The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: magcynic on October 12, 2019, 11:58:36 PM

Title: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: magcynic on October 12, 2019, 11:58:36 PM
From the south pole to the north pole is 12,430 miles.  If this is translated to a flat Earth map, we could assume that the diameter of Earth is double that at 24,860 miles from one point on the edge to the matching point on the opposite edge.  24,860 miles.

It is estimated that Saturn, at its closest distance, is 746 million miles from Earth.  With a quality telescope one can actually bring the rings of Saturn into fairly good view... from 746 million miles. 

This begs many questions on a 24,860 mile diameter Earth.  Two obvious ones occur to me first:


I have personally never seen anyone accomplish either of these feats.  I can only conclude that a flat Earth is impossible.  What other explanation is there?
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on October 13, 2019, 03:25:24 AM
You are trying to use distances from a model with a RE to try and refute a FE.
While that isn't crucial to your argument, I recommend avoiding any connection like that.

From what I have seen, most FEers have all celestial objects roughly 5000 km above Earth. This would include Saturn.

But yes, as we can see objects quite close to the horizon, we should easily be able to see the sun at any time.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: John Davis on October 16, 2019, 08:01:41 AM
But yes, as we can see objects quite close to the horizon, we should easily be able to see the sun at any time.
How could you possibly hold this as true? Are you claiming there is no artificial horizon anywhere on earth?
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: Yes on October 16, 2019, 08:24:52 AM
How could you possibly hold this as true? Are you claiming there is no artificial horizon anywhere on earth?

By artificial horizon, do you mean like the cubical wall divider that is in front of me right now, obstructing the full view of my neighboring cube dweller's facial expressions?

Because I'm pretty certain that's not what is being discussed.  If you're on a cruise ship on flat earth, and all you can see is water and sky, then it's trivial geometry to assert that anything above your boat has line of sight unobstructed by the horizon.  But of course, we're not on a flat earth, which is why we see sunsets.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: John Davis on October 16, 2019, 08:27:10 AM
Perhaps if you are on a cruise ship that is in an ocean on an earth with no terrain. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Also, it may surprise you that air is not clear, and that waves have a height.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: Yes on October 16, 2019, 08:46:19 AM
Perhaps if you are on a cruise ship that is in an ocean on an earth with no terrain. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Also, it may surprise you that air is not clear, and that waves have a height.
I have never had the misfortune of witnessing kilometers-tall waves, but I have seen the sun go down below the ocean horizon nevertheless.  I also noticed that it didn't fade away, as if obscured by fog.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: John Davis on October 16, 2019, 10:14:19 AM
Perhaps if you are on a cruise ship that is in an ocean on an earth with no terrain. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Also, it may surprise you that air is not clear, and that waves have a height.
I have never had the misfortune of witnessing kilometers-tall waves, but I have seen the sun go down below the ocean horizon nevertheless.  I also noticed that it didn't fade away, as if obscured by fog.

I've often seen the sun fade out due to the non-transparency of air. I suspect you must never have looked outside on an overcast day.

Why do you hold the waves would have to be km tall in order to obscure a relatively small and far away object?
Why would
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: Yes on October 16, 2019, 10:38:32 AM
I've often seen the sun fade out due to the non-transparency of air. I suspect you must never have looked outside on an overcast day.
It wasn't overcast on my cruise.  Very clear skies.  The sun set below the horizon without fading into the distance.

Why do you hold the waves would have to be km tall in order to obscure a relatively small and far away object?
The size of the sun isn't the problem.  On your flat earth model, about how far away is the sun at its furthest?  And roughly how far above the ocean is it?  We can use congruent triangles to find out how high those waves need to be.  I'm assuming they'll have to be mighty big, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: magcynic on October 16, 2019, 11:17:52 AM
This is yet another example of what flat Earthers do.  We're not even talking about my original point and instead are talking about kilometer tall waves and whether they would block out the sun or not.

Remember my original contention.  Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth.  Go high enough and you should, with a quality telescope be able to see virtually the entire planet.  And if I'm high enough in the southern hemisphere (where the air is less dense), I should be able to take my telescope, point it to the edge and see what lies beyond. 

And I should 100% definitely be able to see something of the sun when using a telescope to bring it back into view after sunset.  Maybe it won't be clear due to various optical effects, but I should see something "zoom" back into view if the sun truly didn't go over the horizon.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: John Davis on October 16, 2019, 11:32:04 AM
Tom has performed the exact experiment you mention.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 16, 2019, 11:45:29 AM
But yes, as we can see objects quite close to the horizon, we should easily be able to see the sun at any time.
How could you possibly hold this as true? Are you claiming there is no artificial horizon anywhere on earth?

Define 'artificial horizon'.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: John Davis on October 16, 2019, 01:00:51 PM
Apologies, I mean natural or apparent horizon. It is the line at which the sky meets the terrain or water. In contradistinction, there is the theoretical horizon.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on October 16, 2019, 01:57:18 PM
How could you possibly hold this as true? Are you claiming there is no artificial horizon anywhere on earth?
Do you mean like a building getting in the way?
If so, yes they exist, but they are irrelevant to the discussion.

The simple fact is that we can easily see stars quite close to (and in many cases even on) the horizon.
This means distance cannot be a factor unless you want to suggest the stars are nice and close but the

Perhaps if you are on a cruise ship that is in an ocean on an earth with no terrain. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Also, it may surprise you that air is not clear, and that waves have a height.
If terrain was going to be getting in the way we should see that terrain instead.
As shown by stars, the air clearly isn't an issue.
As for waves, they are only an issue if you are below them.

I've often seen the sun fade out due to the non-transparency of air. I suspect you must never have looked outside on an overcast day.
If you need to rely upon special conditions were visibility is more limited then you have no case.

Why do you hold the waves would have to be km tall in order to obscure a relatively small and far away object?
Because that "small and far away" object is very high.
If the sun is 5000 km high, 10 000 km away, then in order for a wave that is 1000 km away to obstruct it, it would need to be 500 km high.

Suggesting a tiny wave below you can obstruct the view is like suggesting that you can't see anything because your big toe would obstruct your vision.

Apologies, I mean natural or apparent horizon.horizon.
i.e. the edge of Earth? As opposed to a hypothetical horizon at infinite distance due to perspective?
Which with how it is observed to be basically everywhere requires Earth to be round as a round shape is the only one with edges all over the place.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on October 16, 2019, 02:04:03 PM
This is yet another example of what flat Earthers do.  We're not even talking about my original point and instead are talking about kilometer tall waves and whether they would block out the sun or not.

Remember my original contention.  Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth.  Go high enough and you should, with a quality telescope be able to see virtually the entire planet.  And if I'm high enough in the southern hemisphere (where the air is less dense), I should be able to take my telescope, point it to the edge and see what lies beyond. 

And I should 100% definitely be able to see something of the sun when using a telescope to bring it back into view after sunset.  Maybe it won't be clear due to various optical effects, but I should see something "zoom" back into view if the sun truly didn't go over the horizon.

Because amazingly enough, people will sometimes bring up other issues to try and explain an issue.
You are claiming that distance shouldn't be a factor and you should be able to see the sun anywhere.
A valid (but not necessarily sound) response to that is to provide an explanation for why you shouldn't be able to see the sun.

i.e. if they can show that you shouldn't be able to see the sun for some reason, then that is a valid response.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2019, 04:15:15 PM
I've often seen the sun fade out due to the non-transparency of air. I suspect you must never have looked outside on an overcast day.
Are you saying that the sun being obscured by a cloud can be reasonably mistaken for the sun setting behind the horizon?
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: magcynic on October 16, 2019, 04:55:48 PM
Tom has performed the exact experiment you mention.

That's not helpful.  Who's Tom?  What experiment did he do?  What were his results?  Were they recorded?  We kind of need more information. 
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: mak3m on October 17, 2019, 12:36:01 AM
Tom has performed the exact experiment you mention.

That's not helpful.  Who's Tom?  What experiment did he do?  What were his results?  Were they recorded?  We kind of need more information.

Tom Bishop
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: stankann on October 17, 2019, 02:00:48 AM
In the FE model, are the planets further away than the Sun?
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: Stash on October 17, 2019, 02:12:25 AM
In the FE model, are the planets further away than the Sun?

In the more common models, my understanding is that yes, a bit further, but not much.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on October 17, 2019, 03:33:58 AM
In the FE model, are the planets further away than the Sun?
It varies.
Some models have all celestial objects basically 5000 km above the Earth. Others have it on a dome. Others have various heights.
They (at least ones with some "known" distance) all have them reasonably close together.
However they don't all have them further than the sun and instead some say that the height of some plants will vary.
For example, some will say that the Moon, Venus and Mecury all oscillate between being above or below the sun, while the other planets remain above.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: stankann on October 17, 2019, 05:14:22 AM

For example, some will say that the Moon, Venus and Mecury all oscillate between being above or below the sun, while the other planets remain above.
I guess they came up with that to "explain" those bodies transiting the Sun.  FEers just whip out a new model at will.  However, keeping to the subject at hand, I can't think of any FE model that would make the Sun invisible to a telescope, especially since the distinction between visible and invisible occurs within minutes at sunrise and sunset.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: stankann on October 17, 2019, 05:15:34 AM
Guess I don't quite understand how to do quotes on this site so that my comment is separated.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 17, 2019, 05:49:47 AM
Tom has performed the exact experiment you mention.
Well, he lied about having done it.  That's not the same thing.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: John Davis on October 17, 2019, 07:53:52 AM
The level of detail Tom gave, and his decades long dedication to the flat earth leaves any reasonable person no room for doubt of his intentions or honesty. You may disagree with his interpretation of results, but I see no way one can levy an attack against his honesty.

I've often seen the sun fade out due to the non-transparency of air. I suspect you must never have looked outside on an overcast day.
Are you saying that the sun being obscured by a cloud can be reasonably mistaken for the sun setting behind the horizon?
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.

The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: magcynic on October 17, 2019, 11:23:03 AM
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air

The problem is that the sun and moon don't appear to noticeably shrink.  Yes, I've seen a few videos where there is an optical effect causing the sun to appear slightly smaller as it gets closer to the horizon.  That's like two videos out of the many hundreds showing a sun and moon that don't noticeably change sizes.  If the flat Earth model is to be believed, though, the sun would have to start very, very small in the morning, grow to its largest size by culmination, and then shrink back over the horizon.  We would observe this every, single day if the Earth were flat.  We would observe this same thing with the moon.  In fact it's even easier to spot with the moon.

Instead, the size of both objects remain roughly the same throughout the day and night. 

Oh, and this isn't even getting into the argument that a sun 3000-5000 miles above us wouldn't even come close to getting low enough in the sky (angle of elevation) to even appear to shrink beyond the horizon.  In reality, it would just shrink into nothing about 20-30° above the horizon.  Not everything converges on the horizon if it's high enough in the sky.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on October 17, 2019, 12:12:18 PM
I've often seen the sun fade out due to the non-transparency of air. I suspect you must never have looked outside on an overcast day.
Are you saying that the sun being obscured by a cloud can be reasonably mistaken for the sun setting behind the horizon?
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.

The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.

Self evident, if you ignore all the times the sun disappears below the horizon before it’s obscured by the atmosphere.  And if that’s your sole explanation for sunsets, you are also ignoring very basic geometry.  You need an additional phenomenon.

Don’t you get tired of being vague and evasive about everything? 
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: John Davis on October 17, 2019, 12:33:18 PM
I'm being vague? How is saying geometry says what I'm saying is impossible without actually showing it not vague?

I'm not going to make your argument for you, and clearly you aren't either.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on October 17, 2019, 12:53:11 PM
The level of detail Tom gave, and his decades long dedication to the flat earth leaves any reasonable person no room for doubt of his intentions or honesty.
I would say how he posts here leaves no doubt of his honesty. I still find his intentions unclear. Does he actually support a FE, or is he just trolling?

Just because someone is dishonest for a long time, and is dedicated to it, doesn't mean they aren't dishonesty.

I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.
But that isn't what happens with the sun, and perhaps even easier to see, the moon.
It doesn't shrink by any significant amount. The amount of glare can change, but if viewed through an appropriate filter the sun remains basically the same size.
Additionally, the required distance to make it get close to the horizon with its claimed 5000 km altitude is many many times the size of the known area of Earth. That would mean when it is on the horizon it could not be above any known region of Earth, even though it is.
In order to have the sun appear with a 1 degree angle of elevation (where it isn't even touching the horizon) with a 5000 km altitude sun you would need it to be above a point some ~286 000 km away. Compared to the size of the known Earth where the common FE map has it at a diameter of 40 000 km. So the sun would need to be above a point 7 times the diameter of Earth.

As for the second part, that is directly contradicted by countless observations.
While on days were it is difficult to see at all the sun can be obscured by the air, the vast majority of the time it is observed to be obscured by Earth as it sets beyond/below/into the horizon.

The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.
You mean the first part is supported by circular reasoning where they use street lamps on a round Earth, assuming Earth is flat to say this is what should happen on a flat Earth?
An honest analysis using a known flat surface (instead of Earth which is known to be round and claimed to be flat by FEers) it is shown that the angular position of something is based upon simple trig, and that as the object moves further away and gets closer to the horizon, it shrinks as well, and if an object moving at constant velocity travels away, it appears to slow down.
None of that is observed with the sun.

An honest analysis of the apparent motion of the sun and how objects travelling above a flat plane at a constant altitude appear, show the 2 are vastly different.
An honest analysis of the apparent motion of the sun, and how objects circling around an axis passing through a surface, which is not perpendicular to the surface shows that the 2 are comparable, with the exception being what happens at the pole.
More so, if this surface is curved, then it also explains why the angle of the axis appears to change for different locations on Earth, and if curved in the other direction, explains why different regions see the sun at different times.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: Unconvinced on October 17, 2019, 01:39:32 PM
I'm being vague? How is saying geometry says what I'm saying is impossible without actually showing it not vague?

I'm not going to make your argument for you, and clearly you aren't either.

You really need me to tell you how to work out the angle of something above the horizon as viewed from ground level?  Fine:

Altitude angle = inverse sine of height/distance

Fancy picking 2 numbers to make this work on a flat earth?

Are you going to leave it “but things look closer to the horizon as they move further away” without doing the simplest piece of maths like many flat earthers?

Or are you going to suggest something else that could account for the discrepancy?
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: magcynic on October 17, 2019, 04:03:18 PM
You really need me to tell you how to work out the angle of something above the horizon as viewed from ground level?  Fine:

Altitude angle = inverse sine of height/distance

Fancy picking 2 numbers to make this work on a flat earth?

Are you going to leave it “but things look closer to the horizon as they move further away” without doing the simplest piece of maths like many flat earthers?

This is a point I've made before.  On a flat Earth, the sun NEVER gets close enough to the horizon to even appear to set behind it.  The numbers just don't add up.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: MouseWalker on October 18, 2019, 10:17:28 AM
Guess I don't quite understand how to do quotes on this site so that my comment is separated.
you start a quote with: [ quote] remove space
end quote with: [/ quote] remove space
use preview to see it, be for posting.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: Macarios on October 28, 2019, 04:50:11 AM
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.

So, when you have your horizon at 4 miles away the rest is obscured by air.
And then, suddenly, the upper half of that mountain 20 miles farther than that horizon is not obscured by the same air?

The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.

Those street lamps are just glare in the foggy and/or smoky air.
The Sun has the surface features clearly visible through proper filter all the way until sunset.
The size of the Sun itself doesn't get complemented with some glare around it.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: John Davis on October 30, 2019, 01:02:15 PM
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.

So, when you have your horizon at 4 miles away the rest is obscured by air.
And then, suddenly, the upper half of that mountain 20 miles farther than that horizon is not obscured by the same air?
I've never seen a mountain "dip" below the horizon. It has always faded in in my experience. That said, the upper half clearly would pass through less dense air.

Quote
The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.

Those street lamps are just glare in the foggy and/or smoky air.
The Sun has the surface features clearly visible through proper filter all the way until sunset.
The size of the Sun itself doesn't get complemented with some glare around it.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: Macarios on October 30, 2019, 04:08:28 PM
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.

So, when you have your horizon at 4 miles away the rest is obscured by air.
And then, suddenly, the upper half of that mountain 20 miles farther than that horizon is not obscured by the same air?
I've never seen a mountain "dip" below the horizon. It has always faded in in my experience. That said, the upper half clearly would pass through less dense air.

Horizon at 4 miles seen "at the eye level".
Mountain top at 20 miles seen one degree above it.
How much less should be the air to allow the mountain to be seen at the 5 times greater distance?
How can people still breathe (and have a picnic) at the top of that mountain?

Quote
The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.

Those street lamps are just glare in the foggy and/or smoky air.
The Sun has the surface features clearly visible through proper filter all the way until sunset.
The size of the Sun itself doesn't get complemented with some glare around it.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to.

I'm refering to the explanation in Rowbotham's book where he replaces
the angular size of the glare around street lamp
with the angular size of the lamp itself.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 01, 2019, 03:49:01 AM
The level of detail Tom gave, and his decades long dedication to the flat earth leaves any reasonable person no room for doubt of his intentions or honesty.
I have absolutely no doubt concerning Tom's intentions or honesty.

Quote
You may disagree with his interpretation of results, but I see no way one can levy an attack against his honesty.
He lied about his tests and got caught.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: totallackey on November 01, 2019, 04:09:58 AM
Horizon at 4 miles seen "at the eye level".
Mountain top at 20 miles seen one degree above it.
How much less should be the air to allow the mountain to be seen at the 5 times greater distance?
How can people still breathe (and have a picnic) at the top of that mountain?
Considerably less thin and therefore considerably more clear.

Objective fact.

People do not have picnics on tops of mountains.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on November 01, 2019, 05:50:47 AM
Considerably less thin and therefore considerably more clear.

Objective fact.
(I assume you meant less thick or more thin)
Not an objective fact.
I highly subjective fact based upon your definition of "considerably".
Absorbance is proportional to the product of concentration and path length, so in order for that to be the reason why you can see an object 5 times the distance, it would need to be 0.2 times the "thickness", i.e. density.
But that requires going well above 10 000 m.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/StandardAtmosphere.png)

As a note, Mt Everest is <9000 m.

So that clearly can't explain it.

And that was being nice and assuming the entire path is at that altitude.

Instead, the path ends basically the same as the one which starts at the horizon.
At 4 miles, 1 degree is only ~112 m.

That means that (assuming Earth is flat), light from the  ground can only travel 4 miles, but by going just a tiny bit above that, it can go for 20?

That just doesn't add up.

And of course, if the atmosphere was an issue, the horizon would be a blur, not a clear line.
It would be a blur, from the ground/water, until you eventually got high enough for a more distant object to go through a small enough amount of atmosphere to not get blurred out.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: Macarios on November 01, 2019, 03:28:14 PM
Horizon at 4 miles seen "at the eye level".
Mountain top at 20 miles seen one degree above it.
How much less should be the air to allow the mountain to be seen at the 5 times greater distance?
How can people still breathe (and have a picnic) at the top of that mountain?
Considerably less thin and therefore considerably more clear.

Objective fact.

People do not have picnics on tops of mountains.

And when the light from the mountain top comes to the horizon
weakened somewhat through those 16 miles of air,
it "does not" continue through the thicker air at the remaining 4 miles
between the horizon and the observer?
The light from the mountain somehow circumvents it? :)
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: Timeisup on November 17, 2019, 07:05:18 AM
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.

So, when you have your horizon at 4 miles away the rest is obscured by air.
And then, suddenly, the upper half of that mountain 20 miles farther than that horizon is not obscured by the same air?
I've never seen a mountain "dip" below the horizon. It has always faded in in my experience. That said, the upper half clearly would pass through less dense air.

Quote
The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.

Those street lamps are just glare in the foggy and/or smoky air.
The Sun has the surface features clearly visible through proper filter all the way until sunset.
The size of the Sun itself doesn't get complemented with some glare around it.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to.

I'm not really sure what this poster is referring to about distant objects 'fading away', all I can say is he is talking total nonsense as it's not born out by any kind of scientific or engineering activity that makes use of either the naked eye or specialized optics to look at distant objects. I'll be honest and say I'm not a scientist in the strictess sense but have spent a career looking through one kind of optic or other in my job as a surveyor. The atmosphere and its clarity or transparency is of course not constant and is indeed very variable according to local conditions. When looking at distant objects particularly if you are in an area with very clear air such as northwest Tasmania, you do indeed observe distant objects quite clearly dipping below the horizon and certainly not "fading away". Perhaps in an area where there is a very high level of atmospheric pollution such as Mumbai you may well notice distant objects being obscured by the particulates suspended in the atmosphere. Under normal conditions, however, you are most likely to observe distant objects dipping out of sight below the horizon as they move farther away. To imagine otherwise is simply distorting the truth which anyone is at liberty to check.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: inquisitive on December 09, 2019, 12:18:48 PM
Tom has performed the exact experiment you mention.
Link please.
Title: Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
Post by: mak3m on December 09, 2019, 11:53:09 PM
Tom has performed the exact experiment you mention.
Link please.

Good luck with that  ;)

It is on the wiki on the 'other' site

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence

Have a read, and just take his word for it. As ever they have to take their measurements from a globe model, as you cant measure distances, other than straight lines from the pole, on a flat earth map.