The mountain ridge in the distance has almost disappeared. Are you trying to present evidence that light can not travel infinitely through air?
The ridge is almost completely faded away. Probably another 10 miles and you would not be able to see it at all.Are you saying the sun can't be seen from 200 miles away?
The ridge is almost completely faded away. Probably another 10 miles and you would not be able to see it at all.
The ridge is almost completely faded away. Probably another 10 miles and you would not be able to see it at all.Are you saying the sun can't be seen from 200 miles away?
The ridge is almost completely faded away. Probably another 10 miles and you would not be able to see it at all.Are you saying the sun can't be seen from 200 miles away?
It would depend on the conditions of the air for that 200 miles, would it not? I have seen fog so dense that you could not see headlights on the road that are 200 feet away. The sun was not visible either at the time even though it was day.
The ridge is almost completely faded away. Probably another 10 miles and you would not be able to see it at all.
I would say the only fading I am seeing on that ridge would be the white balance from the clouds creeping up the side. Why would the dark tip become light as you look further down?
The ridge is almost completely faded away. Probably another 10 miles and you would not be able to see it at all.
I would say the only fading I am seeing on that ridge would be the white balance from the clouds creeping up the side. Why would the dark tip become light as you look further down?
Why is the white balance not affecting the ground at the bottom of the picture, then?
If you can barely see a mountain ridge that is only 50 miles away, then why would you expect to see the sun, which is, while being brighter, much farther away?
Several things affect the distance at which a light can be seen. The frequency of the light is one that comes immediately to mind.
Several things affect the distance at which a light can be seen. The frequency of the light is one that comes immediately to mind.
I assume by frequency, you mean hertz. That is correct. We are working within the spectrum of light that we can see, and if that does not work for you, we can go to infrared.
Several things affect the distance at which a light can be seen. The frequency of the light is one that comes immediately to mind.
I assume by frequency, you mean hertz. That is correct. We are working within the spectrum of light that we can see, and if that does not work for you, we can go to infrared.
Hertz is a unit of measure, while frequency is a concept, and since I did not specify any quantities, then it would not really make sense to say Hertz in place of frequency.
It would sort of be like me saying that I live 15 distances from my work. That would not really make sense, now would it?
I apologize, I am off to bed. I was hoping you would have taken a more direct route with whatever you hoped to get at, but instead I am getting one liners asking questions that seem to be slowly making their way to some form of a point that is escaping me, can't see the trees for the forest and all that.Welcome to jroa's world ::)
Are you trying to present evidence that light can not travel infinitely through air?
I have seen fog so dense that you could not see headlights on the road that are 200 feet away.
Hertz is a unit of measure, while frequency is a concept, and since I did not specify any quantities, then it would not really make sense to say Hertz in place of frequency.
The ridge is almost completely faded away. Probably another 10 miles and you would not be able to see it at all.Are you saying the sun can't be seen from 200 miles away?
It would depend on the conditions of the air for that 200 miles, would it not? I have seen fog so dense that you could not see headlights on the road that are 200 feet away. The sun was not visible either at the time even though it was day.
jroa is in a haze. He is obsessed with obscurity. Some childhood trauma I suspect, or perhaps a vision problem. For him the world is as fuzzy as his brain.The ridge is almost completely faded away. Probably another 10 miles and you would not be able to see it at all.Are you saying the sun can't be seen from 200 miles away?
It would depend on the conditions of the air for that 200 miles, would it not? I have seen fog so dense that you could not see headlights on the road that are 200 feet away. The sun was not visible either at the time even though it was day.
You persistently claim that objects beyond the horizon can't be seen because of atmospheric hazing when the air visibility on a given day is greater than the distance to the object. And when challenged on it you fall silent, until another thread where you can cite atmospheric haze comes up, and then you just hope people don't remember your argument being destroyed previously.
Your haze theory doesn't stand up to observation.
haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.Very good, you are starting to make progress. You accept that haze exists and is one reason to put a telescope in orbit. You got half way to the truth, which is great, good job! But sadly you are still confused about how haze only has an impact on visibility when it is in fact hazy. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what 'On a clear day' means. Make sure you get enough sleep, it will help you think more clearly.
try harder.
you are the ones who deny the presence of haze. if a clear day was all it took, why would nasa spend millions to supposedly send their 'telescope' to orbit?haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.Very good, you are starting to make progress. You accept that haze exists and is one reason to put a telescope in orbit. You got half way to the truth, which is great, good job! But sadly you are still confused about how haze only has an impact on visibility when it is in fact hazy. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what 'On a clear day' means. Make sure you get enough sleep, it will help you think more clearly.
try harder.
If you can see 100's of miles on a clear day, then you should be able to see 100's of miles on a clear day. That is not too hard to comprehend, is it? That doesn't mean there is not haze and other atmospheric effects that impact the clarity and the ability to magnify the image and see detail clearly. Put some effort into your arguments, it is too easy to see through your incompetence.you are the ones who deny the presence of haze. if a clear day was all it took, why would nasa spend millions to supposedly send their 'telescope' to orbit?haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.Very good, you are starting to make progress. You accept that haze exists and is one reason to put a telescope in orbit. You got half way to the truth, which is great, good job! But sadly you are still confused about how haze only has an impact on visibility when it is in fact hazy. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what 'On a clear day' means. Make sure you get enough sleep, it will help you think more clearly.
try harder.
your resort to personal attacks shows you have no logical recourse. you are wrong.
you are the one who once said there was no haze, and is now hastily backtracking. it's plain to everyone you're the one who's incompetent.If you can see 100's of miles on a clear day, then you should be able to see 100's of miles on a clear day. That is not too hard to comprehend, is it? That doesn't mean there is not haze and other atmospheric effects that impact the clarity and the ability to magnify the image and see detail clearly. Put some effort into your arguments, it is too easy to see through your incompetence.you are the ones who deny the presence of haze. if a clear day was all it took, why would nasa spend millions to supposedly send their 'telescope' to orbit?haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.Very good, you are starting to make progress. You accept that haze exists and is one reason to put a telescope in orbit. You got half way to the truth, which is great, good job! But sadly you are still confused about how haze only has an impact on visibility when it is in fact hazy. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what 'On a clear day' means. Make sure you get enough sleep, it will help you think more clearly.
try harder.
your resort to personal attacks shows you have no logical recourse. you are wrong.
What are you talking about? I never said there was no haze. What is so hard to understand? If one can see for 100's of miles, one can see for 100's of miles. Simple, no math involved there. But I do agree, it is plain to see who is incompetent. And what does the sun set time changing everyday have to do with it? Of course the sun doesn't set a the same time every day. In RET you can write a program to calculate the times. In FET you just have to guess.you are the one who once said there was no haze, and is now hastily backtracking. it's plain to everyone you're the one who's incompetent.If you can see 100's of miles on a clear day, then you should be able to see 100's of miles on a clear day. That is not too hard to comprehend, is it? That doesn't mean there is not haze and other atmospheric effects that impact the clarity and the ability to magnify the image and see detail clearly. Put some effort into your arguments, it is too easy to see through your incompetence.you are the ones who deny the presence of haze. if a clear day was all it took, why would nasa spend millions to supposedly send their 'telescope' to orbit?haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.Very good, you are starting to make progress. You accept that haze exists and is one reason to put a telescope in orbit. You got half way to the truth, which is great, good job! But sadly you are still confused about how haze only has an impact on visibility when it is in fact hazy. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what 'On a clear day' means. Make sure you get enough sleep, it will help you think more clearly.
try harder.
your resort to personal attacks shows you have no logical recourse. you are wrong.
you admit the atmosphere impacts clarity nothing more need be said. the sun doesn't set at the same time every day. that proves you're wrong.
then you agree with jroa and i? atmospheric haze interferes.What are you talking about? I never said there was no haze. What is so hard to understand? If one can see for 100's of miles, one can see for 100's of miles. Simple, no math involved there. But I do agree, it is plain to see who is incompetent. And what does the sun set time changing everyday have to do with it? Of course the sun doesn't set a the same time every day. In RET you can write a program to calculate the times. In FET you just have to guess.you are the one who once said there was no haze, and is now hastily backtracking. it's plain to everyone you're the one who's incompetent.If you can see 100's of miles on a clear day, then you should be able to see 100's of miles on a clear day. That is not too hard to comprehend, is it? That doesn't mean there is not haze and other atmospheric effects that impact the clarity and the ability to magnify the image and see detail clearly. Put some effort into your arguments, it is too easy to see through your incompetence.you are the ones who deny the presence of haze. if a clear day was all it took, why would nasa spend millions to supposedly send their 'telescope' to orbit?haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.Very good, you are starting to make progress. You accept that haze exists and is one reason to put a telescope in orbit. You got half way to the truth, which is great, good job! But sadly you are still confused about how haze only has an impact on visibility when it is in fact hazy. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what 'On a clear day' means. Make sure you get enough sleep, it will help you think more clearly.
try harder.
your resort to personal attacks shows you have no logical recourse. you are wrong.
you admit the atmosphere impacts clarity nothing more need be said. the sun doesn't set at the same time every day. that proves you're wrong.
If I ever agreed with jroa, I'd have to kill myself. The sun rise and sunset times are due to the tilt of the earths axis and the fact that we orbit around the sun. Anyone with their grade 9 knows that.then you agree with jroa and i? atmospheric haze interferes.What are you talking about? I never said there was no haze. What is so hard to understand? If one can see for 100's of miles, one can see for 100's of miles. Simple, no math involved there. But I do agree, it is plain to see who is incompetent. And what does the sun set time changing everyday have to do with it? Of course the sun doesn't set a the same time every day. In RET you can write a program to calculate the times. In FET you just have to guess.you are the one who once said there was no haze, and is now hastily backtracking. it's plain to everyone you're the one who's incompetent.If you can see 100's of miles on a clear day, then you should be able to see 100's of miles on a clear day. That is not too hard to comprehend, is it? That doesn't mean there is not haze and other atmospheric effects that impact the clarity and the ability to magnify the image and see detail clearly. Put some effort into your arguments, it is too easy to see through your incompetence.you are the ones who deny the presence of haze. if a clear day was all it took, why would nasa spend millions to supposedly send their 'telescope' to orbit?haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.Very good, you are starting to make progress. You accept that haze exists and is one reason to put a telescope in orbit. You got half way to the truth, which is great, good job! But sadly you are still confused about how haze only has an impact on visibility when it is in fact hazy. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what 'On a clear day' means. Make sure you get enough sleep, it will help you think more clearly.
try harder.
your resort to personal attacks shows you have no logical recourse. you are wrong.
you admit the atmosphere impacts clarity nothing more need be said. the sun doesn't set at the same time every day. that proves you're wrong.
the sun should set the same time if it is based on regular rotation. actually, it depends on atmospheric haze (of more than just the visible variety), which has some correlation with season hence the tendency, but does indeed vary. so its clear haze must be the cause.
then why can't you answer the question? if there's regularity, the sunsets should be regular. you've completely avoided what i've said, as you usually do.If I ever agreed with jroa, I'd have to kill myself. The sun rise and sunset times are due to the tilt of the earths axis and the fact that we orbit around the sun. Anyone with their grade 9 knows that.then you agree with jroa and i? atmospheric haze interferes.What are you talking about? I never said there was no haze. What is so hard to understand? If one can see for 100's of miles, one can see for 100's of miles. Simple, no math involved there. But I do agree, it is plain to see who is incompetent. And what does the sun set time changing everyday have to do with it? Of course the sun doesn't set a the same time every day. In RET you can write a program to calculate the times. In FET you just have to guess.you are the one who once said there was no haze, and is now hastily backtracking. it's plain to everyone you're the one who's incompetent.If you can see 100's of miles on a clear day, then you should be able to see 100's of miles on a clear day. That is not too hard to comprehend, is it? That doesn't mean there is not haze and other atmospheric effects that impact the clarity and the ability to magnify the image and see detail clearly. Put some effort into your arguments, it is too easy to see through your incompetence.you are the ones who deny the presence of haze. if a clear day was all it took, why would nasa spend millions to supposedly send their 'telescope' to orbit?haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.Very good, you are starting to make progress. You accept that haze exists and is one reason to put a telescope in orbit. You got half way to the truth, which is great, good job! But sadly you are still confused about how haze only has an impact on visibility when it is in fact hazy. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what 'On a clear day' means. Make sure you get enough sleep, it will help you think more clearly.
try harder.
your resort to personal attacks shows you have no logical recourse. you are wrong.
you admit the atmosphere impacts clarity nothing more need be said. the sun doesn't set at the same time every day. that proves you're wrong.
the sun should set the same time if it is based on regular rotation. actually, it depends on atmospheric haze (of more than just the visible variety), which has some correlation with season hence the tendency, but does indeed vary. so its clear haze must be the cause.
I admit it, I have no idea what you are talking about.then why can't you answer the question? if there's regularity, the sunsets should be regular. you've completely avoided what i've said, as you usually do.If I ever agreed with jroa, I'd have to kill myself. The sun rise and sunset times are due to the tilt of the earths axis and the fact that we orbit around the sun. Anyone with their grade 9 knows that.then you agree with jroa and i? atmospheric haze interferes.What are you talking about? I never said there was no haze. What is so hard to understand? If one can see for 100's of miles, one can see for 100's of miles. Simple, no math involved there. But I do agree, it is plain to see who is incompetent. And what does the sun set time changing everyday have to do with it? Of course the sun doesn't set a the same time every day. In RET you can write a program to calculate the times. In FET you just have to guess.you are the one who once said there was no haze, and is now hastily backtracking. it's plain to everyone you're the one who's incompetent.If you can see 100's of miles on a clear day, then you should be able to see 100's of miles on a clear day. That is not too hard to comprehend, is it? That doesn't mean there is not haze and other atmospheric effects that impact the clarity and the ability to magnify the image and see detail clearly. Put some effort into your arguments, it is too easy to see through your incompetence.you are the ones who deny the presence of haze. if a clear day was all it took, why would nasa spend millions to supposedly send their 'telescope' to orbit?haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.Very good, you are starting to make progress. You accept that haze exists and is one reason to put a telescope in orbit. You got half way to the truth, which is great, good job! But sadly you are still confused about how haze only has an impact on visibility when it is in fact hazy. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what 'On a clear day' means. Make sure you get enough sleep, it will help you think more clearly.
try harder.
your resort to personal attacks shows you have no logical recourse. you are wrong.
you admit the atmosphere impacts clarity nothing more need be said. the sun doesn't set at the same time every day. that proves you're wrong.
the sun should set the same time if it is based on regular rotation. actually, it depends on atmospheric haze (of more than just the visible variety), which has some correlation with season hence the tendency, but does indeed vary. so its clear haze must be the cause.
could it be because there is no answer?
it's haze. the end. point made.
The mountain ridge in the distance has almost disappeared. Are you trying to present evidence that light can not travel infinitely through air?So jroa... after reading through Agnotology's detailed and thorough calculations for the sun's light paths and planetary geometry, this tired old one-liner is the best response you can muster? Seriously?
haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.
try harder.
Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.What the hell are you on about? Messenger boys? The council?
I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it. But try to tone it down a bit, because the closest thing I have received in the form of a scientific answer was messenger boy'd (no disrespect Vauxhall, but that move by your council screamed elitist) better than a week ago, and what I got was a calculation based off of 3 grandiose assumptions that break logic from start to finish. Those people on the council are who I would like to debate with, and I get the idea your presence might make them not even want to bother.
Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.What the hell are you on about? Messenger boys? The council?
I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it. But try to tone it down a bit, because the closest thing I have received in the form of a scientific answer was messenger boy'd (no disrespect Vauxhall, but that move by your council screamed elitist) better than a week ago, and what I got was a calculation based off of 3 grandiose assumptions that break logic from start to finish. Those people on the council are who I would like to debate with, and I get the idea your presence might make them not even want to bother.
Are we meant to react to this sea of incoherence?
Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.What the hell are you on about? Messenger boys? The council?
I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it. But try to tone it down a bit, because the closest thing I have received in the form of a scientific answer was messenger boy'd (no disrespect Vauxhall, but that move by your council screamed elitist) better than a week ago, and what I got was a calculation based off of 3 grandiose assumptions that break logic from start to finish. Those people on the council are who I would like to debate with, and I get the idea your presence might make them not even want to bother.
Are we meant to react to this sea of incoherence?
Vauxhaul copy pasted something in the my first QA thread that came from a group of FE Theorists who could not only use but properly apply trig, which is a major step up compared to what is here. Vaux refered to them as "the council".... I assume its the invite only true fet believer section, but you get the gist.
I'd like to hear their thoughts on the dozen or so topics that have been posted in here.... then again I may be wasting my time.
Oh, still not sure what's going on, but carry on there.Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.What the hell are you on about? Messenger boys? The council?
I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it. But try to tone it down a bit, because the closest thing I have received in the form of a scientific answer was messenger boy'd (no disrespect Vauxhall, but that move by your council screamed elitist) better than a week ago, and what I got was a calculation based off of 3 grandiose assumptions that break logic from start to finish. Those people on the council are who I would like to debate with, and I get the idea your presence might make them not even want to bother.
Are we meant to react to this sea of incoherence?
Vauxhaul copy pasted something in the my first QA thread that came from a group of FE Theorists who could not only use but properly apply trig, which is a major step up compared to what is here. Vaux refered to them as "the council".... I assume its the invite only true fet believer section, but you get the gist.
then again I may be wasting my time.That's a given in this place. You will be disappointed if you think otherwise.
I suck at math, so I consulted with someone on the other board about Agnotology's claims. In conclusion, we determined that he had lied. Then he came back and said something like "well it happened 7 years ago so the details could be hazy". Then I decided to not indulge him any further.
Now it seems he is obsessed with what I deemed a "council" when in reality it was really just Thork. It's really quite amusing .
I suck at math, so I consulted with someone on the other board about Agnotology's claims. In conclusion, we determined that he had lied. Then he came back and said something like "well it happened 7 years ago so the details could be hazy". Then I decided to not indulge him any further.
Now it seems he is obsessed with what I deemed a "council" when in reality it was really just Thork. It's really quite amusing .
I didn't lie. The location they used was Monterey, not Altos. Altos is on Monterey Bay. In their calculations, they assumed 3 things : How long I stayed at the beach, how long it took me to get back up to my hotel room, and how much of the sun I viewed from my balcony. Can I give you approximations to those 3 things? Yes. Can I tell you for certain, no. The memory is too old.
You referred to them as a council. I respected your definition of them although I question the term and the purpose of its use.
I suck at math, so I consulted with someone on the other board about Agnotology's claims. In conclusion, we determined that he had lied. Then he came back and said something like "well it happened 7 years ago so the details could be hazy". Then I decided to not indulge him any further.
Now it seems he is obsessed with what I deemed a "council" when in reality it was really just Thork. It's really quite amusing .
I didn't lie. The location they used was Monterey, not Altos. Altos is on Monterey Bay. In their calculations, they assumed 3 things : How long I stayed at the beach, how long it took me to get back up to my hotel room, and how much of the sun I viewed from my balcony. Can I give you approximations to those 3 things? Yes. Can I tell you for certain, no. The memory is too old.
You referred to them as a council. I respected your definition of them although I question the term and the purpose of its use.
We should be discussing this in the thread where it was being discussed. I don't understand how you got so off topic.
Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.
I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it.
Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.
I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it.
You've obviously got me confused with somebody else here Agnotology. I seldom—if ever—"poke fun" at any flat earther who proposes some sort of logical hypothesis, or flat earth explanation for a phenomena, or questions any round earth theory in a meaningful way. And I can safely challenge you on that without any trepidation that you'll prove it to be otherwise.
I always enedeavour to respond with logic, facts and figures, accompanied by citations to accredited scientific reference sources. In other words, I invariably do "directly address" the questions at hand. Unfortunately, many of the more prolific flat earthers do not follow suit; sceptimatic, iWitness, cikljamas, Saros, jroa, Vauxhall, JRoweSkeptic, hoppy, tappet, Charles Bloomington, Pongo et al to name just a few.
With only a minimum of searching, I can locate numerous examples of all these flat earthers posting irrelevant, rhetorical, insulting, disingenuous, off-topic, allegedly humorous one liners that in no way address your so-called questions at hand. You obviously have "no issue" with flat earthers who practice this, but apparently only with round earthers?
—But I'm sure this is not biassed LOL.
Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.
I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it.
You've obviously got me confused with somebody else here Agnotology. I seldom—if ever—"poke fun" at any flat earther who proposes some sort of logical hypothesis, or flat earth explanation for a phenomena, or questions any round earth theory in a meaningful way. And I can safely challenge you on that without any trepidation that you'll prove it to be otherwise.
I always enedeavour to respond with logic, facts and figures, accompanied by citations to accredited scientific reference sources. In other words, I invariably do "directly address" the questions at hand. Unfortunately, many of the more prolific flat earthers do not follow suit; sceptimatic, iWitness, cikljamas, Saros, jroa, Vauxhall, JRoweSkeptic, hoppy, tappet, Charles Bloomington, Pongo et al to name just a few.
With only a minimum of searching, I can locate numerous examples of all these flat earthers posting irrelevant, rhetorical, insulting, disingenuous, off-topic, allegedly humorous one liners that in no way address your so-called questions at hand. You obviously have "no issue" with flat earthers who practice this, but apparently only with round earthers?
—But I'm sure this is not biassed LOL.