tiny question

Quote from: duupie on June 11, 2007, 12:02:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Exasperated on June 11, 2007, 11:58:26 AM

Quote from: duupie on June 11, 2007, 11:51:59 AM

hey einstein, ever heard of diffusion?

No.  Can you explain it to me, please?  And the more detail, the better.  If I'm ever going to let go of my firm belief that the UA is keeping the atmosphere in I'm going to need some serious convincing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion

I found this very difficult to understand.   

Maybe since you seem to get it you could put it in layman's terms.  If I'm to change my belief I'm going to need to know the reason why.

You are not funny but here
Fill up your sink with water and then put a pan in it.  Now lift the pan out of the water, notice how the water doesn’t stay on top of the pan?  Only the water that is held in by the sides stay. 

Oh.  I get it now.

So, then, there are only two explanations.

1) Infinite earth.

2) Something on the sides of the earth holding the atmosphere in... perhaps a giant ice wall of some sort?

Fill up your sink with water and then put a pan in it.  Now lift the pan out of the water, notice how the water doesn’t stay on top of the pan?  Only the water that is held in by the sides stay.

Yes, but if we lift up a rimless pan there will sill be water drops located in depressions on the surface. There are still "puddles," which will not fall off until the pan is tilted.

Our atmosphere and local area could very well be a puddle upon the surface of the earth, surrounded by a massive airless plain of unknown dimensions.

This is very true.  Since we've never been to the very outer fringes of the earth (assuming such a thing even exists), who knows what we would find there?

I can't get my head 'round the infinite plane model

Quote

Fill up your sink with water and then put a pan in it.  Now lift the pan out of the water, notice how the water doesn’t stay on top of the pan?  Only the water that is held in by the sides stay.

Yes, but if we lift up a rimless pan there will sill be water drops located in depressions on the surface. There are still "puddles," which will not fall off until the pan is tilted.

Our atmosphere and local area could very well be a puddle upon the surface of the earth, surrounded by a massive airless plain of unknown dimensions.

Isn't it air pressure or something that holds those little drops of water up?  So, wouldn't that mean there would have to be a lot of pressure around the earth, which would put a lot of pressure on us? 

Surface tension

Quote

Fill up your sink with water and then put a pan in it.  Now lift the pan out of the water, notice how the water doesn’t stay on top of the pan?  Only the water that is held in by the sides stay.

Yes, but if we lift up a rimless pan there will sill be water drops located in depressions on the surface. There are still "puddles," which will not fall off until the pan is tilted.

Our atmosphere and local area could very well be a puddle upon the surface of the earth, surrounded by a massive airless plain of unknown dimensions.

Because its a liquid, A gas is not a liquid.  Gases dont puddle. 

Surface tension

Shux.

Gases dont puddle.

Indeed. The particles in a gas shoot in all directions at high speeds, and as sokarul says they will not form a puddle as there is nothing to force their cohesion. On a Round Earth the gravitation of the Earth pulls the particles inwards, but on a Flat Earth this 'force' is only applied downwards, resulting in a thin spread of the atoms (falling off the edge if there is one).

I don't believe this question has ever been answered and I doubt it ever will be.

And once again the RE camp humiliates the FE side.

Quote

I dispute your claim that the universe is widely considered to be infinite in size.

Do you believe in the Big Bang? If so, then you believe in Cosmic Inflation:

I belive you are retarded.

I believe that children are the future.

One man at least believes it to be 50 000ft.

That man reporting for duty.

The 50 000ft icewall has to be the closest to an explanation yet.

Damn straight. An infinite atmosphere is, to my mind, completely unreasonable, and the Ice Wall is necessarily around 50000 feet high for the precise reason around which this thread is based.

The atmosphere is demonstrably, observably at least 50000 feet high.

And once again the RE camp humiliates the FE side.

No, the RE camp humiliates people who believe in an infinite atmosphere. "The FE side" isn't some giant ant's nest of agreement and unity as far as many aspects of FE physics are concerned, as you'll soon learn.

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on June 11, 2007, 05:45:05 AM

One man at least believes it to be 50 000ft.

That man reporting for duty.

Quote

The 50 000ft icewall has to be the closest to an explanation yet.

Damn straight. An infinite atmosphere is, to my mind, completely unreasonable, and the Ice Wall is necessarily around 50000 feet high for the precise reason around which this thread is based.

The atmosphere is demonstrably, observably at least 50000 feet high.

Now tell us why I can see stars through the Ice Wall. Is it perfectly clear and magically immune to Snell's Law?

Now tell us why I can see stars through the Ice Wall. Is it perfectly clear and magically immune to Snell's Law?

You can't see stars through the Ice Wall (unless you fall foul of the Conspiracy's military presence there  ).

You can see stars low in the sky because the Ice Wall is very far away from you, and within your field of vision, the area of starry sky which it would obscure is negligible.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 12, 2007, 03:37:19 PM

Now tell us why I can see stars through the Ice Wall. Is it perfectly clear and magically immune to Snell's Law?

You can't see stars through the Ice Wall (unless you fall foul of the Conspiracy's military presence there  ).

You can see stars low in the sky because the Ice Wall is very far away from you, and within your field of vision, the area of starry sky which it would obscure is negligible.

Nope. You can do the math yourself. I can see stars rise right at the horizon and even at a angle below the horizontal, well below the height of the Ice Wall.

Nope. You can do the math yourself. I can see stars rise right at the horizon

You can't though. You can see stars which appear very close to the horizon. An object 50000 feet tall, even if there was no atmosphere, would be virtually invisible to the naked eye at a distance of even a few hundred miles. I dunno if you noticed, but things look smaller when you move away from them. A star which is just above the Ice Wall is, at such incredible distance, indistinguishable from a star exactly on the horizon.

and even at a angle below the horizontal, well below the height of the Ice Wall.

You can see THROUGH the ground? I applaud your superpowers.

This ice wall thing is the most solid FE explanation there is. It's not very solid, but hey. What's weird is that whole sun-setting thing...giant ice walls with no obvious means to maintain or create them are pretty implausible, but the fact the sun actually appears to go BELOW a flat Earth? That's some funky-ass shit.

Sorry to keep bringing that up. Consider the subject unchanged, there are other threads for it.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 12, 2007, 03:45:57 PM

Nope. You can do the math yourself. I can see stars rise right at the horizon

...

Quote from: Gulliver on June 12, 2007, 03:45:57 PM

and even at a angle below the horizontal, well below the height of the Ice Wall.

You can see THROUGH the ground? I applaud your superpowers.

I deplore your silliness. Climb any tall mountain, and you too can see below the horizontal.

I deplore your silliness. Climb any tall mountain, and you too can see below the horizontal.

No, you can see further along the horizontal. To test the claim you make here requires belief in an Earth with curvature to begin with, the point which is being contested - you're using a circular argument.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 12, 2007, 04:13:07 PM

I deplore your silliness. Climb any tall mountain, and you too can see below the horizontal.

No, you can see further along the horizontal. To test the claim you make here requires belief in an Earth with curvature to begin with, the point which is being contested - you're using a circular argument.

A sperical argument...I'm here 'til Thursday...

It's not a circular argument. He's saying IF and ONLY IF the Earth is round, the horizon will recede as you ascend, THEREFORE you should be able to see stars below the horizontal.

What he is missing is the observation from high altitude that shows stars below the horizontal. If this is observed, we accept that the Earth is round. If it is not observed, we can conclude nothing.

It's not a circular argument. He's saying IF and ONLY IF the Earth is round, the horizon will recede as you ascend, THEREFORE you should be able to see stars below the horizontal.

What he is missing is the observation from high altitude that shows stars below the horizontal. If this is observed, we accept that the Earth is round. If it is not observed, we can conclude nothing.

But visible distance extends in an FE model too, as I believe was already explored in a very recent thread (possibly the natural perspective one?).

Seeing stars close to the horizon from a mountaintop only demonstrates that there's no Ice Wall if you already believe the Earth is round. Don't you see the problem with this?

If you are looking below the horizontal and you see stars, the earth must be convex. If it is not, your line of sight would intersect with the ground, visible or not.

If you are looking below the horizontal and you see stars, the earth must be convex. If it is not, your line of sight would intersect with the ground, visible or not.

But that's my point - you can't look "below the horizontal" because that requires looking through the Earth (unless you already believe that the Earth is round).

But the horizon is below the horizontal because it curves away.

But the horizon is below the horizontal because it curves away.

On a Round Earth model. On a Flat Earth model this "below the horizontal" is just further along the ground. Don't you see how your argument REQUIRES pre-belief in a Round Earth in order to work? And don't you see the logical flaw in that?