The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Reddflagg7 on November 24, 2015, 10:30:43 AM
-
It seems fairly obvious that if the earth was flat you would be able to take a powerful telescope to the top of say Freedom tower in NYC and observe Europe, Brazil, or Africa. What do you flat earth supporters use to explain why this cannot be done? It seems like that would be a fairly simple proof.
-
I actually responded to this recently, here it is below
The WorldView-3 satellite can see objects as small as 30cm across from 610km away. On earth we can build much bigger telescopes. The World view telescope has a 3m large lens, where on earth 10m large lenses have been build and 40m are being built. So we could easily make good spy telescopes if we wanted . .
But we can only see about 100-200 km far in a good low earth atmosphere anyway, so why would we want to do this. This is true, but only for visible light.
If we built telescopes to see in short wave frequency such as infrared light they would easily penetrate the atmosphere for thousands of kilometers. In fact, this is closer to the spectrum that telescopes see anyway, all the space dust filters out the tiny high frequency light, while larger short wave light propagate over and around dust. This is also why all pictures taken of other galaxies and far away objects are in false colour, because visible light does not travel all that well. There are satellites that can see forest fires through thick smog and cloud to help fire fighters.
(http://eijournal.sensorsandsystems.com/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SMOKE-2.jpg)
what visible light shows above and infra-red light below
(http://eijournal.sensorsandsystems.com/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SMOKE-1.jpg)
We could even use radio telescopes to see, and that can penetrate through almost anything the atmosphere can throw at you aside from lightning storms.
Below is an image of the 400m wide asteroid 2005 YU55 that was imaged from 2 million km away
(http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/9-small-bodies/2014/20140414_April22_f537.gif)
So you are right, if the world was flat, you would be able to spy on your neighboring countries hundreds of km away using telescopes tuned to short wave light or radio. The atmosphere is not a barrier to how far we can see
-
Yes it would seem like if the world was flat you would be able to see from the tops of buildings in New York all the way across the Atlantic ocean....I wonder why they haven't ever taken pictures like this I for one would take the FE theory a little more seriously if they had some kind of proof other than "the bible says so"...
-
You can't see a mountain 100 miles in the distance because of light scattering in the atmoplane. Why would you expect to be able to see thousands of miles across the ocean? Perhaps you did not think your question through?
-
You can't see a mountain 100 miles in the distance because of light scattering in the atmoplane. Why would you expect to be able to see thousands of miles across the ocean? Perhaps you did not think your question through?
maybe you should read what I replied. Not seeing further than 100 miles is a bad argument
-
You can't see a mountain 100 miles in the distance because of light scattering in the atmoplane. Why would you expect to be able to see thousands of miles across the ocean? Perhaps you did not think your question through?
maybe you should read what I replied. Not seeing further than 100 miles is a bad argument
Arguing that you should be able to see across the ocean is a bad argument. Perhaps you should say something to the OP? Oh, that is right, you roundies on defend each other and never call each other out on your bullshit. I forget that you people are all on the same team.
-
I have to agree - air is not clear.
-
You can't see a mountain 100 miles in the distance because of light scattering in the atmoplane.
Sure you can.
(http://i42.tinypic.com/11kjn91.jpg)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59073.0#.Vld0VV7wpTu (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59073.0#.Vld0VV7wpTu)
-
Wow, that mountain has almost faded away to nothing. ::)
-
There have been a few public examples of neutron surveillance scopes being exhibited by the military. You can see through a ships haul or to next Sunday with it. If the Earth were a ball you would only be able to see what is sticking above the curve. Regular scopes are messed up by the air and the junk in it. I don't see why it is so hard for ballTards to understand this.
-
Wow, that mountain has almost faded away to nothing. ::)
You are dodging the question, we have the tech to see thousands of miles into space, how can we not see over the atlantic? the light scattering would have no effect at night. In fact we could use FLIR to see across the pond. This is a pretty damming question to your theory...
Here is a video of the ISS in pace taken by a civilian with a telephoto lens and a DLSR. If we can see past our own atmosphere why can't we see across oceans?
https://i.imgur.com/o3GLbvx.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/o3GLbvx.jpg)
-
Wow, that mountain has almost faded away to nothing. ::)
You are dodging the question, we have the tech to see thousands of miles into space, how can we not see over the atlantic? the light scattering would have no effect at night. In fact we could use FLIR to see across the pond. This is a pretty damming question to your theory...
Here is a video of the ISS in pace taken by a civilian with a telephoto lens and a DLSR. If we can see past our own atmosphere why can't we see across oceans?
https://i.imgur.com/o3GLbvx.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/o3GLbvx.jpg)
There is not much air in space, is there? ::)
-
Wow, that mountain has almost faded away to nothing. ::)
You are dodging the question, we have the tech to see thousands of miles into space, how can we not see over the atlantic? the light scattering would have no effect at night. In fact we could use FLIR to see across the pond. This is a pretty damming question to your theory...
Here is a video of the ISS in pace taken by a civilian with a telephoto lens and a DLSR. If we can see past our own atmosphere why can't we see across oceans?
https://i.imgur.com/o3GLbvx.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/o3GLbvx.jpg)
There is not much air in space, is there? ::)
The ISS is 249 miles above our heads, and there is air between us and them. You rolling your eyes does not make your right ya know...
-
Wow, that mountain has almost faded away to nothing. ::)
Faded yes, but we can see it.
-
Wow, that mountain has almost faded away to nothing. ::)
You are dodging the question, we have the tech to see thousands of miles into space, how can we not see over the atlantic? the light scattering would have no effect at night. In fact we could use FLIR to see across the pond. This is a pretty damming question to your theory...
Here is a video of the ISS in pace taken by a civilian with a telephoto lens and a DLSR. If we can see past our own atmosphere why can't we see across oceans?
https://i.imgur.com/o3GLbvx.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/o3GLbvx.jpg)
There is not much air in space, is there? ::)
I would never have imagined I would have to agree with Jroa, he is quite correct!
The limit of vision in air (apart from obstructions like mountains and possibly the horizon) is simply the dispersion in the air. Under the best conditions (dry air, no dust or smoke) the limit is due to Rayleigh scattering, and is around 200 miles. Usually it is much less as in the photo shown.
The effective thickness between us and the ISS is (at a guess) only about 5 miles, so there is little dispersion.
-
You can't see a mountain 100 miles in the distance because of light scattering in the atmoplane. Why would you expect to be able to see thousands of miles across the ocean? Perhaps you did not think your question through?
maybe you should read what I replied. Not seeing further than 100 miles is a bad argument
Arguing that you should be able to see across the ocean is a bad argument. Perhaps you should say something to the OP? Oh, that is right, you roundies on defend each other and never call each other out on your bullshit. I forget that you people are all on the same team.
He said everything you need to know in his 1st post. I suggest reading it again.
The OP stays correct - with proper telescopes you could easily penetrate atmosphere for hundreds/thousands of miles (if the Earth was flat).
-
You can't see a mountain 100 miles in the distance because of light scattering in the atmoplane. Why would you expect to be able to see thousands of miles across the ocean? Perhaps you did not think your question through?
maybe you should read what I replied. Not seeing further than 100 miles is a bad argument
Arguing that you should be able to see across the ocean is a bad argument. Perhaps you should say something to the OP? Oh, that is right, you roundies on defend each other and never call each other out on your bullshit. I forget that you people are all on the same team.
He said everything you need to know in his 1st post. I suggest reading it again.
The OP stays correct - with proper telescopes you could easily penetrate atmosphere for hundreds/thousands of miles (if the Earth was flat).
Which telescope will fix light scattering?
-
A radio telescope
Read my post
-
Where did you purchase your radio telescope?
-
You could convert your scope to infrared detection and see much further. The sensors and reflective material is pretty cheap. Gold works very well, but aluminum works almost as well. Detecting even smaller waveforms would be better to far to expensive. If you made a very large and sensitive infrared scope it would be neat to be the first amateur to track the sun after the apparent sunset.
-
I converted one of my old point and shoot digital cameras to shoot in infrared. Pretty simple process. I'm not sure of the filter I'm using (it's actually for rifle mounted tac-light NVG use), but you can order them for 720nm or other specific ratings I think.
-
I have modified a few cameras for infrared. Make sure to remove the filter inside the camera. Some are a filter right on the sensor and some are at the back of the lens. I was thinking of an array of infrared sensors mounted to a large telescope modified or made to reflect and focal-ize infrared to the array. Sun tracking would be nice also.
-
I was asking about radio telescopes, since roundies are claiming that they are freely available.
-
I was asking about radio telescopes, since roundies are claiming that they are freely available.
Here you go http://www.primalucelab.com/radioastronomy/spider230-amateur-radio-telescope.html (http://www.primalucelab.com/radioastronomy/spider230-amateur-radio-telescope.html)
Or you could build one of your own http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2013/06/summer-project-build-radio-telescope-at.html (http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2013/06/summer-project-build-radio-telescope-at.html)
How "Zetetic" would that be?
-
There are various means to eliminate the effects of the atmosphere. Speaking as just an amateur photographer, I have used infra red film and filters . They work. As usual jroa is trying to inject another subject (radio telescopes) instead of the question of photographic equipment.
OOOOPS !!!!! I Was going to explain something but I can't do it on the Q&A section . LOL. Have to do that on the Debate section.
So, since this is the Q&A section I will ask the question.:
If the earth was flat, with all the readily available methods and equipment available today, and if I go to the top of a mountain or high building, why can't I seen any farther than I can ? Why can't I see Big Ben from the top of the Empire State Building ?
-
I was asking about radio telescopes, since roundies are claiming that they are freely available.
Some flat earthers are so ill-informed about things that "are freely available"
in the real world . ::) But then again you're right, jroa. They aren't aren't "freely available" . They are available but you do have to pay for them. LOL