The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: acesuv on April 11, 2013, 12:30:10 PM
-
Should I explain in more detail? If you're an ant crawling across my dinner plate, you'll be able to see the top of my mash potatoes no matter where you are; however, if my dinner plate were spherical, there would be points on the plate where you couldn't see the peak of my potato mountain.
-
EDIT: this goes for all tall structures - not just the tallest. why cant I see the Rockies? Why can't i see the skyscrapers in the city 45 minutes away?
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Viewing_Distance (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Viewing_Distance)
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Viewing_Distance (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Viewing_Distance)
So basically, if we were on a plane we could see Mt. Everest.
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Viewing_Distance (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Viewing_Distance)
So basically, if we were on a plane we could see Mt. Everest.
I'm just doing that thing people always want people to do, link to the wiki and previous articles and stuff. I believe the Earth is a sphere that bulges at the equator. Keep your arguments for pros, like scepti.
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Viewing_Distance (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Viewing_Distance)
So basically, if we were on a plane we could see Mt. Everest.
That depends. How good are your eyes?
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
-
I suppose that this "viewing distance" through air refutes my argument that we should all see Mt. Everest when we look around outside if FET is accurate.
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
While I totally agree that suspended particulate does limit visibility, it is possible to see much further on very clear days. My friends and I can routinely see 150 km quite easily from an altitude of only 11000 feet, yet I can't see the small mountain range that is only 90 km away while I'm at 500 feet. On a flat earth, I should be able to see those mountains. Any thoughts on why I can't?
-
You do not see Mt Everest because the known earth is in a form of a disc. Just like the round earth it curves just not spherically. Also a human eye can only see so far.
-
I suppose that this "viewing distance" through air refutes my argument that we should all see Mt. Everest when we look around outside if FET is accurate.
I'm guessing that you don't live anywhere near Tibet, so I'm not really sure why you you would expect to a mountain several thousand miles away, even if the earth were flat and you the atmosphere were perfectly transparent. Perspective would make even the mightiest mountain appear small enough to just blend into the horizon.
-
So if I'm, say, 10,000km west of Mt. Everest at the equinox, how can I see the sun rise over the horizon; shouldn't Everest block it?
-
No silly, the sun never sets remember? It recedes and some garbage laws of perspective and/or a nascent and unwieldy hypothesis bends the light to make it look like it is setting or rising
-
No silly, the sun never sets remember? It recedes and some garbage laws of perspective and/or a nascent and unwieldy hypothesis bends the light to make it look like it is setting or rising
Oh yeah my bad. :-\
-
So if I'm, say, 10,000km west of Mt. Everest at the equinox, how can I see the sun rise over the horizon; shouldn't Everest block it?
Why? The sun rises over the equator on the days of the equinox. Is Mt. Everest located on the equator?
-
So if I'm, say, 10,000km west of Mt. Everest at the equinox, how can I see the sun rise over the horizon; shouldn't Everest block it?
Why? The sun rises over the equator on the days of the equinox. Is Mt. Everest located on the equator?
Oh right, I muddled up solstice and equinox. My point was just that if you're at a location where Everest is in the way of the sunrise, shouldn't you see a projection of the mountain, or at least observe a decreased luminosity of the sun as part of it is blocked by the mountain?
-
My point was just that if you're at a location where Everest is in the way of the sunrise, shouldn't you see a projection of the mountain, or at least observe a decreased luminosity of the sun as part of it is blocked by the mountain?
Why would Mt. Everest block the sun if it's 10,000 km away? Is it 5000 km high?
-
Why would Mt. Everest block the sun if it's 10,000 km away? Is it 5000 km high?
??? Pretty sure it's about 9km high dude...
-
Why would Mt. Everest block the sun if it's 10,000 km away? Is it 5000 km high?
??? Pretty sure it's about 9km high dude...
Then why would it block the sun if you're 10,000 km away?
-
Ok let me clarify so we can avoid the rhetorical questions rigmarole.
If the earth is a 30km sphere as per the FE model (as I understand it), and its light path passes through the projected area of a 9km mountain, then regardless of the distance of the mountain, it is going to have a palpable effect on the quantity of light reaching the observer, ranging from 0% if you are standing in front of the mountain, to something in the order of 70% at the limit where both the mountain and sun are at an infinite distance - I get that number from approximating the relative projection area of the mountain to a 30km sphere projection.
Assuming you don't believe the sun is a 30km sphere, and is rather a massive light source (commonly known to be composed of a quark gluon plasma) at an optically infinite distance, then you would expect the light reaching the observer to range from 0% directly in front of the observer, asymptoting to 100% at the limit where the moon and comparatively infinitely large sun are at an infinite distance from the observer.
I am of course making the assumption here that the FE model uses the 30km sun sphere.
-
You do realize that Mt. Everest is part of a mountain range, don't you? People who keep bringing up Mt. Everest seem to think that since it's the tallest mountain, it should stick out like a sore thumb. Well, it doesn't, even if you live in Tibet. It's pretty much just one mountain among many in mountainous region.
FET has a lot of problems. Not being able to see Mt. Everest is not one of them.
-
FET has a lot of problems. Not being able to see Mt. Everest is not one of them.
This. Unless it's the sun or moon, nothing on earth is visible in the atmosphere past around 200 miles, and even that is stretching it. So no OP, you can't see Mount Everest from thousands of miles away on a flat earth, for the same reason you can't see anything that far away on a round earth.
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km.
How did you come up with that number? I've seen tall buildings in Seattle 100km away with only binoculars (I was 2400 feet high, the city is at sea-level, and only the upper portion of the taller building were visible above the horizon)
I can also easily see mountains 80-120km away.
-
I suppose that this "viewing distance" through air refutes my argument that we should all see Mt. Everest when we look around outside if FET is accurate.
I'm guessing that you don't live anywhere near Tibet, so I'm not really sure why you you would expect to a mountain several thousand miles away, even if the earth were flat and you the atmosphere were perfectly transparent. Perspective would make even the mightiest mountain appear small enough to just blend into the horizon.
I hadn't thought about that. In my defense, I was thinking about using a telescope to see the mountain.
-
You do realize that Mt. Everest is part of a mountain range, don't you? People who keep bringing up Mt. Everest seem to think that since it's the tallest mountain, it should stick out like a sore thumb. Well, it doesn't, even if you live in Tibet. It's pretty much just one mountain among many in mountainous region.
FET has a lot of problems. Not being able to see Mt. Everest is not one of them.
You're evading the question.
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
While I totally agree that suspended particulate does limit visibility, it is possible to see much further on very clear days. My friends and I can routinely see 150 km quite easily from an altitude of only 11000 feet, yet I can't see the small mountain range that is only 90 km away while I'm at 500 feet. On a flat earth, I should be able to see those mountains. Any thoughts on why I can't?
Hook, line, and sinker.
Hm, did anybody see where Thork went?
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
While I totally agree that suspended particulate does limit visibility, it is possible to see much further on very clear days. My friends and I can routinely see 150 km quite easily from an altitude of only 11000 feet, yet I can't see the small mountain range that is only 90 km away while I'm at 500 feet. On a flat earth, I should be able to see those mountains. Any thoughts on why I can't?
The air is most dense at or near the surface. The higher you get the thinner the air and the further you can see. Also the air near the surface has a much higher amount of dirt and dust in it. That's where most of the grime in it is. Air higher up is much cleaner and doesn't hold as much muck hence the reason you can see further as you gain altitude.
(http://www.smallwindtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Air-Density-Changes-by-elevation.jpg)
In a dirty city, the effect is quite marked.
(http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/@api/deki/files/6346/=la-smog.jpg)
Its very typical for round earthers to leap to the conclusion that something they observed must be because the earth is round. Stop blaming everything on earth being round and you'll understand a lot more about the world around you.
-
You do not see Mt Everest because the known earth is in a form of a disc. Just like the round earth it curves just not spherically. Also a human eye can only see so far.
What is the max distance the eye can see? Wouldn't it keep us from seeing the sun?
-
You do realize that Mt. Everest is part of a mountain range, don't you? People who keep bringing up Mt. Everest seem to think that since it's the tallest mountain, it should stick out like a sore thumb. Well, it doesn't, even if you live in Tibet. It's pretty much just one mountain among many in mountainous region.
FET has a lot of problems. Not being able to see Mt. Everest is not one of them.
You're evading the question.
That's because it's a stupid question.
-
You do not see Mt Everest because the known earth is in a form of a disc. Just like the round earth it curves just not spherically. Also a human eye can only see so far.
What is the max distance the eye can see? Wouldn't it keep us from seeing the sun?
The sun is up in the sky, it's high and you can see through the air as it gets thinner and thinner.
How do you know the air gets thinner? ;)
-
You do not see Mt Everest because the known earth is in a form of a disc. Just like the round earth it curves just not spherically. Also a human eye can only see so far.
What is the max distance the eye can see? Wouldn't it keep us from seeing the sun?
The sun is up in the sky, it's high and you can see through the air as it gets thinner and thinner.
Actually the cotton candy clouds limit visibility so I can safely conclude the earths mantle is made of molten shrimp.
-
You do not see Mt Everest because the known earth is in a form of a disc. Just like the round earth it curves just not spherically. Also a human eye can only see so far.
What is the max distance the eye can see? Wouldn't it keep us from seeing the sun?
The eye can see as far as visible light can travel. For example, we're able to see stars which are light-years away.
-
You do not see Mt Everest because the known earth is in a form of a disc. Just like the round earth it curves just not spherically. Also a human eye can only see so far.
What is the max distance the eye can see? Wouldn't it keep us from seeing the sun?
The eye can see as far as visible light can travel. For example, we're able to see stars which are light-years away.
But according to FET the stars are near the moon and the sun. And the RET of light years is another part of the RE Conspiracy. We can see the stars since they're so close to the earth according to FET. ;D
That's a little alarming to hear.
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
Also the acuity of our vision limits how far a person can see. You can only make out a penny from so far, not that it is blocked by air or particles. Our vision is just not strong enough.
-
What is the max distance the eye can see?
The max distance the human eye can see is 2.5 millions light-years. Andromeda Galaxy is visible with naked eye (albeit not easily) and it is at that distance.
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
While I totally agree that suspended particulate does limit visibility, it is possible to see much further on very clear days. My friends and I can routinely see 150 km quite easily from an altitude of only 11000 feet, yet I can't see the small mountain range that is only 90 km away while I'm at 500 feet. On a flat earth, I should be able to see those mountains. Any thoughts on why I can't?
The air is most dense at or near the surface. The higher you get the thinner the air and the further you can see. Also the air near the surface has a much higher amount of dirt and dust in it. That's where most of the grime in it is. Air higher up is much cleaner and doesn't hold as much muck hence the reason you can see further as you gain altitude.
(http://www.smallwindtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Air-Density-Changes-by-elevation.jpg)
In a dirty city, the effect is quite marked.
(http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/@api/deki/files/6346/=la-smog.jpg)
Its very typical for round earthers to leap to the conclusion that something they observed must be because the earth is round. Stop blaming everything on earth being round and you'll understand a lot more about the world around you.
It's even more typical for flat earthers to rely on magic and BS to try and prove their point.
Coupling an air density graph with a photograph of a smog filled city is meaningless. On clear days, air density has an imperceptible effect on visibility over these distances . Suspended particulate, on the other hand has everything to do with it. By claiming the two are interchangeable, you are proving to us that you don't fully understand them and that you shouldn't be using them as evidence. Check your facts and do some experimentation. Visibility in clear air can and does exceed 90 km.
Get out and observe a few things for yourself and you may possibly begin to understand a few things about the world around you.
-
The air is most dense at or near the surface. The higher you get the thinner the air and the further you can see.
Took this from sea-level. It's 68km to that peak.
(http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9146/thebrothers.jpg)
-
29silhouette, do you think you could measure the angular height of that peak above horizontal, and also get it's actual height above sea level for us? I have an idea for a side note ;)
-
What is the max distance the eye can see?
The max distance the human eye can see is 2.5 millions light-years. Andromeda Galaxy is visible with naked eye (albeit not easily) and it is at that distance.
On the surface of Earth, some people claim to see galaxies as far away as 11,000,000 light years with the naked eye. It all depends on what the light has to travel through in order to get to the eye; I'm sure astronauts are able to see much farther than people on the surface because the light doesn't need to go through the atmosphere.
...are we allowed to mention astronauts here?
-
29silhouette, do you think you could measure the angular height of that peak above horizontal, and also get it's actual height above sea level for us? I have an idea for a side note ;)
picture was taken from lat 47.138601 lon -122.632159
The peak is 2085 m / 6842 ft and located at lat 47.653756 lon -123.140754
-
29silhouette, do you think you could measure the angular height of that peak above horizontal, and also get it's actual height above sea level for us? I have an idea for a side note ;)
picture was taken from lat 47.138601 lon -122.632159
The peak is 2085 m / 6842 ft and located at lat 47.653756 lon -123.140754
Thanks! Not quite everything I was after though. When I asked for angular height, I was thinking more along the lines of "the peak is x degrees above the horizontal". I'll explain (and this is a bit of a derailment, for which I apologise): if the earth were flat, given the distance and height of the peak, the angle it would make with the horizontal would be tan-1(height / distance) or tan-1(2085 / 68000) = 1.756 degrees above horizontal. I expect, if you went and measured it, that the actual angle would be a bit less than that, due to the curvature of the earth.
-
Thanks! Not quite everything I was after though.
Your welcome. I realized what you were thinking when I read your question and posted last night.
I was too tired though to figure out any numbers so I just posted the elevation and locations real quick.
*In fact, just remembered I'm pretty sure my dad has a theodolite. If he does I'll borrow it and see what I get next week.
-
It's possible that Thork is using MOR as his definition for "visibility".
I'm not sure how your observation of a distant mountain is in anyway damning to a flat earth. ???
-
On the RE view there should be a distance at which Everest is hidden behind the horizon, but it would be completely visible on a FE. Same old story really.
-
Assuming a perfectly clear atmosphere...
Distance from my house to Everest: 13,000km
Mt Everest height: 9km (generous)
Angular resolution of Mt. Everest from my house: 0.039666 Degrees
Angular resolution of human eye: .9 degrees (generous)
Why would I see Mt. Everest from my house? Where do you live? Do your own math...
-
It's more like 0.09 degrees, the sun is 0.5 degrees of angular diameter. That means you only need 3x optical zoom to make out Everest!
-
It's possible that Thork is using MOR as his definition for "visibility".
I'm not sure how your observation of a distant mountain is in anyway damning to a flat earth. ???
Meteorological Optical Range? I don't know. Maybe he'll chime in and tell us.
True, it's not damning to FET, it's only damning to Thork's generalized claim of a person only being able to see a mere 40km.
Angular resolution of human eye: .9 degrees (generous)
Telescopes and such.
-
It's possible that Thork is using MOR as his definition for "visibility".
I'm not sure how your observation of a distant mountain is in anyway damning to a flat earth. ???
Meteorological Optical Range? I don't know. Maybe he'll chime in and tell us.
True, it's not damning to FET, it's only damning to Thork's generalized claim of a person only being able to see a mere 40km.
Angular resolution of human eye: .9 degrees (generous)
Telescopes and such.
Speaking of telescopes, I'd like some opinions on a possible experiment. If it has already been brought up, I apologize in advance. As Ski said, the angular resolution of Mt Everest from his house, at 13 000 km, is 0.039666. This would be impossible to see without a very large telescope. My scope is a 10" dob and can only resolve to 0.04549 at best using Dawes Limit. Everest would have to be almost 20% larger for me to even see it with my telescope on a great day. Even then, I wouldn't be able to see any detail. I would only be able to make it out as a dot on the horizon and wouldn't be able to identify it as a mountain.
A much larger telescope with, let's say, a diameter of 33 feet, about half the distance away, sitting high above the deleterious effects of the atmosphere, at an altitude of 13 600 feet, would have absolutely no problems seeing Everest. It would stick out like a sore thumb.
I'm speaking of course of the W.M. Keck telescope atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii. From Mauna Kea the angular resolution of Everest would only be about 0.04483. While this is still out of the range of my telescope, the Keck has a resolving power of 0.0116 arc seconds and would show Everest in all it's glory. As Keck sits 13 600 feet asl and Everest peaks at 29 035, the Keck would actually be looking up over 15 000 feet toward the summit, well above any pollution and most of the atmosphere.
What other reasons would Everest not be visible through the Keck telescope if the earth was flat? So far the only thing I can think of would be cirrus clouds. However, ground based observation would easily confirm or deny their presence at the time. Any other thoughts of what else could spoil the view?
-
You'd need a day free of weather. No dust, moisture, turbulence, etc for a stretch 13,000km. It seems, erm, unlikely....
-
Yep. It would be difficult but not impossible. We have shortened the distance from 13 000 km as it's only 7 000 km from Hawaii. And luckily smog rarely ventures above 7 000 feet even on those nasty, sticky, humid days. I have seen it as high as 9 000 but only a couple of times in 20 years. Turbulence is definitely a factor but we can easily tell when the air is steady by watching the contrails of aircraft. While a lot would have to come together, it's still a possibility.
What if we used the Okayama Astrophysical Observatory on Mt. Chikurinji in Japan? We would be cutting the distance to about 4 500 km.
-
As mentioned above, angular resolution of the human eye is about four to six arc minutes or 0.07-0.10 degrees, not 0.9 - if it was 0.9 we wouldn't be able to see our moon during the day. Bright objects against a dark background that are much smaller in angular size than our eye's resolution can be seen as well (easily visible stars are in the range of only 1.5 × 10^-5 degrees).
-
You'd need a day free of weather. No dust, moisture, turbulence, etc for a stretch 13,000km. It seems, erm, unlikely....
But possible! And all you need is a $20 telescope from Wal-Mart (the muggsybogues1 special). Find a way to take a picture and the prize is yours! I will personally donate $5,000 if a 3rd party can verify a picture of Everest from 13,000kms away.
-
...I'm pretty sure my dad has a theodolite. If he does I'll borrow it and see what I get next week.
Sweet! It'll be interesting to see what you get. :)
-
As mentioned above, angular resolution of the human eye is about four to six arc minutes or 0.07-0.10 degrees, not 0.9 -
Good catch - pretty sloppy of me. Yet, Everest would still be irresolvable.
-
You'd need a day free of weather. No dust, moisture, turbulence, etc for a stretch 13,000km. It seems, erm, unlikely....
But possible! And all you need is a $20 telescope from Wal-Mart (the muggsybogues1 special). Find a way to take a picture and the prize is yours! I will personally donate $5,000 if a 3rd party can verify a picture of Everest from 13,000kms away.
Excellent. I'll eagerly await a day when there is no weather, humidity, dust, etc in between me and the Himalayas....
-
As mentioned above, angular resolution of the human eye is about four to six arc minutes or 0.07-0.10 degrees, not 0.9 -
Good catch - pretty sloppy of me. Yet, Everest would still be irresolvable.
Actually, the angular resolution of the normal, unaided human eye is about 1 arc minute (sometimes better), not 4-6. Come on Ski, even Rowbotham got that one right. ::)
-
As mentioned above, angular resolution of the human eye is about four to six arc minutes or 0.07-0.10 degrees, not 0.9 -
Good catch - pretty sloppy of me. Yet, Everest would still be irresolvable.
Actually, the angular resolution of the normal, unaided human eye is about 1 arc minute (sometimes better), not 4-6. Come on Ski, even Rowbotham got that one right. ::)
Do you have a source for one arc minute resolution? Not to argue about it, just curious, as sources I've seen cite at least a couple arc minutes.
-
Do you have a source for one arc minute resolution? Not to argue about it, just curious, as sources I've seen cite at least a couple arc minutes.
Although there are several variables that can affect resolution, one arc minute is the generally accepted answer.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Introduction/visualacuity.htm (http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTest/Introduction/visualacuity.htm)
-
This wiki page has a picture of Mt Mckinley from 100 miles away, it's near the bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_McKinley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_McKinley)
-
...I'm pretty sure my dad has a theodolite. If he does I'll borrow it and see what I get next week.
Sweet! It'll be interesting to see what you get. :)
Found out it's not a theodolite. :-\
-
I was thinking about this some more. Isn't the horizon the part of the Earth you can't see over because it has curved away? If the Earth were flat, and air was the reason we can't see far away - then wouldn't the horizon be fuzzy and like you're looking into Minecraft fog?
However, the horizon appears crisp.
-
Found out it's not a theodolite. :-\
Oh well... :(
If you felt like going to the effort (and I don't expect you to, this is just an idea), you could put something together using a spirit level (preferably a long one) and a ruler. Lay the spirit level across something and level it, pointing toward the mountain, then place the ruler at the far end, standing vertically, with the 0 level with the top edge of the spirit level. Now, get down behind the spirit level and line up the top edge at the near end with the mountain top. See where this lines up on the ruler, and then calculate the angle from that measurement and the length of the spirit level. Make sense? Again, not expecting you to go out and do this unless you're interested, just wanted to share a fairly simple idea for measuring angles of elevation.
I was thinking about this some more. Isn't the horizon the part of the Earth you can't see over because it has curved away? If the Earth were flat, and air was the reason we can't see far away - then wouldn't the horizon be fuzzy and like you're looking into Minecraft fog?
However, the horizon appears crisp.
Indeed it does, and this is another failing of the "air gets in the way" idea. Bendy light might give a crisp line, if bendy light actually worked...
-
I finally got around to trying out my own idea with the spirit level and ruler today.
From where I live now, the Nandewar Ranges are clearly visible and well defined (despite being 30km away at the closest point). One easily identifiable mountain in the range stands 860m higher than my elevation, and is 30.44km away. My spirit level is 118cm long, but I placed the ruler at 110cm. With the spirit level leveled, the peak of the mountain was between 28mm and 29mm when viewed as described in my previous post. According to my calculations, it should have been at ~31mm if the earth were flat. I also calculated what it would be for a round earth, and came out with 28.4mm, pretty much exactly where it was. Possible error in this experiment estimated to be +/- 0.5mm.
This experiment could be repeated at various distances to provide verification, and I might do that one day if I get the time, but I'm pretty satisfied with that result. Any of you reading this could also conduct the experiment yourself, using any mountain you can see from your location, just verify it's height and distance, and make sure your equipment is set up properly.
Provisional conclusion: the earth is round.
-
just verify it's height and distance...
The first question would be how did you confirm the mountain's height?
Also, under FET, the portion of the mountain you cannot see is a matter of perspective if you used the naked eye. You would see the mountain in its entirety if viewed with a telescope.
-
just verify it's height and distance...
The first question would be how did you confirm the mountain's height?
Also, under FET, the portion of the mountain you cannot see is a matter of perspective if you used the naked eye. You would see the mountain in its entirety if viewed with a telescope.
Having the bottom portion of the mountain hidden shouldn't affect the height of the peak on FE. However, having the bottom portion hidden on RE should affect the height of the peak as the bottom portion is hidden by the curvature and is lower than the observation elevation. This is actually a great experiment that can show curvature.
-
just verify it's height and distance...
The first question would be how did you confirm the mountain's height?
Height and distance were verified on a map. Yes, I know what you're going to say, but it's highly unlikely that the heights and distances were fabricated just so that this measurement would show curvature from my location. Besides, with several measurements at different distances, the difference between round and flat would become much clearer.
Also, under FET, the portion of the mountain you cannot see is a matter of perspective if you used the naked eye. You would see the mountain in its entirety if viewed with a telescope.
Are you saying that, under FET 'perspective', the top of the mountain becomes transparent? Because that's what it would have to do to throw this measurement off. Oh, and there's a transmission tower a further 10km away (40km total) on another mountain that's clearly visible with the naked eye. It would have to disappear first if the top of the mountain I was looking at were to disappear.
-
You have to work with very short distances in order to avoid the possibility of gravity bending light though. If curvature does not show up on a 6 or 12 mile stretch, those are the results that must be excepted. Gravity bends light toward the earth so the curvature remains an illusion....
-
You have to work with very short distances in order to avoid the possibility of gravity bending light though. If curvature does not show up on a 6 or 12 mile stretch, those are the results that must be excepted. Gravity bends light toward the earth so the curvature remains an illusion....
If gravity can bend light, something with virtually no discernible mass, what makes you honestly believe it cannot bend matter, with a very discernible mass?
-
You have to work with very short distances in order to avoid the possibility of gravity bending light though. If curvature does not show up on a 6 or 12 mile stretch, those are the results that must be excepted. Gravity bends light toward the earth so the curvature remains an illusion....
The sun, which is a million times more massive than the Earth deflects light approximately 1.75 arc seconds. I am not sure there is an instrument that can measure a microarcsecond
-
You have to work with very short distances in order to avoid the possibility of gravity bending light though. If curvature does not show up on a 6 or 12 mile stretch, those are the results that must be excepted. Gravity bends light toward the earth so the curvature remains an illusion....
That's okay, curvature was shown on the Bedford Level in 1870 by Alfred Wallace. That's only a 6 mile stretch, and the amount of curvature evident was quite substantial, definitely not a trick of the light.
-
According to my calculations, it should have been at ~31mm if the earth were flat.
You're assuming art-school perspective, which does not reflect reality.
That's okay, curvature was shown on the Bedford Level in 1870 by Alfred Wallace. That's only a 6 mile stretch, and the amount of curvature evident was quite substantial, definitely not a trick of the light.
Bedford Level observations took place over the course of many years in front of hundreds, if not thousands of both planists and globularists in that time-frame. The only result that "showed" curvature was that in the hotly debated Wager in which a court disallowed Wallace's attempt to defraud Hampden.
-
According to my calculations, it should have been at ~31mm if the earth were flat.
You're assuming art-school perspective, which does not reflect reality.
That's okay, curvature was shown on the Bedford Level in 1870 by Alfred Wallace. That's only a 6 mile stretch, and the amount of curvature evident was quite substantial, definitely not a trick of the light.
Bedford Level observations took place over the course of many years in front of hundreds, if not thousands of both planists and globularists in that time-frame. The only result that "showed" curvature was that in the hotly debated Wager in which a court disallowed Wallace's attempt to defraud Hampden.
Except it was Hampden who attempted to defame Wallace because he was bitter about being confirmed as wrong. If art schools are incorrect about perspective, what is the correct way to look at perspective, pray tell? And I think that calculation was based more on trig than perspective, but I could be wrong.
-
According to my calculations, it should have been at ~31mm if the earth were flat.
You're assuming art-school perspective, which does not reflect reality.
No, I'm using trigonometry, a tried and proven mathematical technique, free of bias.
That's okay, curvature was shown on the Bedford Level in 1870 by Alfred Wallace. That's only a 6 mile stretch, and the amount of curvature evident was quite substantial, definitely not a trick of the light.
Bedford Level observations took place over the course of many years in front of hundreds, if not thousands of both planists and globularists in that time-frame. The only result that "showed" curvature was that in the hotly debated Wager in which a court disallowed Wallace's attempt to defraud Hampden.
I've been over this elsewhere; Hampden's referee verified the accuracy of the sketch that showed curvature. The court case was in relation to the legitimacy of the wager, not the outcome of the demonstration. Essentially, Hampden defrauded Wallace.
-
Wallace was forced to return money he had unlawfully kept from Hampden. In what way did Hampden defraud Wallace, pray tell. ::)
-
Wallace was forced to return money he had unlawfully kept from Hampden. In what way did Hampden defraud Wallace, pray tell. ::)
It was not a fraud but it was certainly a legal sleight if hand. There was on obscure law saying that because Wallace requested the funds owed to him before they had been offered, then he was no longer entitled to them. Hambden lost the bet as established by the referees and then upheld by the libel case, but found a way to keep the money.
-
Wallace was forced to return money he had unlawfully kept from Hampden. In what way did Hampden defraud Wallace, pray tell. ::)
Hampden proposed a bet, which Wallace accepted and won, fair and square. Hampden then exploited a legal loophole to recover the money he had lost in the bet, all the while making libellous claims against Wallace and threatening to kill him. Sounds like Wallace got the short end of the stick to me.
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
If visibility cannot exceed 40k. Why is it possible to see stars along the horizon? The stars that appear closest to the ground would have to be seen trough all much more air than any ground based object.
-
Wallace was forced to return money he had unlawfully kept from Hampden. In what way did Hampden defraud Wallace, pray tell. ::)
Hampden proposed a bet, which Wallace accepted and won, fair and square.
I think our notions of "fair and square" do not match.
Wallace's referee (Walsh) did not even deign to arrive at the demonstration. He had to be replaced by a friend of Wallace's -- one Martin Coulcher. Coulcher declared that he saw convexity, while the other witness/referee William Carpenter saw no signs of convexity. John Henry Walsh -- Wallace's original referee was the "tie-breaker". A judge later declared that Wallace must return the ₤500 to Hampden though he was unable to restore Hampden's reputation or save him from bankruptcy. Hampden rightly protested though the money was taken by Wallace nonetheless. The court upheld all of this, as you said. It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary (mis-)management that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement.
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
If visibility cannot exceed 40k. Why is it possible to see stars along the horizon? The stars that appear closest to the ground would have to be seen trough all much more air than any ground based object.
This is a good question so I suspect it's been asked before. Still might be worth starting a seperate thread about it.
-
I think our notions of "fair and square" do not match.
Wallace's referee (Walsh) did not even deign to arrive at the demonstration. He had to be replaced by a friend of Wallace's -- one Martin Coulcher. Coulcher declared that he saw convexity, while the other witness/referee William Carpenter saw no signs of convexity. John Henry Walsh -- Wallace's original referee was the "tie-breaker". A judge later declared that Wallace must return the ₤500 to Hampden though he was unable to restore Hampden's reputation or save him from bankruptcy. Hampden rightly protested though the money was taken by Wallace nonetheless. The court upheld all of this, as you said. It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary (mis-)management that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement.
From that same thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58421.0.html#.UZSkAkrcDPY) you just quoted:
Select quotes from the thread I linked to earlier:
"Mr. Hampden proposed the Old Bedford canal in Norfolk, which, near Downham Market, has a stretch of six miles quite straight between two bridges. He also proposed a Mr. William Carpenter (a journeyman printer, who had written a book upholding the "flat earth" theory) as his referee..."
"When the pole was set up and the mark put upon the bridge, Mr. Carpenter accompanied me, and saw that their heights above the water were the same as that of the telescope resting on the parapet of the bridge. What was seen in the large telescope was sketched by Mr. Coulcher and signed by Mr. Carpenter as correct, and is shown in the following diagram..."
(http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/Ancillary/1905_Wallace_A237/1905_Wallace_A237.2_fig400.jpg)
So Hampden's referee confirmed the accuracy of a sketch showing the convexity of the water in the Bedford canal, therefore admitting the earth to be round, and showing Wallace to be the winner of the bet. Correct me if I am mistaken.
-
Here's a question...
How come when I am on a beach or out on the ocean and I look towards the horizon the sea is a perfectly crisp, clear line? It is not obscured (much) by the atmosphere. The landscape (buildings, islands etc) in the background IS obscured more by the atmosphere. The further things are the hazier they get. So if the sea was actually flat and not curved at a horizon distance of about 3 miles then surely it would be diffused by the atmosphere so that it was more of a hazy, blurred line between it and the sky.
Why is the this not the case?
-
Why is the this not the case?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Basic_Perspective (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Basic_Perspective)
-
Why is the this not the case?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Basic_Perspective (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Basic_Perspective)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon)
-
Why is the this not the case?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Basic_Perspective (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Basic_Perspective)
Lazy wiki link post answers nothing. Typical FE.
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
If visibility cannot exceed 40k. Why is it possible to see stars along the horizon? The stars that appear closest to the ground would have to be seen trough all much more air than any ground based object.
This is a good question so I suspect it's been asked before. Still might be worth starting a seperate thread about it.
It might be. Especially since nobody seems to be answering me on this thread.
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
If visibility cannot exceed 40k. Why is it possible to see stars along the horizon? The stars that appear closest to the ground would have to be seen trough all much more air than any ground based object.
This is a good question so I suspect it's been asked before. Still might be worth starting a seperate thread about it.
It might be. Especially since nobody seems to be answering me on this thread.
Because it can't be answered. Not by FE.
WAIT!! bendy light... Or some other nonsense.
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
If visibility cannot exceed 40k. Why is it possible to see stars along the horizon? The stars that appear closest to the ground would have to be seen trough all much more air than any ground based object.
This is a good question so I suspect it's been asked before. Still might be worth starting a seperate thread about it.
It might be. Especially since nobody seems to be answering me on this thread.
Note to The Captain
Are you new to the website ?
I have a thread that has been going on for 14 pages and no one from the Flat Earth Society seems to be answering me either....Or at least with an intelligent answer. ???
Welcome to the Flat Earth Society Forum Website. :P
-
Why is the this not the case?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Basic_Perspective (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Basic_Perspective)
Shittest answer ever.
-
A cool thing about the FET perspective argument:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58586.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58586.0.html)
-
Even on a very clear day visibility does not exceed 40km. Air is not perfectly clear. Air stops you seeing Everest. Or more specifically the stuff in air like water vapour and particulates.
If visibility cannot exceed 40k. Why is it possible to see stars along the horizon? The stars that appear closest to the ground would have to be seen trough all much more air than any ground based object.
This is a good question so I suspect it's been asked before. Still might be worth starting a seperate thread about it.
It might be. Especially since nobody seems to be answering me on this thread.
Note to The Captain
Are you new to the website ?
I have a thread that has been going on for 14 pages and no one from the Flat Earth Society seems to be answering me either....Or at least with an intelligent answer. ???
Welcome to the Flat Earth Society Forum Website. :P
Yeah i'm fairly new. Been reading every once in a while... and some things just made me want to log in and yell wrong. Yeah.. still no answer haha.