A Ray Tracing Model of Refraction of the Isle of Man

A presentation of an implementation of a mathematical model of the the refraction of light in the atmosphere as it affects views of the Isle of Man from St. Bees in Cumbria.

Flat Earthers have been citing some recent video footage of the Isle of Man from St. Bees as proof of a flat Earth. The Isle of Man is 50 km or so from St. Bees and the view of the island is affected by refraction which causes an effect called looming. This has the effect of allowing objects which would be obscured by the curve of the Earth being visible to an observer.

The effect is small in that an observer with the naked eye wouldn't be unable to perceive and effect but an observer armed with a high magnification camera could see changes of the positions of objects by what appears to be a few tens of metres.

Phillip's model includes numerically solving an ordinary differential equation which describes the refractive index of the air as dependent on pressure, temperature gradients and humidity for a ray of light that passes through the atmosphere..

[Coalemos]

Rumpus, you and Philip are You guys see it cause it's there!

[SLH_]

The Rumpus, did you get chance to watch the "Convex Earth Documentary"? Your thoughts?

[davpopmol]

sounds painful rumpus hope the surveyors drop clears up soon

[moyockman]

@The Rumpus

Sorry don't know how to contact you but in answer to Oakley's independent variable and null hypothesis.

DEPENDENT VARIABLE- ANGLE TO POLARUS

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE- CHANGE IN LATITUDE AKA MOVEMENT.

NULL HYPOTHESIS - WILL NOT YIELD ACCURATE LOCATION IF ONE MOVES SPECIFICALLY NORTH OR SOUTH MOTION.

PS I DONT KNOW BUT I THINK RADIUS OF THE EARTH IS ALSO A VARIABLE BUT NOT SURE WHICH TYPE.

IF STANDING STILL CHANGING THE RARIUS OF THE EARTH WILL RESULT IN GREATER.OR LESS MILES PER DEGREE OF LATITUDE.



Null hypothesis the world is flat, alternative the world is round

Null hypothesis observes angle to Polaris will not determine latitude, alternative hypothesis latitude can be determined using observed angle of polaris.

[frankdebrouwer-leiden]

Rumpus: can I give you some good advice? Don't go to Oakley's and Anthony the Liar Riley's hangouts anymore. They are just trying to confuse you with their statements that are pronounced as if it were absolute truths but in reality, are just obfuscating. I've just seen you wrestle with the Liar Riley where he deliberately keeps on mistaking horizon with level. You'll never win an argument from these two clowns because they cannot permit themselves to admit that they have it all wrong and have it wrong for about 3 months. (btw: you should have shown some pictures by Jesse Kozlowski, allthough Oakley probably would have asked: are they from IOM, no? then sodd off. That's the way they treat you over there).
Anthony the liar Riley has made so many "mistakes" in the last year that he can be described as nothing else but a pathological liar who uses all tricks in the book to wiggle himself out of the corner he painted himself in. I made a list of his "mistakes:

Solar eclipse happens once a month
Harvest moon 8-10 times bigger
Curvature due to electrolysis
Fermat's principle: light follows a path of least resistance
Fermat's principle and Snell's law don't match
Snell's law isn't applicable in an anisotropic medium
Observer height at stBees was 35 feet (in reality more than 100 feet)
Ireland could be seen from stBees
Scotland could be seen from stBees
Lower parts not visible due to durty urr
There are smokestacks in the footage of IOM
Douglas can be seen from stBees
Photons don't exist
You see things because they are there
Dalton's law is applicable to vacuum
Chromatic aberration is called chroma key
Tides are caused by paramagnetic salt
The angular size and the angle size of an object are two different things
There is no parallax between Syrius and Betelgeuse
Moon and stars always move at the same speed in timelapse
Atmospheric refraction can take place up, down, left and right
Earthshine doesn't exist
The moon isn't causing the solar eclipses
You can see stars on a picture taken through a solar filter
Atmospheric refraction under standard atmospheric condition is negligible
Reduced in surveying means making measurements smaller aka making it flat
Pendulums at their highest point have no force working on them
Pyramids are power plants
Electricity is transported by ions
A shadow can be cast on the atmosphere
The name of the ship Ben-My-Chree should be spelled: Bain Ma Cherry
a depiction of the field intensity of the world magnetic model depicts the direction of the field
Vacuum sucks
Vacuum is measured in TORR so the power of vacuum is huge
People at various places looking due south at the same time cannot see the south celestial pole

And this is probably far from complete.
So I ask you: don't give them any credibility by showing up on their self-proclaimed show. Oakley considers every kind of attention as an advertisement for his channel, even if it shits on his face. I made two videos ridiculing them, and his only reaction was: thanks for the advert. He even mirrored one of them. The guy is a certified nutcase.

[nativeatheist]

Interesting, I don't understand all this fucking math, but interesting.

[runethorsen]

Seems like an awefull lot of time spent on something that was quote "not quite prepared, sorry"... Dude, who are you apologizing to !! cool stuff though, atleast I feel I get smarter watching your stuff :) ... I will have to rewatch phillips presentation several times though, not that intuitive to me ... I hope someone smarter than me will have some concise objections