More FE theory disproof

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.

You are wrong and stupid.

You are wrong and stupid.

Do you care to explain why I am wrong?

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.

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.

So? That's a livable level, considering you'll only experience it for a few seconds, you could hold your breath.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

O RLY?

O RLY?

Oh, really?

Terrible grammar mistake.

O RLY?

O RLY?

Another terrible grammar mistake.

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!

Yes, what it means is we can see the Moon. Thank you for proving the point.

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.

Nope. Ever done it yourself?

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.

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.

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.

I agree with Tom. FE wins this one.

FE wins all arguments. The difference is whether REers accept it or not.

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 0.06º 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 16º.
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.

...
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 16º.
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.

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 16º.
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.

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 16^o above the horizon due to perspective.  Refraction can only make the sun appear higher than that.

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 16º.
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 27º. Perspective, as you have acknowledged, willonly make the sun appear higher in the sky.

It just doesn't work.

Clearly, the REers are not going to accept this.