100 mile view from sea-level

Quote from: hoppy on July 01, 2013, 06:58:17 PM

What is the height of the mountain above sea level? The drop on round earth would be 6666'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

Did you have no rebuttal when you read 12k feet? Do you suppose that since only mountains so tall are viewable 100 miles across a body of water that it's an indication that the body of water is curved?

FErs have gone silent on my most recent threads. Apart from ski who admits my diagram didn't make sense to him.

I missed the 12,000' answer previously. There is no need for me to rebut, I am gathering info. Could I ask you for evidence that only the bottom 1/2 of the mountain is being seen.

I missed the 12,000' answer previously. There is no need for me to rebut, I am gathering info. Could I ask you for evidence that only the bottom 1/2 of the mountain is being seen.

This is the evidence I present: I stood on the shore and took a photograph of mountains 100 miles across a body of water.  The mountains are enormously tall with Mount Fairweather being the peak. 

"Mount Fairweather, is one of the world's highest coastal mountains at 4,671 metres It is located 20 km east of the Pacific Ocean on the border of Alaska, United States and western British Columbia, Canada"

This means it shoots up out of sea level very rapidly.

We know there are mountains in Canada that are tall, why can we not see them when looking across the Great Lakes? The theory of the air being too thick is bogus. A wave blocking the view is bogus.

In my picture we are actually seeing over the top of a lot of land!

Quote from: hoppy on July 03, 2013, 04:16:58 PM

I missed the 12,000' answer previously. There is no need for me to rebut, I am gathering info. Could I ask you for evidence that only the bottom 1/2 of the mountain is being seen.

This is the evidence I present: I stood on the shore and took a photograph of mountains 100 miles across a body of water.  The mountains are enormously tall with Mount Fairweather being the peak. 

"Mount Fairweather, is one of the world's highest coastal mountains at 4,671 metres It is located 20 km east of the Pacific Ocean on the border of Alaska, United States and western British Columbia, Canada"

This means it shoots up out of sea level very rapidly.

We know there are mountains in Canada that are tall, why can we not see them when looking across the Great Lakes? The theory of the air being too thick is bogus. A wave blocking the view is bogus.

In my picture we are actually seeing over the top of a lot of land!

Is half of the mountain missing in your photo?

Is half of the mountain missing in your photo?

And is there any reason to believe giant mountains would be visible at the distances involved?

Quote from: hoppy on July 03, 2013, 04:53:53 PM

Is half of the mountain missing in your photo?

And is there any reason to believe giant mountains would be visible at the distances involved?

Hoppy my best judgment says yes half of the mountain range is obscured, evidence of this would require geometry and/or time and pictures I don't have.

Ski the evidence of them being visible is that they're visible.

Viewing distance into the horizon is directly correlated with pressure, gas constant, temperature, humidity, and pollution.  At sea level the average air density is 1.2250 kg/m^3. This sort of density will allow a viewing distance of around 25 miles across the horizon. In New York pollution and humidity are at such high levels that viewing distance is limited to 15 miles.

At higher altitudes the air density drops sharply, allowing the viewer to see far away lands before they are obscured by a blue-white sky. It is for this reason that an observer standing on Mt. Everest can see other mountains hundreds of miles away. Such pristine conditions are rare on the earth, however, only existing at high altitudes and in fidged environments.

Another question I must ask...  were the conditions that day frigid FlatOrange?

If not, do we all agree that one can see objects further than 25 miles at sea-level?

Quote from: hoppy on July 01, 2013, 06:58:17 PM

What is the height of the mountain above sea level? The drop on round earth would be 6666'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

Did you have no rebuttal when you read 12k feet? Do you suppose that since only mountains so tall are viewable 100 miles across a body of water that it's an indication that the body of water is curved?

FErs have gone silent on my most recent threads. Apart from ski who admits my diagram didn't make sense to him.

6,666 feet would be if your camera was level with the water surface.  If you were 15 feet (rough estimate based on photo) above the water, then you have several miles before your line of sight would start being affected by the curvature, which would reduce the visual drop amount, thus reducing the amount of the mountain hidden by the drop. 

3 for comparison. First two are squatting down on the beach. The little islands are on top of the horizon, whereas in the last picture there is water visible behind the little islands.  The last one was out on some high rocks so yes 15 feet is a good estimate.

Silhouette 29, did you ever use the coordinates I gave you and look at Google Earth?

Another question I must ask...  were the conditions that day frigid FlatOrange?

It was in the 60s. Warm enough to swim.

Could I ask you for evidence that only the bottom top 1/2 of the mountain is being seen.

Had to fix that for you hoppy, the bottom 1/2 is hidden.

Considering that the visible portion of the mountain has a substantial amount of snow on it, and the temperature at sea level was well above freezing (see last comment from FlatOrange), I'd say it's safe to assume that the visible portion of the mountain begins some 6-7,000ft above sea level.

3 for comparison. First two are squatting down on the beach. The little islands are on top of the horizon, whereas in the last picture there is water visible behind the little islands.  The last one was out on some high rocks so yes 15 feet is a good estimate.

Silhouette 29, did you ever use the coordinates I gave you and look at Google Earth?

Messed with it a bit.  The ridge partway to the mountains is easily recognizable on GE.  Looks like the bottom slopes that level out into the water are cut off.

There's no decent HD imagery of those mountains though, and what does show up is covered in snow vs the partial snow coverage in your pictures, making any terrain matchup a little more difficult. 

Also, GE quit working last night, that or my computer is a POS.  Starts to bring up imagery then stops.  Most likely computer problems.  I have to restart in order to get GE to even start up again after closing.

Those last couple pictures showing the mountains in greater detail will help though if I ever get GE to work again.

There's no decent HD imagery of those mountains though,

I agree! The straight between the mainland (Fairweather and St. Elias mountain ranges) and Yakobi Island (part of the Alexander Archipelago) has some nasty waters.  Most people don't venture out there. The cruise ships that go through there do so in the middle of the night so they can get to Glacier Bay first thing in the morning.

I suppose that's why there's hardly any pictures from that spot. (None that I can find, actually).

And if you want to get to glacier bay by boat and you want to avoid those nasty waters there's the inside passage.

Anyway... if I was a flat-earth believer I would buy myself a boat and cruise towards those mountains with a time-lapse camera.  Or if I was a rich round-earther with plenty of time on my hands...

Quote from: hoppy on July 01, 2013, 06:58:17 PM

What is the height of the mountain above sea level? The drop on round earth would be 6666'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

  that is not correct. it is about half that.

Lets start with EnaG. It says the horizon always rises to the eye line, due to perspective.

What is really happening is that the eye is always drawn to the horizon. It is an optical illusion. If the angle is measured it is easily shown. I live on high enough hills to of roughly verified this personally.



This is what is really what you are looking at when seeing something disappear over the horizon when standing on a globe. It is a little hard to grasp for most, but this is how it is. Of course my image is wildly exaggerated. But this may help in the future when debunking RET.

Hoppy is actually almost right with that figure.  Although I got 6675 feet.  I even went further and calculated as if the photo was taken from 10 feet up where the RE horizon is 3.87 miles away and the horizon should still cover 6167 feet.

Well it's a pretty standard rule of thumb that in the summer the parts of the mountain that are below 2,000 feet will not have snow. Seeing as how the snowy parts touch the horizon we can safely assume at least 2,000 feet of the mountain are hidden from view.

Quote from: Scintific Method on July 01, 2013, 07:48:36 PM

FlatOrange, is there any chance you could try this experiment on those mountains? I'd be interested to see how high they look, compared to how high they should look for a FE. Measurement from one point should do for this purpose.

I won't be going back there for awhile. Plus... I didn't read that thread. I'm zonked for today. Good night.

I had a crack at working this out from the first photo. Using the hill at the end of the second ridge line as a reference, I worked out that the mountain at the far left of the image should appear about half the height of the reference hill (assuming a flat earth). Looking at the photo, that mountain is actually less than 1/6 the apparent height of the reference hill. That's a pretty big difference! Make of it what you will.

[/sidetrack]

Well it's a pretty standard rule of thumb that in the summer the parts of the mountain that are below 2,000 feet will not have snow. Seeing as how the snowy parts touch the horizon we can safely assume at least 2,000 feet of the mountain are hidden from view.

Well, the truth is that 2,000 feet being covered by the horizon represents proof that the earth is flat.  If only 2,000 feet remains covered by the horizon, the view is impossible on a round earth, but possible on a flat earth.  The only explanation is air density over the water increasing, which results in a total mirage.  This mirage bends light so it gives the appearance of it being hidden by the horizon.
   
For this reason, it is recommended that one rely on short distance measurement around 6 miles or so...  This allows no large amount of surface area to create a mirage effect.

It is important to note that adding human eye level to the actual radius of earth creates a negligible difference in calculation.  The earth's radius stands at 3,959 miles, so calculating the human height and converting it to miles gives a ridiculously small decimal number that interferes with calculation more than it helps...

You cannot see the mountains in Canada many miles away (300 + miles) because the collective air density on a clear day obscures light.  This is the effect of just mirages bending light to make things invisible...

Well, the truth is that 2,000 feet being covered by the horizon represents proof that the earth is flat.  If only 2,000 feet remains covered by the horizon, the view is impossible on a round earth, but possible on a flat earth.  The only explanation is air density over the water increasing, which results in a total mirage.  This mirage bends light so it gives the appearance of it being hidden by the horizon.

You got that the wrong way around JJ, the denser air nearer the surface would actually be refracting the light downwards, so that would make more of the mountain visible, not less. If the earth were flat, the whole mountain would be visible from 100 miles away. Any amount being obscured is strong evidence for the round earth model.

Oh, and FlatOrange didn't say it was exactly 2,000ft that was obscured, he said "...at least 2,000 feet...".

For this reason, it is recommended that one rely on short distance measurement around 6 miles or so...  This allows no large amount of surface area to create a mirage effect.

As I said, the general tendency is actually to make an object appear higher than it actually is, which means that measurements over any distance should be more supportive of the flat earth model. Instead, they are less, as I showed with my own mountain measuring experiment.

It is important to note that adding human eye level to the actual radius of earth creates a negligible difference in calculation.  The earth's radius stands at 3,959 miles, so calculating the human height and converting it to miles gives a ridiculously small decimal number that interferes with calculation more than it helps...

The difference between using average human eye level and not using it is not entirely negligible. If you take line of sight from the surface, then you cannot see anything beyond a few feet away, if it is also at ground level. If you take line of sight from the average human eye level, then the viewable distance extends out to about 5km or so.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on July 27, 2013, 10:48:05 AM

Well, the truth is that 2,000 feet being covered by the horizon represents proof that the earth is flat.  If only 2,000 feet remains covered by the horizon, the view is impossible on a round earth, but possible on a flat earth.  The only explanation is air density over the water increasing, which results in a total mirage.  This mirage bends light so it gives the appearance of it being hidden by the horizon.

You got that the wrong way around JJ, the denser air nearer the surface would actually be refracting the light downwards, so that would make more of the mountain visible, not less. If the earth were flat, the whole mountain would be visible from 100 miles away. Any amount being obscured is strong evidence for the round earth model.

Oh, and FlatOrange didn't say it was exactly 2,000ft that was obscured, he said "...at least 2,000 feet...".

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on July 27, 2013, 10:48:05 AM

For this reason, it is recommended that one rely on short distance measurement around 6 miles or so...  This allows no large amount of surface area to create a mirage effect.

As I said, the general tendency is actually to make an object appear higher than it actually is, which means that measurements over any distance should be more supportive of the flat earth model. Instead, they are less, as I showed with my own mountain measuring experiment.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on July 27, 2013, 10:48:05 AM

It is important to note that adding human eye level to the actual radius of earth creates a negligible difference in calculation.  The earth's radius stands at 3,959 miles, so calculating the human height and converting it to miles gives a ridiculously small decimal number that interferes with calculation more than it helps...

The difference between using average human eye level and not using it is not entirely negligible. If you take line of sight from the surface, then you cannot see anything beyond a few feet away, if it is also at ground level. If you take line of sight from the average human eye level, then the viewable distance extends out to about 5km or so.

You are incorrect scientific method.  Check this out: http://www.light-science.com/desertmirage.html.  Sinking occurs when there is a increase in air density.  The increase in air density would be mainly from water vapor...

You are incorrect scientific method.  Check this out: http://www.light-science.com/desertmirage.html.  Sinking occurs when there is a increase in air density.  The increase in air density would be mainly from water vapor...

Are you talking about the 'looming' which makes objects that would normally be below the horizon appear visible, and usually happens over water? Yeah, that makes things appear taller. Sinking happens when there's lower density closer to the ground, such as hot air over a hot road.

If a 15,000 ft. mountain is visible and you're actually looking over entire islands that have disappeared it means the Earth is a globe. You can't even site sources that talk about mirages and shit because no one who actually understands how stuff works believes that the earth is flat.

This thread proves:

You can see really fucking far so atmosphere is not an issue.

If you look at the line of sight from my coordinates. You will see that you are seeing over entire landmasses. If you got closer to the mountain the landmasses would obscure your view. The only reason they are invisible is because they are not tall enough to enter your line of sight.  But yet they are much taller than any wave, any swell.

Use your brain.  Let go of this childish idea that the earth is flat.

You were trolling to have used profanity.  The sinking is the only plausible explanation.  It is not a childish statement, neither is it without its evidence...  You are absurd not to have looked at the photographic evidence which was presented before.  Stop crying because we have explanations for things and can extrapolate data on a more independent level.

Discussions will get farther without cursing and personal attacks...

Do not be a lazy dirt bag.  If after 100 miles you do not see a 6,666 feet drop, then the earth is not a globe.  I see a mirage effect.  A drop of only 2,000 indicates an optical illusion with gravity bending light as well...  You just have to accept the facts...  If the earth has a circumference at all points of 24,901 miles, then everything must fit the exact calculations.

Do not be a lazy dirt bag.  If after 100 miles you do not see a 6,666 feet drop, then the earth is not a globe.  I see a mirage effect.  A drop of only 2,000 indicates an optical illusion with gravity bending light as well...  You just have to accept the facts...  If the earth has a circumference at all points of 24,901 miles, then everything must fit the exact calculations.

How do you know only the lower 2,000 feet of those mountains are covered? For further information, involving known heights and actual calculations, see this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,674.msg1520177.html#msg1520177

Observations of the Willis Tower from Indiana Dunes completely agree with the round-earth predictions. Alternatively, you can read this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59240.msg1516831.html#msg1516831

To debate mountain's apparent heights.

You are incorrect scientific method.  Check this out: http://www.light-science.com/desertmirage.html.  Sinking occurs when there is a increase in air density.  The increase in air density would be mainly from water vapor...

I see you do not understand refraction and mirages. That's okay, there's plenty of info out there for someone with an inquisitive nature who is willing to learn.

Do not be a lazy dirt bag.  If after 100 miles you do not see a 6,666 feet drop, then the earth is not a globe.  I see a mirage effect.  A drop of only 2,000 indicates an optical illusion with gravity bending light as well...  You just have to accept the facts...  If the earth has a circumference at all points of 24,901 miles, then everything must fit the exact calculations.

Like I said, given the way light tends to refract through our atmosphere, and the way gravity bends light, nothing would ever disappear behind the horizon on a flat earth, and some things on a round earth will appear taller. In the case of this mountain, I will again remind you that FlatOrange stated "...at least 2,000 feet...", which means the full 6,666 feet could be (and most likely is) hidden. It would be nice if you stopped being ignorant and actually read (and made an effort to understand) what others have been writing.

You were wrong, period.  A looming effect is not observed but a sinking effect.  Your explanation was incorrect about when the certain mirage occurs... The website is sufficient enough information for me.  I do not think the words on it supplant anything that I already knew.

It does not take a genius to know that 6,666 (and above) does not look obscured by the horizon.  The earth remains flat and there is nothing you can do to change my understanding of how light bends and how mirages actually work.  Stop running from the truth.  I know you have it in you to stand have courage about the way this "data" actually is...

The page you provided the link to, while a good effort, is not a particularly comprehensive explanation of mirages. You might find this page more informative. Please keep in mind, I have actually studied refraction in great detail, so I do know how it works.

.  You are absurd not to have looked at the photographic evidence which was presented before.

You mean the evidence that I provided?

Sorry for swearing.

Do not be a lazy dirt bag.  If after 100 miles you do not see a 6,666 feet drop, then the earth is not a globe.  I see a mirage effect.  A drop of only 2,000 indicates an optical illusion with gravity bending light as well...  You just have to accept the facts...  If the earth has a circumference at all points of 24,901 miles, then everything must fit the exact calculations.

if the gravity is powerful enough to bend light how is it not powerful enough to force the earth to become round?