The Northen lights

Assuming the Earth is flat, how is it that people around the world cant witness the northern lights? The lights occur incredibly high in our atmosphere, and if the Earth is indeed flat, everone on the planet should be able to see atleast SOME of the lights. any ideas?

According to DogPlatter, you can only see about 12 mi through the atmolayer.

According to DogPlatter, you can only see about 12 mi through the atmolayer.

That's correct. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. The atoms and molecules of the atmosphere are not transparent. After a variable distance, depending on conditions, objects will fade into the blue-white sky.

As an example lets look at any distant mountain or hill and notice that they become increasingly discolored and hazy with distance. If there was no atmosphere, if the surface of the earth existed in a vacuum, the distant mountains would not fade out. The distant mountains would appear sharp, unfaded, and untinted.

I believe we can see much further than 12 miles. and how do you explain the fact that if your further up, you can see further? on ground level, you can see only certain distance-- that is correct. however, If I were to go to the top of the empire state building, I will be able to see MUCH further. if the "atmolayer" is a constant, then how do you explain this? and to take it further, if your in an airplane, you can see a whole lot further than you would at the top of the empire state building. There is no way your theory can stand true if everything is at a constant like you say.

I would also be interested to see what the FE explanation of the Northern lights is. And visibility definitely changes with height - and is way more than 12 miles.

I believe we can see much further than 12 miles. and how do you explain the fact that if your further up, you can see further? on ground level, you can see only certain distance-- that is correct. however, If I were to go to the top of the empire state building, I will be able to see MUCH further. if the "atmolayer" is a constant, then how do you explain this? and to take it further, if your in an airplane, you can see a whole lot further than you would at the top of the empire state building. There is no way your theory can stand true if everything is at a constant like you say.

It's not constant. That's why I called it a variable. Depending on different atmospheric conditions visibility is affected. After a certain point into the distance air density becomes clouded to the point where it completely obscures objects beyond it. Viewing distance into the horizon is directly correlated with pressure, gas constant, temperature, humidity, and pollution. At sea level the average air density is 1.2250 kg/m³. This sort of density will allow a viewing distance of around 30 miles across the horizon. In New York pollution and humidity are so high that viewing distance is limited to 14 miles.

In the Arctic areas temperatures and pressures are so low and the environment is so pristine that it is possible to see an object over one hundred miles away.

At higher elevations pressure and temperature drops sharply, and thus, one is able to see further. At the top of Mt. Everest on a clear chilly day observers have reported making out distant mountains hundreds of miles away.

I would also be interested to see what the FE explanation of the Northern lights is.

Haven't we had this discussion before?

Well this thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2516.0 discusses the Northern lights in length but doesn't come to any conclusion, by the look of it. The argument seems to be that the Earth's magnetic field is the same, just fitted to a disk instead, but that seems like a highly unnatural shape to me.

Would it look something like this?

Quote

I believe we can see much further than 12 miles. and how do you explain the fact that if your further up, you can see further? on ground level, you can see only certain distance-- that is correct. however, If I were to go to the top of the empire state building, I will be able to see MUCH further. if the "atmolayer" is a constant, then how do you explain this? and to take it further, if your in an airplane, you can see a whole lot further than you would at the top of the empire state building. There is no way your theory can stand true if everything is at a constant like you say.

It's not constant. That's why I called it a variable. Depending on different atmospheric conditions visibility is affected. After a certain point into the distance air density becomes clouded to the point where it completely obscures objects beyond it. Viewing distance into the horizon is directly correlated with pressure, gas constant, temperature, humidity, and pollution. At sea level the average air density is 1.2250 kg/m³. This sort of density will allow a viewing distance of around 30 miles across the horizon. In New York pollution and humidity are so high that viewing distance is limited to 14 miles.

In the Arctic areas temperatures and pressures are so low and the environment is so pristine that it is possible to see an object over one hundred miles away.

At higher elevations pressure and temperature drops sharply, and thus, one is able to see further. At the top of Mt. Everest on a clear chilly day observers have reported making out distant mountains hundreds of miles away.

This is wrong. There is no absolute limit for NYC or anywhere else. It depends on the humidity and air quality, of course. But to state that there is a limit is wrong. I challenge TomB to find any scientific source that backs an absolute limit.

your asking TomB to actually give proof? you might be waiting.. I dunno.. forever 

I still want an FEer to tell me what the magnetic field of the Earth looks like...

This is wrong. There is no absolute limit for NYC or anywhere else. It depends on the humidity and air quality, of course. But to state that there is a limit is wrong. I challenge TomB to find any scientific source that backs an absolute limit.

There is no limit, but you admit that viewing distance depends on humidity and air quality?

Well there you go, you've just admitted that vision is limited by the atmosphere.

I still want an FEer to tell me what the magnetic field of the Earth looks like...

ThEngineer has a nice diagram somewhere, but you've generally got it down.

On FE the South pole is right below the North Pole, creating the magnetic field lines you see in the diagram.

Quote

This is wrong. There is no absolute limit for NYC or anywhere else. It depends on the humidity and air quality, of course. But to state that there is a limit is wrong. I challenge TomB to find any scientific source that backs an absolute limit.

There is no limit, but you admit that viewing distance depends on humidity and air quality?

Well there you go, you've just admitted that vision is limited by the atmosphere.

You avoid the challenge, wimp. There is no absolute limit. Prove us wrong.

Would it look something like this?

In one model, yes.  In another, as in mine, it's symmetrical.

so if you go beyond the "ice wall", then magnets no longer work? show me the symetric one so I know I've got it figured out

so if you go beyond the "ice wall", then magnets no longer work?

Uh, what?

Could you show me one of your* models? I dont have a grasp of it yet

Quote from: Jenova Cell on August 06, 2007, 08:09:17 PM

so if you go beyond the "ice wall", then magnets no longer work?

Uh, what?

If absolute zero is reached somewhere far beyond the Ice Wall, I suppose magnets would no longer function as magnets?

I was refering to where TE said that it was semetric in his model. if thats true, then how do magnets work beyond the ice wall?

Uh, what?

Magnets only work in the Earth's magnetic field?  Of course!  That explains everything!

I was refering to where TE said that it was semetric in his model. if thats true, then how do magnets work beyond the ice wall?

Well, you see, you have a negative side, and that side is generally attracted to the positive side...Actually, you know what, I'm pretty sure they function exactly the same way.

~D-Draw