marriott over the lake into account
Here is his theodolite image with the horizon drop. I'm not sure if you understand this, but that RIGHT THERE debunks the flat earth! Horizon drop IS the curvature!
Then, if you were to take an image of the Marriott and superimpose it, there is a HUGE amount of the building missing! At least 1/3 of the building is obscured. And even your calc says that about 260 feet should be missing. But you didn't take the height above the lake into account either! That would be imperative.
In any case, perhaps there is a BIT of the building that should be missing more than the calc says, but it's within 50 or so feet of the calc that even YOU did!
and from YOUR OWN VIDEO, when you went higher in elevation, I caught the almost EXACT image that Jesse got and it was at an elevation of 6. 9 meters. I actually think it could have gone up just SLIGHTLY higher to capture it perfectly, but you put your text right over the top of the image so I couldn't see it. But it might have been a meter or two higher to get it exactly right.
The height you used is 4.65 meters. That is 3. 25 meters from nearly perfectly capturing what he did. Lets add 2 meters to that for 5-6 meters off of exactly what Jesse was showing. Which would be easily explainable by the height of the Marriott above the lake that you didn't calculate!
So, I don't see how you can conclude that this is not consistent with the globe. A calculation of about 1% is a legitimate amount off due to reasonable errors. But this one is nearly spot on. It's around 6 METERS off your own calculations and you are saying that is inconsistent with the globe!
You have yet to show any calcs with verified heights and distances that are 50-1000% off, as would be expected on a flat earth.
You take an error rate of 6 meters and declare that it's inconsistent with the globe! That seems completely dishonest and biased. And you ignore the fact that the horizon drop right in front of you debunks the flat earth entirely!
You literally debunked yourself. 6 meters difference and you failed to take the base of the Marriott into account! I honestly think you should do a retraction video and say you are incorrect and that it is perfectly consistent with the globe!
-----end of comment
Here is my late but detailed reply;
To begin with, by Jesse's own numbers, the observation point was 6 ft above a 6 foot location. Google Earth confirms the elevation of his location to be 2m (if you can trust the elevation accuracy of Google Earth) so I went with the 12 foot elevation which should be 3.66 meters. This is the value I had in my spreadsheet (3.65 actually). However, I did make a mistake in my video and had the camera at 3.1 meters for the majority of the point I was trying to make. I'm not sure where you got the 4.65 in your comment but maybe you meant 3.65. In any case, 3.1 was the value I demonstrated originally and 3.66 is the value that should be used, but the difference is negligible and shown in the images below.
The first claim asserts that I didn't include the base elevation of the Marriott in my calculations. According to Google Earth, the Marriott sits between 0m and -1m elevation. The top of the building (the very top section) measures 123 meters above sea level. This coincides perfectly with my model. I was aware of the base elevation but I did fail to mention this in the video. Considerably, there would be no change to the math in my model unless I went with the -1m figure, which would not be in the globes favor.
Second point I can address is the horizon drop. The green line is eye line (at eye level when not angled) and I indicated how the entire building is below the eye level. My statement is mathematically incorrect, however, since true eye level would be at 121.66 meters (drop plus observer height) of a 123 meter building, leaving 1.33 meters appearing above eye level. At that distance 1.33 meters is basically covered up by the 2 pixel eye line but I should have said the building "appears" to be entirely below eye level. As the camera rises, yes more of the building becomes visible, but the eye level line moves further away from the top of the building as well. This proves that the image is geometrically impossible on an airless sphere. As for horizon drop being proof of the curve, I disagree, but that is a different topic and probably an upcoming video.
So here are 5 full images and a composite for comparison. Also, I'm using a new image for the Marriott hotel which is a little more clear and from a better angle. The 123 meter scale height of the building and all distances remain the same. Observer heights are indicated.
3.1 meters, like the original video showed.
3.6 meters, no refraction.
3.6 meters, with standard refraction (7/6 globe radius).
7.1 meters, no refraction.
7.1 meters, with standard refraction.
Here is a comparison with the eye level lined up. The closest match is obviously the refracted at 3.6 meters, but even then, a bit more than standard refraction would be required. But would it line up even then? And does refraction effect the horizon position? I'm not done with this photo yet, I will be revisiting this standard refraction issue in a video very soon.
All of what you see is calculated automatically and angular size doesn't lie, unless there is atmospheric lensing or refraction present. The underlying math in my simulation has not been shown to be incorrect and as long as I enter correct values for the few user variables, what you see is an accurate full scale model. As for your suggestion that I should do a retraction video, my original claim remains, that this image would not be possible without refraction. Refraction is absolutely necessary for explaining every case of something being obscured less than it should on a globe, at least that I have seen so far. But that is the reason I made this calculator, so that I can model and test these curve 'proofs' and determine what refraction really has to be capable of in each situation. So bring forth your examples of accurately measured and reasonably verifiable claims of curvature and put them to the test. I do appreciate your comment and if you respond to this, I will try to reply promptly. Thanks!