Welcome to the Flat Earth Society

I give you the Flat Earth Society.

Have you been told te earth was round?
Have you only seen a flat horizon, not a round one?
Have you grown tried of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets?
Do you think of your self a skeptic, but every skeptic you converse with is wrong?
Do you believe a god created earth for mankind?

If you can answer yes to this, I give you the FES, congratulations on being an idiot.

I give you the Flat Earth Society.

Have you been told te earth was round?
Have you only seen a flat horizon, not a round one?
Have you grown tried of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets?
Do you think of your self a skeptic, but every skeptic you converse with is wrong?
Do you believe a god created earth for mankind?

If you can answer yes to this, I give you the FES, congratulations on being an idiot.

Yes, all my life

I can't remember, it's been awhile since I went to the beach

Not really, its not as big of a budget as welfare or other things the government shouldn't get involved in

I'm skeptical of FET, DET, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, macro evolution, polititians, certain religions, etc

Yes certainly

Quote from: sircool on December 13, 2015, 07:49:55 AM

I give you the Flat Earth Society.

Have you been told te earth was round?
Have you only seen a flat horizon, not a round one?
Have you grown tried of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets?
Do you think of your self a skeptic, but every skeptic you converse with is wrong?
Do you believe a god created earth for mankind?

If you can answer yes to this, I give you the FES, congratulations on being an idiot.

Yes, all my life

I can't remember, it's been awhile since I went to the beach

Not really, its not as big of a budget as welfare or other things the government shouldn't get involved in

I'm skeptical of FET, DET, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, macro evolution, polititians, certain religions, etc

Yes certainly

2/5 you're good

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 13, 2015, 09:10:15 AM

Quote from: sircool on December 13, 2015, 07:49:55 AM

I give you the Flat Earth Society.

Have you been told te earth was round?
Have you only seen a flat horizon, not a round one?
Have you grown tried of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets?
Do you think of your self a skeptic, but every skeptic you converse with is wrong?
Do you believe a god created earth for mankind?

If you can answer yes to this, I give you the FES, congratulations on being an idiot.

Yes, all my life

I can't remember, it's been awhile since I went to the beach

Not really, its not as big of a budget as welfare or other things the government shouldn't get involved in

I'm skeptical of FET, DET, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, macro evolution, polititians, certain religions, etc

Yes certainly

2/5 you're good

Thank you I think. So what that makes me?

Quote from: sircool on December 13, 2015, 09:16:22 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 13, 2015, 09:10:15 AM

Quote from: sircool on December 13, 2015, 07:49:55 AM

I give you the Flat Earth Society.

Have you been told te earth was round?
Have you only seen a flat horizon, not a round one?
Have you grown tried of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets?
Do you think of your self a skeptic, but every skeptic you converse with is wrong?
Do you believe a god created earth for mankind?

If you can answer yes to this, I give you the FES, congratulations on being an idiot.

Yes, all my life

I can't remember, it's been awhile since I went to the beach

Not really, its not as big of a budget as welfare or other things the government shouldn't get involved in

I'm skeptical of FET, DET, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, macro evolution, polititians, certain religions, etc

Yes certainly

2/5 you're good

Thank you I think. So what that makes me?

Hmm, I haven't given that much thought... A functional human perhaps?

I give you the Flat Earth Society.

Have you been told te earth was round?
Have you only seen a flat horizon, not a round one?
Have you grown tried of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets?
Do you think of your self a skeptic, but every skeptic you converse with is wrong?
Do you believe a god created earth for mankind?

If you can answer yes to this, I give you the FES, congratulations on being an idiot.

To your first question. *The Earth, not te earth. And, in answer, YES.
To answer your second question. Actually, the only horizon I've seen is on a TV screen, I never leave my house. (Just kidding) nope, the horizon itself was round.
Have I grown tired of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets? It's spelled imaginary, my friend. And, 2 questions. One, who said I'm a US citizen? 2, who said I pay taxes? So, no.
Do I think of myself as a skeptic? I don't think of myself. So, in answer to your fourth question, no.
Do I believe a god created earth for mankind? Again, it's Earth. And, again, no.

I give you the Flat Earth Society.

Have you been told te earth was round?
Have you only seen a flat horizon, not a round one?
Have you grown tried of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets?
Do you think of your self a skeptic, but every skeptic you converse with is wrong?
Do you believe a god created earth for mankind?

If you can answer yes to this, I give you the FES, congratulations on being an idiot.

Hi ball Earth idiot show me the ball Earth curve. There is no physical proof of the ball Earth theory, none. No curve not a ball, not a ball you cannot call the Earth a sphere.

Quote from: sircool on December 13, 2015, 07:49:55 AM

I give you the Flat Earth Society.

Have you been told te earth was round?
Have you only seen a flat horizon, not a round one?
Have you grown tried of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets?
Do you think of your self a skeptic, but every skeptic you converse with is wrong?
Do you believe a god created earth for mankind?

If you can answer yes to this, I give you the FES, congratulations on being an idiot.

Hi ball Earth idiot show me the ball Earth curve. There is no physical proof of the ball Earth theory, none. No curve not a ball, not a ball you cannot call the Earth a sphere.

What about the fact that lighthouses are built specifically with the curvature of the earth in mind?

Quote from: ronxyz on December 13, 2015, 07:52:51 PM

Quote from: sircool on December 13, 2015, 07:49:55 AM

I give you the Flat Earth Society.

Have you been told te earth was round?
Have you only seen a flat horizon, not a round one?
Have you grown tried of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets?
Do you think of your self a skeptic, but every skeptic you converse with is wrong?
Do you believe a god created earth for mankind?

If you can answer yes to this, I give you the FES, congratulations on being an idiot.

Hi ball Earth idiot show me the ball Earth curve. There is no physical proof of the ball Earth theory, none. No curve not a ball, not a ball you cannot call the Earth a sphere.

What about the fact that lighthouses are built specifically with the curvature of the earth in mind?

It makes sense that light houses should be built high enough so that they can easily be seen over waves. 

It makes sense that light houses should be built high enough so that they can easily be seen over waves.

from Wikipedia

It is common for mid-ocean storm waves to reach 7 metres (23 ft) in height, and in extreme conditions such waves can reach heights of 15 metres (49 ft)

So according to you there is no reason a lighthouse needs to be taller than 7m, maybe 15 for the extreme storms that ships should avoid?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lighthouses_in_the_United_States_by_height#Highest_focal_plane
Here is a list of light house heights for the USA.
Observe the lowest is 7m above water (focal height) and highest 141m.
Average is round 40-60m

why the height if they only need to get above 7m during storms?

Quote

It makes sense that light houses should be built high enough so that they can easily be seen over waves.

from Wikipedia

Quote

It is common for mid-ocean storm waves to reach 7 metres (23 ft) in height, and in extreme conditions such waves can reach heights of 15 metres (49 ft)

So according to you there is no reason a lighthouse needs to be taller than 7m, maybe 15 for the extreme storms that ships should avoid?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lighthouses_in_the_United_States_by_height#Highest_focal_plane
Here is a list of light house heights for the USA.
Observe the lowest is 7m above water (focal height) and highest 141m.
Average is round 40-60m

why the height if they only need to get above 7m during storms?

Once again, you fail to take into account perspective.  Large things appear to be small when they are far away. 

Not to mention that 7-15m waves should be compensated by ship's hull unless the captain is a suicider and wants to sink the ship.

Not to metion that ships usually have an observation point suspended high enough to compensate the highest waves.

So anything more than 20m makes absolutely no point in the worst possible scenario.


Perspective has nothing to do with this.

Once again, you fail to take into account perspective.  Large things appear to be small when they are far away.

I fail to see how perspective plays any value in seeing a point source of light over distance. The brightness of the light is all that matters, not the brick and mortar below it. I have spent a month sailing and looked at light houses at bad weather (light rain,mist or night), you can not make out their height, only the light source.

How does the height of the tower play a role in how far or how brightly you can see a light at distance?
I know you like finding semantics to argue about, I am asking about a light source over a distance, nothing else

Placing things high up allows them to be seen over more of the things that are in front of them.  Also, the air gets thinner as you increase in altitude, which allows for better propagation of light.  You act like this is the first time you have ever heard this stuff. 

Placing things high up allows them to be seen over more of the things that are in front of them

Yes, but according to you those things will never average above 7m in storms or 15 in extreme conditions.

Also, the air gets thinner as you increase in altitude, which allows for better propagation of light.

The % change in atmospheric density from 0m to 150m and the resulting improvement to lights propagation would be tiny. As in REALLY REALLY tiny. As in you would need specialized equipment to see the difference.
Spending the money on a more powerful light would in this case be endlessly better

First of all, you keep ignoring the fact that relatively small things that are close to you can block relatively larger things that are farther.  You people might want to brush up on the laws of perspective. 

Secondly, being 150m up would allow a light house to be not only above the waves, but also above the spray of the swells that are much closer to you.  In addition, even a small percentage of improved light propagation is still an improvement.  I am not sure what your point here even is. 

First of all, you keep ignoring the fact that relatively small things that are close to you can block relatively larger things that are farther

True, but they can only block things that they are in front of. You are proposing that they make towers taller than what you claim is needed.

Secondly, being 150m up would allow a light house to be not only above the waves, but also above the spray of the swells that are much closer to you.

Sprays that are close to you would still obscure the view to the tower even it it was 1km tall. I get your point, but at over 10km's away the differance a 150m tower would make is negligible to a 7m tower. Dont make me provide a to scale CAD drawing to show you this. You know this.

In addition, even a small percentage of improved light propagation is still an improvement.  I am not sure what your point here even is.

Building a 140 meter tall tower costs much more than 10 x the cost of building a 14 meter tall tower.
My point is, if a 14 meter tall tower is all you need, putting the rest of the funds on a double as powerful light will have substantially more benefit that the addition 140m and a tiny gain of performance.

Tall things that are far away and ocean spray are both very close to the horizon.  I am not even sure what part of this you don't understand. 

Quote from: sircool on December 13, 2015, 07:49:55 AM

I give you the Flat Earth Society.

Have you been told te earth was round?
Have you only seen a flat horizon, not a round one?
Have you grown tried of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets?
Do you think of your self a skeptic, but every skeptic you converse with is wrong?
Do you believe a god created earth for mankind?

If you can answer yes to this, I give you the FES, congratulations on being an idiot.

To your first question. *The Earth, not te earth. And, in answer, YES.
To answer your second question. Actually, the only horizon I've seen is on a TV screen, I never leave my house. (Just kidding) nope, the horizon itself was round.
Have I grown tired of paying taxes that NASA used to build imaginery rockets? It's spelled imaginary, my friend. And, 2 questions. One, who said I'm a US citizen? 2, who said I pay taxes? So, no.
Do I think of myself as a skeptic? I don't think of myself. So, in answer to your fourth question, no.
Do I believe a god created earth for mankind? Again, it's Earth. And, again, no.

I am terribly sory my grammar wasnt good enough for you. PM me with the receipt to recieve a refund of your time.

Placing things high up allows them to be seen over more of the things that are in front of them.

Which is completely irrelevant to what was posted above. If two things are 20m above the sea level and there is 15m wave between them, both things can see each other.

Also, the air gets thinner as you increase in altitude, which allows for better propagation of light. 

The air gets thinner by how much? How does this significantly improve propagation?