A test of respect for the FE community.

My arguement is a simple one:

(1) When ships put out to see, they sink below the horizon gradually.
First the hull goes down, then the masts, like so:

                                    o
                                   -+-
                                    |
                                .  / \   .
                    .                              .
              .                                         .            /
           .          here you can still see the mast      .  |\    /
                      but the hull is below the horizon       \  \/
                                                                \  \

This suggests that the Earth's surface curves away and downward from
wherever you stand.  It's hard to observe this effect on land, because
mountains and trees and so forth get in the way when something moves
away from you before it dips below the horizon.

(2) If you climb higher, you can see further.  On top of a mountain or
lighthouse, or in an airplane, you can see things that are invisible
-- below the horizon -- when you are on the ground.  For example, if
you watch the Sun set, and at the very moment when the Sun is just
below the horizon you climb quickly up a hundred feet, you will see
the Sun again.  It is hard to explain why you can see further when you
climb higher unless the Earth's surface curves downward away from you
wherever you stand.

Argument number TWO:

If you are well traveled, and admittedly back in Old School times this was not the case, BUT there were some who managed to get around.

Now, let's assume you were one of these lucky travellers. Say one day you went to the village well precisely at noon. You notice that there is no shadow at the bottom of the well, there is pure daylight. Now, a few months down the road, you travel south to visit some old family friends, and one day walking along at noon on the dot you see that this village well has a small shadow leading down into the bottom of it, like a dark semicircle way down at the very botom. You are perplexed. How can this be?

You think and think, and realize, that perhaps since the sun has not changed, and that its rays are constant, the earth itself might have a curved surface instead, thus explaining the shadow's behavior in two different geographical points.

ARGUMENT THREE:

The sun is round.  The moon is round.  The stars look like round dots.  A gelatinous object, or sack filled with water, maintains a spherical shape when dfalling through the air.  Why should the Earth be any different?  It goes against the consistency of nature in itself.  Give me a decent argument explaining why the Eath is so dang special and its inhabitants are braking the simple rules of existence.

(ALso, keep in mind that these arguments have probably been made time and time again, but humor me, I'm new.)

Here are three very good points. If the earth is flat, a FEer should have no trouble whatsoever.

But here are the possibilities from best to worst.

1. They reply and blow the RE away.
2. They say something which sounds good but makes no sense whatsoever.
3. "It's all ready been posted before" as an excuse not to post.
4. They make some other excuse.
5. They don't even reply.

I'd say the second 4

I'd say the second 4

If the FE community can not answer this, I am forced to give up on your theories. I came into this forum with an open mind. If anyone can prove to me the world is flat, so be it, I'm open to that. So far, the FE community has done a poor job.

They'll give you a bullshit answer for all of those. For your first argument, they'll tell you it has to do with the 'law of perspective.' I think it's safe to say we've debunked this one, unless they come up with some good counter-arguments soon, but that's very doubtful. See "waves, crests and sunsets - unanswered" and "debunking the 'law of perspective'". This pretty much leaves them without an explanation for why the sun sets, why ships dissapear beyond the horizon etc. For your second argument they'll tell you that the sun's rays aren't constant and that the sun circles the earth only a few thousand miles above. For the third argument, they'll say that just because all those others are round, it doesn't absolutely prove that the earth is as well.

Don't hold your breath for them doing a better job. Once you give them some thought, these theories hold no water.

Also keep in mind that there are probably fewer members who actually believe in a flat earth than you think. Some of them are without a doubt just trying to be funny and their posts are just satire. With others it's hard to tell. But in any case, even some members who seem to argue for a flat earth, aren't really flat earthers.

You told me not to, but I'm going to anyway.

My LAST POST was an answer to the sinking ship phenomenom, in this very forum (FED&D), in the thread "Debunking natural perspective" at http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0.

It's been answered already! 

Realising, however, that this only addresses the first argument, I shall address all the rest in this post.

(2) If you climb higher, you can see further.  On top of a mountain or
lighthouse, or in an airplane, you can see things that are invisible
-- below the horizon -- when you are on the ground.  For example, if
you watch the Sun set, and at the very moment when the Sun is just
below the horizon you climb quickly up a hundred feet, you will see
the Sun again.  It is hard to explain why you can see further when you
climb higher unless the Earth's surface curves downward away from you
wherever you stand.

It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. Atmospheric distortion is the reason we can't see past a certain distance (this is also the answer to the fairly frequent "WHY CAN'T I SEE THE EIFFEL TOWER FROM NEW YORK YOU FE'S ARE CRAZY" threads).

Argument number TWO:

If you are well traveled, and admittedly back in Old School times this was not the case, BUT there were some who managed to get around.

Now, let's assume you were one of these lucky travellers. Say one day you went to the village well precisely at noon. You notice that there is no shadow at the bottom of the well, there is pure daylight. Now, a few months down the road, you travel south to visit some old family friends, and one day walking along at noon on the dot you see that this village well has a small shadow leading down into the bottom of it, like a dark semicircle way down at the very botom. You are perplexed. How can this be?

You think and think, and realize, that perhaps since the sun has not changed, and that its rays are constant, the earth itself might have a curved surface instead, thus explaining the shadow's behavior in two different geographical points.

Well it's because the source of light (the sun) is necessarily in a different place in relation to each of the seperate geographical points. I don't see how this debunks FET at all.

ARGUMENT THREE:

The sun is round.  The moon is round.

Flat and circular.

The stars look like round dots.

Their afterburns APPEAR rounded.

A gelatinous object, or sack filled with water, maintains a spherical shape when dfalling through the air.

Thanks to aerodynamics, which FET does not dispute.

Why should the Earth be any different?  It goes against the consistency of nature in itself.  Give me a decent argument explaining why the Eath is so dang special and its inhabitants are braking the simple rules of existence.[/color]

It really doesn't, as I have just shown you. There is no "simple rule" which states that things have to be round. Pancakes are not round.

Pancakes are not round.

Leave it in open space (not in another object's gravity well) for a long period of time and it will be

It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. threads).

Over a space of about 25-50 foot?

Well it's because the source of light (the sun) is necessarily in a different place in relation to each of the seperate geographical points. I don't see how this debunks FET at all.

True

Flat and circular.

Impossible. Sun would have burned out millenia ago

Thanks to aerodynamics, which FET does not dispute.

True

You told me not to, but I'm going to anyway.

My LAST POST was an answer to the sinking ship phenomenom, in this very forum (FED&D), in the thread "Debunking natural perspective" at http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0.

It's been answered already! 

And I've answered your counter argument. That debate is far from over. You still have some answering to do.

Quote from: Pillowchii on March 12, 2007, 05:06:52 PM

ARGUMENT THREE:

The sun is round.  The moon is round.

Flat and circular.

Umm.. no. The moon is clearly spherical.



As are any other planets, which you can readily observe through a telescope. The sun also rotates, and you can determine this by looking at sunspots.

Leave it in open space (not in another object's gravity well) for a long period of time and it will be

Completely unverifiable and unperformable. A ridiculous experiment.

Over a space of about 25-50 foot?

No, in such cases you can see further because your view is less obstructed by various obstacles. Over hundreds of feet, the atmosphere thins also.

Impossible. Sun would have burned out millenia ago

Unless, just possibly, it wasn't the RE model sun (who would have thought it... FET not using, you know, a Round Earth Sun?)

Well it's because the source of light (the sun) is necessarily in a different place in relation to each of the seperate geographical points. I don't see how this debunks FET at all.

This requires the suns position to move which requires a force which you have no proof of.  Of course the FET has many magical forces.

Flat and circular.

Your pipe dream does not disprove all of astronomy.  You need some evidence to prove the sun is flat.  You have none. 

Their afterburns APPEAR rounded.

Stars are just "suns" far away.  Once again, we have proof for this, do you have any proof? 

Thanks to aerodynamics, which FET does not dispute.

The fe earth is moving at .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c right now.  You guys don’t believe in aerodynamics. 

It really doesn't, as I have just shown you. There is no "simple rule" which states that things have to be round. Pancakes are not round.

Gravitation states giant bodies have to be round.  And despite what my sig says, there is no magical dirt. 

Quote

Impossible. Sun would have burned out millenia ago

Unless, just possibly, it wasn't the RE model sun (who would have thought it... FET not using, you know, a Round Earth Sun?)

We gladly accept that you don't care to use the fusion model for the source of the Sun's enormous energy output. Pray tell us though, what is the source of the Sun's enormous energy output. Coal and bottled oxygen? Magic? How do you explain the hydrogen and helium spectra when we observe the Sun?

This requires the suns position to move which requires a force which you have no proof of.  Of course the FET has many magical forces.

Round Earth theory requires the Earth to move. It's not like it's somehow simpler or more likely.

Stars are just "suns" far away.  Once again, we have proof for this, do you have any proof? 

Been to a star have you?

The fe earth is moving at .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c right now.  You guys don’t believe in aerodynamics. 

The FE Earth does not have a speed. Speed can only be meaningfully applied in relation to other stationary objects, of which there are none. The FE Earth has an acceleration. Don't act all high and mighty when you evidently don't even understand the theory.

Gravitation states giant bodies have to be round.  And despite what my sig says, there is no magical dirt. 

Well yeah, but as you might have gathered during your time on this site, we don't believe in gravity.

Quote

The fe earth is moving at .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c right now.  You guys don’t believe in aerodynamics. 

The FE Earth does not have a speed. Speed can only be meaningfully applied in relation to other stationary objects, of which there are none. The FE Earth has an acceleration. Don't act all high and mighty when you evidently don't even understand the theory.

Wrong. Very wrong. Any object experiencing an acceleration leaves its previous inertial frame of reference and has measurable and determinable velocity from that frame.

Round Earth theory requires the Earth to move. It's not like it's somehow simpler or more likely.

  It does move, around the sun in an orbit.  It moves the same way a moon orbits a plant. 

Been to a star have you?

Nope, but light from stars can reach the earth, and if one studies the light they will see that some match the sun, some show signs of being bigger, and some show signs of being smaller then are sun.

The FE Earth does not have a speed. Speed can only be meaningfully applied in relation to other stationary objects, of which there are none. The FE Earth has an acceleration. Don't act all high and mighty when you evidently don't even understand the theory.

If the earth is accelerating it has a velocity.  Don't act all high and mighty when you don't know jack SHIT about physics.

Well yeah, but as you might have gathered during your time on this site, we don't believe in gravity.

Gravitation isn't gravity. 

Quote

Stars are just "suns" far away.  Once again, we have proof for this, do you have any proof? 

Been to a star have you?

Now you're acting like Tom.  Scientists have studied numerous things about our sun and other stars.  These include light spectra which show that our sun is made of the same things as other stars.  I'm sure other people can explain this much better than I can.

Quote

The fe earth is moving at .999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c right now.  You guys don’t believe in aerodynamics. 

The FE Earth does not have a speed. Speed can only be meaningfully applied in relation to other stationary objects, of which there are none. The FE Earth has an acceleration. Don't act all high and mighty when you evidently don't even understand the theory.

You can always create a frame of reference to something.  In fact, these arguments usually don't go too far since there's too many non-testable hypotheses when everything's relative.

Quote

Gravitation states giant bodies have to be round.  And despite what my sig says, there is no magical dirt. 

Well yeah, but as you might have gathered during your time on this site, we don't believe in gravity.

I'm still confused about this.  Tom says there is gravity, just not on earth.  You say there is none.  What do the sun and moon orbit? What about all those billions of galaxies out there spinning exactly according to gravitational hypotheses? There can't be orbits without gravity.

Any object experiencing an acceleration leaves its previous inertial frame of reference and has measurable and determinable velocity from that frame.
[/quote]

Exactly. And what possible inertial frame of reference is there? The Earth (and by necessity everything on it) is subject to the acceleration.

I'm still confused about this.  Tom says there is gravity, just not on earth.  You say there is none.  What do the sun and moon orbit? What about all those billions of galaxies out there spinning exactly according to gravitational hypotheses? There can't be orbits without gravity.

I'm pretty sure Tom is the only Flat Earther in the world who believes in gravity.

The sun and moon don't orbit, because the concept of orbit requires a non-existent force: gravity, as you just pointed out. The sun and moon circle above the equator (roughly - their positions change somewhat).

Nope, but light from stars can reach the earth, and if one studies the light they will see that some match the sun, some show signs of being bigger, and some show signs of being smaller then are sun.

But these statements are meaningless in relation the the FE model - the Sun is a completely different size than that of the RE model.

If the earth is accelerating it has a velocity.  Don't act all high and mighty when you don't know jack SHIT about physics.

Yes - acceleration necessarily involves velocity, but in the case of the Earth it is only a hypothetical velocity since as I have pointed out, there is no frame of reference by which to meaningfully provide a value for the Earth's velocity. The thing we can, and do measure is the acceleration.

Exactly. And what possible inertial frame of reference is there? The Earth (and by necessity everything on it) is subject to the acceleration.

There are plenty of FOR that show the speed of the earth. 

The sun and moon don't orbit, because the concept of orbit requires a non-existent force: gravity, as you just pointed out. The sun and moon circle above the equator (roughly - their positions change somewhat).

Gravitation is not gravity.  Gravitation exists.  It has been witnessed.  Astronomers can watch Jupiter moons orbit Jupiter.

But these statements are meaningless in relation the the FE model - the Sun is a completely different size than that of the RE model.

And?

Yes - acceleration necessarily involves velocity, but in the case of the Earth it is only a hypothetical velocity since as I have pointed out, there is no frame of reference by which to meaningfully provide a value for the Earth's velocity. The thing we can, and do measure is the acceleration.

In the fe there is no way to check the velocity but there are FOR that could.  So don't say the earth has no velocity when it clearly does. 

There are plenty of FOR that show the speed of the earth. 

Name one. We can only observe from other objects on the UA, which are subject to the same acceleration, or from stuff in the air, which will still be relatively positioned to the Earth.

Gravitation is not gravity.  Gravitation exists.  It has been witnessed.  Astronomers can watch Jupiter moons orbit Jupiter.

And I didn't say I didn't believe in gravitation, if you want to get all semantic-technical. I know gravitation exists. I say it's caused by Universal Acceleration, you say it's caused by gravity.

In the fe there is no way to check the velocity but there are FOR that could.  So don't say the earth has no velocity when it clearly does. 

Where are these frames of reference? (And you're right, it was confusing of me to state that the Earth had no velocity. What I should of said was that the Earth has no meaningful or observable velocity).

Quote from: Gulliver on June 08, 2007, 12:20:11 PM

Any object experiencing an acceleration leaves its previous inertial frame of reference and has measurable and determinable velocity from that frame.

Exactly. And what possible inertial frame of reference is there? The Earth (and by necessity everything on it) is subject to the acceleration.

I've already answered this. Let's try this again. Even though the Earth left the initial frame of reference, it still exists. You can still measure from it. The history of frames does not evaporate.

Name one. We can only observe from other objects on the UA, which are subject to the same acceleration, or from stuff in the air, which will still be relatively positioned to the Earth.

See below

And I didn't say I didn't believe in gravitation, if you want to get all semantic-technical. I know gravitation exists. I say it's caused by Universal Acceleration, you say it's caused by gravity.

No I say its caused by mass.  So did the guy that came up with the theory. His names started with an E.     

Where are these frames of reference? (And you're right, it was confusing of me to state that the Earth had no velocity. What I should of said was that the Earth has no meaningful or observable velocity).

A FOR can be anywhere.  I can pick one thats equal with the earth    NOW    and never moves.  It would see the earth moving away.  Thus someone in that FOR could calculate the speed.  And the speed that the FE would be at would be meaningful.  .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999c is meaningful. 

It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. Atmospheric distortion is the reason we can't see past a certain distance.

This is by far my favorite answer from the FE camp. They simply, and I mean this with pure contempt, REFUSE to acknowledge why this response doesn't hold up.

Atmosphere or not, the HUMAN EYEBALL CANNOT SEE PAST A SET DISTANCE. Period. end of fucking discussion.

We are not bald eagles. We are not giant squid. We are primates.

So please, by all means, enlighten us all as to the REAL reason for this unending bullshit response? 

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 08, 2007, 03:23:18 AM

It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. Atmospheric distortion is the reason we can't see past a certain distance.

This is by far my favorite answer from the FE camp. They simply, and I mean this with pure contempt, REFUSE to acknowledge why this response doesn't hold up.

Atmosphere or not, the HUMAN EYEBALL CANNOT SEE PAST A SET DISTANCE. Period. end of fucking discussion.

We are not bald eagles. We are not giant squid. We are primates.

So please, by all means, enlighten us all as to the REAL reason for this unending bullshit response? 

I can see Polaris on most any clear night. In RE that's about 2,200,000,000,000,000 miles. In the FE (FAQ version), it's 3100 miles.

Quote from: Midnight on June 09, 2007, 02:46:04 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 08, 2007, 03:23:18 AM

It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. Atmospheric distortion is the reason we can't see past a certain distance.

This is by far my favorite answer from the FE camp. They simply, and I mean this with pure contempt, REFUSE to acknowledge why this response doesn't hold up.

Atmosphere or not, the HUMAN EYEBALL CANNOT SEE PAST A SET DISTANCE. Period. end of fucking discussion.

We are not bald eagles. We are not giant squid. We are primates.

So please, by all means, enlighten us all as to the REAL reason for this unending bullshit response? 

I can see Polaris on most any clear night. In RE that's about 2,200,000,000,000,000 miles. In the FE (FAQ version), it's 3100 miles.

Wrong.

You see the light FROM Polaris. Again, sidestepping will not save the day here. Answer the fucking question, or GTFO.

And in case the accusation is coming, I am not an FE person. I am also not RE. I am simply sick and fucking tired of the obtuse, intentionally vague and outright stubborn refusal of you dipshits to answer a fucking question without being DUBYA about it.

Just answer the fucking question.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 09, 2007, 02:57:19 PM

Quote from: Midnight on June 09, 2007, 02:46:04 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 08, 2007, 03:23:18 AM

It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. Atmospheric distortion is the reason we can't see past a certain distance.

This is by far my favorite answer from the FE camp. They simply, and I mean this with pure contempt, REFUSE to acknowledge why this response doesn't hold up.

Atmosphere or not, the HUMAN EYEBALL CANNOT SEE PAST A SET DISTANCE. Period. end of fucking discussion.

We are not bald eagles. We are not giant squid. We are primates.

So please, by all means, enlighten us all as to the REAL reason for this unending bullshit response? 

I can see Polaris on most any clear night. In RE that's about 2,200,000,000,000,000 miles. In the FE (FAQ version), it's 3100 miles.

Wrong.

You see the light FROM Polaris. Again, sidestepping will not save the day here. Answer the fucking question, or GTFO.

And what do you see when you look across the room at your TV but the light FROM the TV. I'm not sidestepping the issue at all. I just think you're confused. We can see very far indeed. You've confused vision acuity with vision distance.

This is by far my favorite answer from the FE camp. They simply, and I mean this with pure contempt, REFUSE to acknowledge why this response doesn't hold up.

Atmosphere or not, the HUMAN EYEBALL CANNOT SEE PAST A SET DISTANCE. Period. end of fucking discussion.

We are not bald eagles. We are not giant squid. We are primates.

So please, by all means, enlighten us all as to the REAL reason for this unending bullshit response? 

I'm going to have to go with Gulliver on this one. What are you talking about? All evidence points to the human eyeball being able to see incredible distances, much further than any "local" distance on Earth. To claim that I can't see the Great Wall of China from my back garden because my eyes just aren't strong enough is purely ridiculous. If you look through a powerful telescope, you STILL can't see famous landmarks you should be able to see if your belief is correct. It's because the telescope doesn't help you see through a semi-opaque barrier (miles and miles of air).

Quote from: Midnight on June 09, 2007, 03:10:47 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on June 09, 2007, 02:57:19 PM

Quote from: Midnight on June 09, 2007, 02:46:04 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 08, 2007, 03:23:18 AM

It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. Atmospheric distortion is the reason we can't see past a certain distance.

This is by far my favorite answer from the FE camp. They simply, and I mean this with pure contempt, REFUSE to acknowledge why this response doesn't hold up.

Atmosphere or not, the HUMAN EYEBALL CANNOT SEE PAST A SET DISTANCE. Period. end of fucking discussion.

We are not bald eagles. We are not giant squid. We are primates.

So please, by all means, enlighten us all as to the REAL reason for this unending bullshit response? 

I can see Polaris on most any clear night. In RE that's about 2,200,000,000,000,000 miles. In the FE (FAQ version), it's 3100 miles.

Wrong.

You see the light FROM Polaris. Again, sidestepping will not save the day here. Answer the fucking question, or GTFO.

And what do you see when you look across the room at your TV but the light FROM the TV. I'm not sidestepping the issue at all. I just think you're confused. We can see very far indeed. You've confused vision acuity with vision distance.

Nice try, but no. I am talking about the excuse given dealing with atmospheric hindrance of our ability to see a satellite. There is more involved and the answer is a blanket statement, and was intentionally avoiding the actual question, and as of today, I will no longer sit silent and allow such inanity to continue unchallenged.

I am not calling into question the reasoning behind the answer, nor am I calling the post I am referring to as wrong, I simply am sick of you high and mighties refusing to answer a question without any shred of logisitical data, and merely "because it is, because it is". I want to see it. I am tired of half answers. The answer given is one I agree with, but it's half assed and meant to speak on something monumentally important to many, many folks. Stop half assing, and start actually speaking at length.

Some of them will call names, some will say "you're retarded". I will point out exactly what the problem is. Dodging it will not make it go away any longer. 

...
Atmosphere or not, the HUMAN EYEBALL CANNOT SEE PAST A SET DISTANCE. Period. end of fucking discussion.

We are not bald eagles. We are not giant squid. We are primates.

So please, by all means, enlighten us all as to the REAL reason for this unending bullshit response? 

This is your downfall. I shall cherish this post for a long time. Epic phail. 

Quote from: Gulliver on June 09, 2007, 03:16:42 PM

Quote from: Midnight on June 09, 2007, 03:10:47 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on June 09, 2007, 02:57:19 PM

Quote from: Midnight on June 09, 2007, 02:46:04 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 08, 2007, 03:23:18 AM

It's quite simply because the higher you go, the thinner the atmosphere is. Atmospheric distortion is the reason we can't see past a certain distance.

This is by far my favorite answer from the FE camp. They simply, and I mean this with pure contempt, REFUSE to acknowledge why this response doesn't hold up.

Atmosphere or not, the HUMAN EYEBALL CANNOT SEE PAST A SET DISTANCE. Period. end of fucking discussion.

We are not bald eagles. We are not giant squid. We are primates.

So please, by all means, enlighten us all as to the REAL reason for this unending bullshit response? 

I can see Polaris on most any clear night. In RE that's about 2,200,000,000,000,000 miles. In the FE (FAQ version), it's 3100 miles.

Wrong.

You see the light FROM Polaris. Again, sidestepping will not save the day here. Answer the fucking question, or GTFO.

And what do you see when you look across the room at your TV but the light FROM the TV. I'm not sidestepping the issue at all. I just think you're confused. We can see very far indeed. You've confused vision acuity with vision distance.

Nice try, but no. I am talking about the excuse given dealing with atmospheric hindrance of our ability to see a satellite. There is more involved and the answer is a blanket statement, and was intentionally avoiding the actual question, and as of today, I will no longer sit silent and allow such inanity to continue unchallenged.

I am not calling into question the reasoning behind the answer, nor am I calling the post I am referring to as wrong, I simply am sick of you high and mighties refusing to answer a question without any shred of logisitical data, and merely "because it is, because it is". I want to see it. I am tired of half answers. The answer given is one I agree with, but it's half assed and meant to speak on something monumentally important to many, many folks. Stop half assing, and start actually speaking at length.

Some of them will call names, some will say "you're retarded". I will point out exactly what the problem is. Dodging it will not make it go away any longer. 

You're not going to win your argument like this.  Just ask a question, and if you don't get an answer, ask again differently.

And the whole thing about how we're not actually seeing Polaris.. yeah. That's probably the worst argument I've ever heard.  The human eye only sees reflected light.  We never actually see anything itself.  But what Dogplatter is saying is that the atmosphere distorts the light reflected from that at which you're looking, and therefore you can't see it.  Now this isn't to say that I agree with it, because I believe that the atmosphere isn't enough to distort the view of what we're seeing.  But still, you can't immediately refute this argument, like so many others on this site.  In fact, we should probably get an infrared or ultraviolet picture of the horizon, and see what that does for us.