More FE theory disproof

  • 29 Replies
  • 3318 Views
More FE theory disproof
« on: May 31, 2008, 01:30:46 PM »
On a Flat Earth, the horizon 'keeps going', allowing you to see as far as the atmosphere allows. On a Round Earth, the curvature would inhibit your sight so standing in a tree, on your roof, in a sky scraper, in an airplane, or out in space would let you see more. Guess what. It does! The more drastic the height, the more apparent the effects of seeing further. On a Flat Earth, You would see further at ground level because it is a straight line of sight. Going higher on this model would create a longer line of sight (the hypotenuse of the triangle). Thus more atmosphere interference seeing less. We in fact see just the opposite.


*

Taters343

  • Official Member
  • 11963
  • Pope/Tater/Robot with flower girl capabilities!
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2008, 01:55:27 PM »
You are wrong and stupid.

Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2008, 01:57:55 PM »
You are wrong and stupid.
Do you care to explain why I am wrong?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2008, 02:09:40 PM »
The atmosphere is densest right at sea level.  As you go higher, the atmosphere gets less dense, thus allowing you to see farther.  It's very simple.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2008, 02:16:47 PM »
There isn't much noticeable change in the density of the air for the first 10,000 ft above sea level. Sky divers do jumps without oxygen up for 12,000 ft because of this.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2008, 02:19:01 PM »
So? That's a livable level, considering you'll only experience it for a few seconds, you could hold your breath.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2008, 02:20:54 PM »
There isn't much noticeable change in the density of the air for the first 10,000 ft above sea level. Sky divers do jumps without oxygen up for 12,000 ft because of this.

The opacity of the atmosphere goes down as you go up.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Youre avin a larf

  • 644
  • Official RE Conspiracy Spokesman
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2008, 02:21:54 PM »
There isn't much noticeable change in the density of the air for the first 10,000 ft above sea level. Sky divers do jumps without oxygen up for 12,000 ft because of this.

Have you ever tried skiing at 3000m?
I have, it's damn hard on the lungs.
I know round when I see it.

Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2008, 02:23:37 PM »
So? That's a livable level, considering you'll only experience it for a few seconds, you could hold your breath.
They sit in unpressurized airplanes for up hours while waiting for the go-ahead to jump. Also, have you ever heard of the guy who climbed Everest (29,000ft) without oxygen. Change of air density is not a factor in this argument.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2008, 02:26:16 PM »
It bloody well is! Have you done this, and can you prove it? Can you prove that the air wouldn't be dense enough to survive at that altitude in FE?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2008, 02:30:44 PM »
From a sky scraper (REer's point of view) you would see further than you could from on the ground because you see slightly over the curve of the Earth. From a FEer's point of view, you would see less far from up there because there is more air to look through (hypotenuse of the triangle). If you try it out I can bet you'll see further from the roof of a sky scraper than you could from ground level on a flat plain. Ergo the FEers are wrong.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 02:37:08 PM by LastChanceRide »

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2008, 02:33:50 PM »
O RLY?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2008, 02:58:27 PM »
O RLY?

Oh, really?

Terrible grammar mistake.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2008, 02:58:57 PM »
O RLY?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2008, 03:00:44 PM »
O RLY?

Another terrible grammar mistake.

Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2008, 03:00:53 PM »
The atmosphere is densest right at sea level.  As you go higher, the atmosphere gets less dense, thus allowing you to see farther.  It's very simple.

Think about it for a sec. Even though going further up decreases air density slightly, it still increases the total amount of air you have to look through to see a certain distance. So, going further up should mean you can't see as far. This is the opposite of what actually happens!

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2008, 03:04:00 PM »
Yes, what it means is we can see the Moon. Thank you for proving the point.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2008, 03:12:08 PM »
Think about it for a sec. Even though going further up decreases air density slightly, it still increases the total amount of air you have to look through to see a certain distance. So, going further up should mean you can't see as far. This is the opposite of what actually happens!
Exactly, so the FEer theory of vanishing point is totally wrong.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2008, 03:13:48 PM »
Nope. Ever done it yourself?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17726
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2008, 03:53:04 PM »
Quote
Think about it for a sec. Even though going further up decreases air density slightly, it still increases the total amount of air you have to look through to see a certain distance. So, going further up should mean you can't see as far. This is the opposite of what actually happens!

When you increase your altitude you are also changing your perspective lines in relation to the earth, pushing the vanishing point backwards. You are increasing your line of sight. When you increase your height, you can see farther before sight is all lost to the vanishing point.

An ant has a horizon a few inches away.
A mouse has a horizon 30 feet away.
A man has a horizon about 30 miles away.
An eagle has a horizon over a hundred miles away.

The higher up you go, the father you can see due to broadening perspective lines.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 04:00:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2008, 03:56:53 PM »
The way I see it, if you go higher you are further away from everything, so should be able to see less distance before objects are lost to perspective.
Can we have a description of how your perspective works please Tom? And don't link to ENaG, I've read it and it didn't make sense.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17726
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2008, 11:37:07 PM »
Quote
The way I see it, if you go higher you are further away from everything, so should be able to see less distance before objects are lost to perspective.

Can we have a description of how your perspective works please Tom? And don't link to ENaG, I've read it and it didn't make sense.

It's very simple. Can you see farther if you kneel down and lay your head right against the pavement, or can you see farther from the top of a skyscraper?

As you increase your altitude you are broadening your perspective lines in relation to the earth, causing a greater length the earth must recede until it ascends to eye level with the observer. The horizon is always at eye level with the observer, from the coast of a beach to the summit of Mt. Everest. Perspective causes everything to merge into the eye level horizon. When you increase your altitude you are changing the altitude of your eye, looking at the lands beyond your previous vanishing point. It takes a greater length of land for the earth to ascend to your new eye level.

« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 11:44:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Auburn

Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2008, 12:41:44 AM »
I agree with Tom. FE wins this one.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2008, 01:34:41 AM »
FE wins all arguments. The difference is whether REers accept it or not.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

?

Youre avin a larf

  • 644
  • Official RE Conspiracy Spokesman
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2008, 02:31:58 AM »
Quote
The way I see it, if you go higher you are further away from everything, so should be able to see less distance before objects are lost to perspective.

Can we have a description of how your perspective works please Tom? And don't link to ENaG, I've read it and it didn't make sense.

It's very simple. Can you see farther if you kneel down and lay your head right against the pavement, or can you see farther from the top of a skyscraper?

As you increase your altitude you are broadening your perspective lines in relation to the earth, causing a greater length the earth must recede until it ascends to eye level with the observer. The horizon is always at eye level with the observer, from the coast of a beach to the summit of Mt. Everest. Perspective causes everything to merge into the eye level horizon. When you increase your altitude you are changing the altitude of your eye, looking at the lands beyond your previous vanishing point. It takes a greater length of land for the earth to ascend to your new eye level.



A similar drawing to this appears in ENaG, and is used to justify the setting sun.
Let's ignore the pretty picture and do some real science.

Examining first the telegraph pole concept, it will look like:



At the horizon (3Km away) the poles (3m high) subtend an angle of 0.06 and could reasonably be considered to have vanished.

Now what about the sun.
Doing the sums with a sun 3000 miles up at at sunset distance of say 10,000 miles which is a very long view to the horizon gives an angle of 16.
This is equivalent to a 12inch rule at arm's length. Not even close to the horizon.
Refraction would only make it higher, so it cannot be explained that way either.

Another card removed from the FET house.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 04:27:33 AM by Youre avin a larf »
I know round when I see it.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2008, 02:17:44 PM »
...
Now what about the sun.
Doing the sums with a sun 3000 miles up at at sunset distance of say 10,000 miles which is a very long view to the horizon gives an angle of 16.
This is equivalent to a 12inch rule at arm's length. Not even close to the horizon.
Refraction would only make it higher, so it cannot be explained that way either.

Another card removed from the FET house.

Can we please have a mathematical explanation from the FE community.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17726
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2008, 03:19:49 PM »
Quote
Now what about the sun.
Doing the sums with a sun 3000 miles up at at sunset distance of say 10,000 miles which is a very long view to the horizon gives an angle of 16.
This is equivalent to a 12inch rule at arm's length. Not even close to the horizon.
Refraction would only make it higher, so it cannot be explained that way either.

Another card removed from the FET house.

We've explained to you numerous times; the setting of the sun is due to a combination of perspective and the refraction of light into the earth's surface. It's the combination of these to mechanisms which causes the sun's image to intersect into the earth.

The setting of the sun is better described in the Flat Earth Literature after Rowbotham's death.

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2008, 05:10:18 PM »
Quote
We've explained to you numerous times; the setting of the sun is due to a combination of perspective and the refraction of light into the earth's surface. It's the combination of these to mechanisms which causes the sun's image to intersect into the earth.

But neither perspective or refraction is sufficient to explain FE sunsets.  That's what the poster was trying to say.  Even at 10,000 miles, the sun should appear only 16o above the horizon due to perspective.  Refraction can only make the sun appear higher than that.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 05:12:30 PM by jdoe »
Mars or Bust

?

Youre avin a larf

  • 644
  • Official RE Conspiracy Spokesman
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2008, 12:09:21 AM »
Quote
Now what about the sun.
Doing the sums with a sun 3000 miles up at at sunset distance of say 10,000 miles which is a very long view to the horizon gives an angle of 16.
This is equivalent to a 12inch rule at arm's length. Not even close to the horizon.
Refraction would only make it higher, so it cannot be explained that way either.

Another card removed from the FET house.

We've explained to you numerous times; the setting of the sun is due to a combination of perspective and the refraction of light into the earth's surface. It's the combination of these to mechanisms which causes the sun's image to intersect into the earth.

It is exactly the point that sunsets cannot be explained either perspective nor reflection, alone or together, as shown above.
Just restating it does not make it so.
10,000 miles is a reasonable figure for observer to sun distance at sunset, and if the sun goes as high as 5300 miles like you said it did, this gives an angle of 27. Perspective, as you have acknowledged, willonly make the sun appear higher in the sky.

It just doesn't work.
I know round when I see it.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: More FE theory disproof
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2008, 10:16:27 AM »
Clearly, the REers are not going to accept this.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>