User:AetherbandPhotography

Under construction for publication RETHINKING REFRACTION: Improving the Inferior Mirage Model by Travis Matthew Finley, MDiv

“A beatific vision of kaleidoscopic proportions” is how I like to describe my love and appreciation for atmospheric refraction phenomena (hereafter, “the event”) with and without mirage. For many, many centuries these events have been observed, described and studied in every climate and geography. In my field research, despite WIKI and edu sites which all seem to copy and paste the same information, there is no hard and fast set of rules unto which the events are obliged to conform; that is, no one seems to know where or when a particular event might be observed. This should be problematic for students of science who want to demonstrate, test, and verify the claims of refraction phenomena. Under what variables and when should a secondary student go out to observe a mirage, or fata morgana? If science cannot answer that, we have a problem. Certainly, one may assert, for instance, that the fata morgana is “most commonly seen” in polar regions (per Wiki and every other site that parrots this information), but once she is captured on display on both the east and west coasts of the US at different latitudes and seasons, that quantification loses meaning. Googling these events, an astute researcher will find (as the author did) conflict between mainstream science and the observations of the events. One such conflict is the accepted science that a mirage is classified as a “vertically stretched image.” This article will argue contrary to the published data. Mirages are images along the x axis (i.e. along the egocentric horizontal), rather than along the zed axis (i.e. vertical axis). More specifically, if the image of the mirage is along the x axis then there is obstructed distance hidden by the event for which account must be taken. In an article by Andrew Thomas Young (cited above and hereafter, ATY), he lucidly states that for many centuries scientists have understood that obstruction by mirage is a valid quantification. Yet, it seems the ramifications of this given fact are never mentioned in any public source material. This tells the reader one of two things: the field experts are not aware of this conclusion; or, the field experts are aware of the conclusion but are not publishing their knowledge. Both of those allegations ought to raise many an eyebrow. In my early research, I felt the obliged to smith a new term, aetherband for the particular focus I determined essential to progress with my research. My research has to do with both terrestrial and aquatic observations at various distances from ground level. Atmospheric refraction is a term which seems too generic and includes alleged manifold variables such as air (and surface) temperature, pressure, humidity, etc., possibly including celestial atmospherics. Not only that, but my term, aetherband, is syllabically more economical. This article will not directly address the causes (known as boundary meteorology) for the events, but rather the implications of the events themselves in relation to observations made over both aquatic and terrestrial distance. The author will assume (based on hundreds of field observation hours) that an event is not merely made up of only one effect. That is, even though there are four events (looming/sinking; towering/stooping) which do not include mirage, that does not imply that a mirage event cannot also include, say, “sinking” and/or “towering.”

This diagram re- produced by Dr. Rod Nave is based on the work of R. Greenler. Note in the diagram with mirage that only the land is given an inverted image. This is a gross oversight as the miraged sky unquestionably is observed when these events are presented to the observer. See the two insertions below for two early morning examples:

In these evening photographs off Concord Point, Havre de Grace, MD, one can detect an acute mirage of the sky directly above the limit of the mirage. This entire event, in my opinion, is a severe (or obtuse) mirage precisely because the erect image includes the sky above it. When the sky is not mirrored, I refer to the mirage as minor (or acute). See the next image for a contrast.

Clearly the brown land in the lower photograph is swallowed up by the mirage and there is no sliver of the sky. The mirage in the higher pane is obtuse and the lower is acute (again, these are my terms [terms which also indicate a further need for remedial quantification]). Below is a diagram for further consideration in this discussion:

While ATY disparages the term vanishing line and rather uses fold line, it is apparently of no matter to Dr. Nave who reproduced Greenler's work for his website. Vanishing line is more than an acceptable description for the event's demarcation between both erect and inverted image. It is more than acceptable precisely because it describes what, in fact, is observed: the lower portion of the erect target is “vanished” as-it-were (a veritable now-you-see-me-now-you-don't event). Leftmost is an original photograph with a diagram noting the aforementioned key mirage elements. Platform Gina sits 8 miles south of the observer from Emmawood State Beach, Ventura, California.

At this point, it will be helpful for me to comment and elaborate on the accepted terms for mirage. Mirages are made up of a physical target, or erect image (per ATY); the vanishing line (which term ATY does not appreciate); the inverted mirrored image; the limit of the mirage; and another term I smithed, the disclosing line. This last term was chosen to complement the scientific term, vanishing line. It may be assumed that this term, vanishing line, was chosen to describe what vanishes from view behind the event. The disclosing line, therefore, refers to the revelation of what one ought to continue to see were there no event (in this case what more would be seen is further aquatic distance and the entire erect image). The limit of the mirage is a term referring to the amount of the target included within the degree of the severity of the mirage.

KEY: limiting line: this is the limit of the target's image in the mirage event vanishing line: this is the line of transition from erect image or target to mirage disclosing line (my term): this is where the limit of the mirage creates the horizon revealing that the foreground water is the same as that which lies behind and below the mirage

Taken from Young's article on improving the inferior mirage model, this diagram depicts his interpretation of the phenomenon. Simply using the diagram there are noteworthy differences to evaluate. First, to create the contrast between target and mirage, distance is increased and is the dependent variable; everything else remains as is. Second, in this diagram, that change in the observer's location is the cause for the optical displacement and distortion of the target. Clearly, the target has "sunk" (or, is depressed) lower than its starting position; otherwise, there would be no reason for the images to be offset. The smooth bend of the target, where the vanishing line is understood, highlights the distortion of the target below the vanishing line. So, there are at least three phenomena combined in this event: mirage, sinking, and lateral compression. So, to be clear, -3 in the right pane is not the horizon, but a false horizon. Apparently, the “original” position of the horizon in the left pane at -1 has been vanished from view even though it is still there now farther away from the observer equal to the distance traveled. It is interesting to note that while Young attempted to improve the model, he fell short of understanding the revolutionary implication even of his initial thesis that the lower edge of the inferior mirage at sea forms the apparent horizon. Also from the same article, Young recounts how "the hiding of distant objects by the mirage" has been well-documented for hundreds of years. This is where my hypothesis comes in: simply extend the left horizon (red line) across to the right image and the original horizon’s being hidden by the mirage will be understood. The original horizon was observed at less than -1; the new position is slightly lower than -3. However, this new position is an effect of the mirage. Also worth noting, by the blue boxes is this: in the right-most image, between -1 and -3 the sky is being inverted as a mirage. This fact, too, is absurdly absent in the literature. To make the point that the mirage is along the x axis, consider this: were there another target within that degree of arcmins (eg.the sailboat); the distance lying between both boat and island within the mirage, along with the sailboat’s hull would be “vanished:” now, discrediting the well-known “hull-down” phenomenon. The relocation of the observer has simply increased the distance and refractive index along the egocentric view. That increased distance lies between both the disclosing and the vanishing line. If there were a lower more proximate target within the event, it would be "vanished" as in this image below. Compression and foreshortening most assuredly are to be taken into account here as well. Foreshortening is that element of perspective wherein the egocentric distance apparently is compressed into acute visual space more than assumed to be the case. Compression also happens along the zed axis wherein the target's geometric angular size apparently is too great to be “fit” into such a small area. My subsequent hypothesis is also that the target and distance are affected by both refraction and foreshortening with or without mirage. Allow me to repackage my initial hypothesis: if the image of the mirage is along the x axis, and both distance and target are hidden by the event, then both target and distance must be taken into account when interpreting the effects of the phenomenon. What must be corrected in Young's mirage diagram (at least) is the interpretation that with an inferior mirage the arcmins represent altitude; they most certainly do not. It is an error to interpret the egocentric observation of an inferior mirage from vanishing line to disclosing line as altitude. While more can and must be said, this assuredly is enough to call into question refraction science, and to require another attempt to improve the model of the inferior mirage. This would also include my third hypothesis that all mirages (ie. superior, and fata morganas) are simply “inferior” mirages misunderstood and misinterpreted.

Further concepts to consider:

Targets have altitude, but shadows and mirages do not. Mirages, like shadows, have different depths either more or less acute. The severity of the oil platform mirage depends on the conditions of the medium much like the position of the sun for the shadow’s length..

Each of these boats has elevation above the water, but the mirage does not. The point at which the limit of the water and mirage transition is not altitude in arcmins per Andrew Thomas Young. Each of these boats is horizontal to the next and apparently is “higher” than the previous following perspective while the depth of their mirages are an effect of the medium.

Each photo above was taken from the same location 5.87 miles away with a focal length of 357mm with a COOLPIX P900. The only variable which was not uniform was the condition of the medium through which the observation was being made. The graininess of the image is also an effect of the aetherband; in other words, refraction doesn't mean the photo was taken out-of-focus. Here is a question for you to ponder: if all images above are taken from the same set up, why is the field of view so disparate?