here is a question.

First I would like it to be known that I am a firm RE'er I have read some of what was said in the book by Samuel Birley Rowbotham and it does not make sense to me. So I guess my question would have to be If the earth was truely flat the if I stand on the coast of NJ and had a powerfull enough telescope I should be able to see England. But I can not. Why is this, my teaching has taught me that it's because of the curviture of the earth.

Also while serving in the Navy I have spent much time out to sea. How can you explain knowing a ship is only 100-200 miles away from you (by using radar) but you are unable to see it with the naked eye.

I read what was said about the sun being a "spotlight" so to take the agurment away about it being dark in england I have also experianced this while in the Med sea. I was off the coast of Africa and could not see Europe. Same time zone only a few hundred miles away and we have some preety powerfull telescopes and bino's on our ships. So if you can explin this I would love to hear it.

Well not being able to see England is an easy one, there's just too much atmosphere to go through to see that far, the frequency of light is just too high to penetrate that far..  Which is easily explained when you can send out a radio wave, and receive a blip from 200 miles away from another ship, but you cannot see it no matter which telescope you have.

But, if there is some big object above the ship which is some 200 miles away at proper height then you could see the object with telescope. How you explain that?

The atmosphere gets thinner the higher up we go, so there's less air to get in the way straight up than horizontally.  This could also explains why we are able to see farther the higher up we go.

Well not being able to see England is an easy one, there's just too much atmosphere to go through to see that far, the frequency of light is just too high to penetrate that far..  Which is easily explained when you can send out a radio wave, and receive a blip from 200 miles away from another ship, but you cannot see it no matter which telescope you have.

How do you explain that a FE accelerating at a trmendous speed breaks so many laws of physics. ie.. a bird in flight would no longer be under the influence of the momentum of the planet, so this bird would start to slow down in relation to the eath and would collide with it. This can be proved somewhat with a simple test. Hang a small weight from the roof of the cab in your car with a 12in string. Accelerate fast and watch as the weight stays in place until it runs out of string then gets pulled. Also take a turn at a nice angle 20+ degrees and watch as the string stays pointed down unaffected by the cars inertia as it takes this inclined turn.

Also how is it that all the other planets in our solar system rotate around the earth. Physics dictate that the larger the mass the  stronger the gravity. There are many planets many Xs larger then earth. So if your assumption is correct then the earth not only is flat but is also the largest planet in this solar system.

a bird in flight would no longer be under the influence of the momentum of the planet

Sure it would, in the form of lift.

Quote from: jmotley on March 04, 2009, 11:53:40 AM

a bird in flight would no longer be under the influence of the momentum of the planet

Sure it would, in the form of lift.

So you mean to tell me that simple lift is not only responsible for helping a bird take off (have no problem)
but also responsible for having it maintain a tremendous upward speed (BIG PROBLEM) as well as fly thousends of miles (as some birds do) at a time.

What about the clouds? They have no lift and the are free floating so the would not be held by the inertia of this planet. so basiclly they should end up on the ground rather quickly.

What about the clouds? They have no lift and the are free floating so the would not be held by the inertia of this planet.

They are lighter than the air around them, so they float just like a ping pong ball on water.

so basiclly they should end up on the ground rather quickly.

They do, it's called rain.

Quote from: jmotley on March 04, 2009, 12:42:13 PM

What about the clouds? They have no lift and the are free floating so the would not be held by the inertia of this planet.

They are lighter than the air around them, so they float just like a ping pong ball on water.

Quote

so basiclly they should end up on the ground rather quickly.

They do, it's called rain.

So now your changing what rain is also? Rain is when a cloud becomes over satuated with water and then it releases. this is second grade science.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 04, 2009, 12:50:15 PM

They do, it's called rain.

So now your changing what rain is also? Rain is when a cloud becomes over satuated with water and then it releases. this is second grade science.

That's not quite how it works, but it doesn't really matter because I was making a joke, and since you didn't take issue with my answer, we can assume we both agree on its validity.

The atmosphere gets thinner the higher up we go, so there's less air to get in the way straight up than horizontally.  This could also explains why we are able to see farther the higher up we go.

The air isn't so ... fat that we can't see through it some 10 miles with telescope. If you get a boat and row 10 miles the person from shore isn't able to see you. But if you tie a balloon with a rope which length is some 30 feet then the person sees the balloon. The air isn't so much thinner in 30 feet high than in sea level. Or is it? The numbers are quite rough but I guess you get the general idea.

I personally don't like the 'thick air' explanation - it would break laser interferometers I've built myself 

Well I haven't seen a more plausible answer posted as of yet.

Bendy light in one of it's many flavours?

DISCLAIMER: not necessarily more plausible, but worth consideration

I have major reservations about bendy light close to the Earth's surface, I tend to lean more towards thick air, because it seems more intuitive, so you're less likely to closely scrutinise it.

I take exception to bendy light near the surface for the same reason as thick air, but it has more scope for loopholes.

I dislike the idea of bendy light as well. You're ending up with a FE model that looks round, which makes me wonder why it wouldn't be easier to have the RE model that looks as it is. Both produce the same results, but the FE model is more complex, so what reason is there to hold with the FE model?

Because the Earth is flat?

The Earth has to be flat, if it were round I would have fallen off by now.

Don't worry bowler, the tortoise will save you!

I kind of like the idea that the oceans have enough gravity to try to pull themselves into a ball, but only succeed at being slightly convex at the surface, giving the illusion of a round Earth.

@ OP: I wouldn't bother expecting a response, either in this thread or any others. Back in my heyday there were many, many similar threads, a couple with actual math, that attempted to say the same thing. All were given the same response (the one that had been called into question).


@ EnigmaZV: So. by that logic, the oceans should be much "higher" in the middle than at the edges. Should this not be testable with simple measurements? It also makes no sense. To appear convex, the Pacific Ocean would have to have near vertical sides at the shore to maintain the same amount of "curvature" over its entire surface.

It depends on how steep the curve is as to how the shoreline would appear.  There could also be other factors that could explain why the coastlines aren't near vertical.  And I would certainly say that the oceans are "higher" in the middle than at the edges.  I will admit that convex oceans do pose significant problems.

Significant problems have never been a problem before.

Significant problems have never been a problem before.

Now you're getting it!

It depends on how steep the curve is as to how the shoreline would appear.  There could also be other factors that could explain why the coastlines aren't near vertical.  And I would certainly say that the oceans are "higher" in the middle than at the edges.  I will admit that convex oceans do pose significant problems.

Fair enough. As long as you admit there are problems with the theory I can somewhat respect that. However, the problems are so glaring that you lose points for defending it.

As for being "higher" in the middle, surely this would be detectable by simply measurement? The Ocean would probably be so high (in the Pacific) that it would be above most of the atmosphere.

Quote from: jmotley on March 04, 2009, 01:14:49 PM

Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 04, 2009, 12:50:15 PM

They do, it's called rain.

So now your changing what rain is also? Rain is when a cloud becomes over satuated with water and then it releases. this is second grade science.

That's not quite how it works, but it doesn't really matter because I was making a joke, and since you didn't take issue with my answer, we can assume we both agree on its validity.

Oh no I take issue with what you said. I have an issue with the whole idea that a FE even exists.

So you don't agree that clouds stay up because they're lighter than the air below it, like a ping pong ball floats on water?

So you don't agree that clouds stay up because they're lighter than the air below it, like a ping pong ball floats on water?

I agree with that in RET not FET. If clouds are floating above us then an object accelerating rapidly up toward them would hit them. Look at airplanes. They accelerate rapidly into the sky. the clouds dont magicly get higher as the plane get higher.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 05, 2009, 09:33:12 AM

So you don't agree that clouds stay up because they're lighter than the air below it, like a ping pong ball floats on water?

I agree with that in RET not FET. If clouds are floating above us then an object accelerating rapidly up toward them would hit them. Look at airplanes. They accelerate rapidly into the sky. the clouds dont magicly get higher as the plane get higher.

Planes do indeed hit the clouds.  Every flight I've been on has been above the clouds for at least part of the time.  I don't understand what you're trying to say?