Riddle me this

If I travel to the highest point of the U.S., then why can't I see all of the U.S. After all, if the Earth is flat then there shouldn't be anything blocking my view.

If I travel to the highest point of the U.S., then why can't I see all of the U.S. After all, if the Earth is flat then there shouldn't be anything blocking my view.

Except for that dern air.

yea u gotta watch out for that thick darn air

Quote from: earthisround222 on May 25, 2009, 02:50:53 PM

If I travel to the highest point of the U.S., then why can't I see all of the U.S. After all, if the Earth is flat then there shouldn't be anything blocking my view.

Except for that dern air.

So light can't travel 1800 miles across the US but it can go 3000 miles from the sun to the Earths surface?
Sounds like some over exaggerating of air's ability to absorb light.

Sounds like some over exaggerating of air's ability to absorb light.

No, what it sounds like is someones inability to comprehend the difference in air density at sea level and at altitude.

I like the perspective argument better.

even bendy light works better

Quote from: echa on May 25, 2009, 06:41:52 PM

Sounds like some over exaggerating of air's ability to absorb light.

No, what it sounds like is someones inability to comprehend the difference in air density at sea level and at altitude.

No matter the density of air, it's strill transparent

Really? That's fascinating, maybe my eyesight isn't what it used to be then:

photoshop

Really? That's fascinating, maybe my eyesight isn't what it used to be then:

The air is indeed transparent.  The water droplets and any other particulate matter suspended in the air are a different story.

yes its fog.  But in the observation that was explained earlier, it would be on a clear day where there be no clouds nor fog

So i think we can all agree that their would be nothing in the air blocking our view.  No pollution, no fog, no clouds.

yes its fog.  But in the observation that was explained earlier, it would be on a clear day where there be no clouds nor fog

Find me air with no suspended water vapur, pollutants, dust, etc and I'll find you a sterile laboratory.

Quote from: Visco on May 27, 2009, 06:46:52 AM

yes its fog.  But in the observation that was explained earlier, it would be on a clear day where there be no clouds nor fog

Find me air with no suspended water vapur, pollutants, dust, etc and I'll find you a sterile laboratory.

Stand ontop of a mountain or go on a plane. You can clearly see MANY MANY miles. How is that possible? The air would still be as "thich" near the surface no matter where you stand, so how come you can see so much further the higher you stand? well, that's because the Earth is round, my friend

Quote from: Visco on May 27, 2009, 06:46:52 AM

yes its fog.  But in the observation that was explained earlier, it would be on a clear day where there be no clouds nor fog

Find me air with no suspended water vapur, pollutants, dust, etc and I'll find you a sterile laboratory.

I will find you air which has those but you can also see into the distance. While there is still water vapor and pollutants, there is still no clouds nor fog.  Like i said before...  I never said there wouldn't be any water vapor, pollutants, or dust, just not enough to cause an obscurity in the view
Also you can see that the mountains further away appear significantly shorter than the ones closer.  

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on May 27, 2009, 08:00:04 AM

Quote from: Visco on May 27, 2009, 06:46:52 AM

yes its fog.  But in the observation that was explained earlier, it would be on a clear day where there be no clouds nor fog

Find me air with no suspended water vapur, pollutants, dust, etc and I'll find you a sterile laboratory.

Stand ontop of a mountain or go on a plane. You can clearly see MANY MANY miles. How is that possible? The air would still be as "thich" near the surface no matter where you stand, so how come you can see so much further the higher you stand? well, that's because the Earth is round, my friend

If you think air is just as thick on top of a mountain or from plane height you're clearly just ignorant.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on May 27, 2009, 08:00:04 AM

Quote from: Visco on May 27, 2009, 06:46:52 AM

yes its fog.  But in the observation that was explained earlier, it would be on a clear day where there be no clouds nor fog

Find me air with no suspended water vapur, pollutants, dust, etc and I'll find you a sterile laboratory.

I will find you air which has those but you can also see into the distance. While there is still water vapor and pollutants, there is still no clouds nor fog.  Like i said before...  I never said there wouldn't be any water vapor, pollutants, or dust, just not enough to cause an obscurity in the view
Also you can see that the mountains further away appear significantly shorter than the ones closer. 

Here's a fun experiment, take those clear plastic covers that you get on the front of reports. They're almost perfectly transparent, but wait! Start adding more and more covers in front of each other and it eventually becomes opaque.

The same effect is found with air, albeit on a large scale.

The 'smaller mountains' are explained quite easily with basic laws of perspective. To quote Father Ted: "Little cow...far away..."

yes but there isnt enough "plastic wrap" to make it completely unobservable.  While there it makes its translucent, the ability to see is not lost. 

Also yes on a flat earth the mountains would proportionally lose their size, but instead things in the distance lose their height much quicker than their width

ALSO i can see the horizon line.  If you say that the air would cause my vision to be opaque, then I would not be able to see the horizon line, for instead it would just blur together with the sky

yes but there isnt enough "plastic wrap" to make it completely unobservable.  While there it makes its translucent, the ability to see is not lost. 

Also yes on a flat earth the mountains would proportionally lose their size, but instead things in the distance lose their height much quicker than their width

Yes there is. I just went and did it now (I work in an office) after about 100 sheets of acetate you may as well be holding up a brick for all you can see through it.

Read the perspective section of Earth:Not a Globe it has some diagrams which helpfully explain this.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on May 27, 2009, 08:44:17 AM

Here's a fun experiment, take those clear plastic covers that you get on the front of reports. They're almost perfectly transparent, but wait! Start adding more and more covers in front of each other and it eventually becomes opaque.

Pretty irellevent as the image shows. You can see pretty far from high up.

Yet can't see over the same distance from close to the surface. I wonder why.

Because there is more air at ground level, I thought we had established this?

ALSO i can see the horizon line.  If you say that the air would cause my vision to be oblique, then I would not be able to see the horizon line, for instead it would just blur together with the sky

Not so, try the acetate experiment and you'll see that things go from 'visible' to opaque in a couple of sheets.

the plastic wrap was a metaphor for air. so your reply to that statement doesn't count.

Also I was referring to the picture, which you also failed to explain

I fear I may be repeating myself. the laws of perspective make all things go to a 'vanishing point' The horizon is created by both the opacity of the air and the laws of perspcetive.

I fear I may be repeating myself. the laws of perspective make all things go to a 'vanishing point' The horizon is created by both the opacity of the air and the laws of perspcetive.

yes but as i said before the air does NOT cause opacity becuase you are able to see the horizon.  If there was opacity then the landscape would slowly blend in with the air.  But this is not so.

Also the laws of perspective do not pertain to landscape.  Why?? because as things move away their size decreases proportionally.  So because the landscape is a wide as visually possible, then it will not disappear because the width will always be there.  

For example its like having
This
but instead the size of the traintracks would be limitless to your right and left, thus making it continue on and on. Also since the height of the landscape would be the edge of the world, it would continue until thus.  Because even with the laws of perspective, you are still able to see the top of no matter what it is, yet it is only smaller.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on May 27, 2009, 09:08:12 AM

I fear I may be repeating myself. the laws of perspective make all things go to a 'vanishing point' The horizon is created by both the opacity of the air and the laws of perspcetive.

yes but as i said before the air does NOT cause opacity becuase you are able to see the horizon.  If there was opacity then the landscape would slowly blend in with the air.  But this is not so.

Also the laws of perspective do not pertain to landscape.  Why?? because as things move away their size decreases proportionally.  So because the landscape is a wide as visually possible, then it will not disappear because the width will always be there. 

For example its like having
This
but instead the size of the traintracks would be limitless to your right and left, thus making it continue on and on. Also since the height of the landscape would be the edge of the world, it would continue until thus.  Because even with the laws of perspective, you are still able to see the top of no matter what it is, yet it is only smaller.

Helpful?

you do know that picture is about the box??  I was talking about the landscape and earth....  The box has a definite width and height

Air cannot possibly cause the horizon.  There is a discrete point at which the ground is no longer visible.  If air were really the culprit, the ground would appear to continuously grow less visible.

Face it.  The air cannot possibly cause the appearance of the horizon simply through absorption of light.  Bendy light, as a pure theory, is a much better explanation, although it can't be justified on any physical grounds.

Air absorption:  out.
Bendy light:  out.
Perspective:  I have yet to see an explanation for perspective which is plausible.
Round Earth: cha-ching!

you do know that picture is about the box??  I was talking about the landscape and earth....  The box has a definite width and height

The landscape doesn't have a definite width or height?

Try imagining the landscape is made of a 'grid' and what it would look like. Better still:
http://www.2d-digital-art-guide.com/images/perspectivediagrams2.gif

The two points are the edge of your field of vision, it doesn't matter where you start those lines, they all converge on the same points.

nvm

Not at all. perspective drawings assume a perfectly flat plane simply because the curvature of the Earth is irrelevent over typical fields of view.

If you were going to be finnicky then on a RE model those lines should be very very very gradual arcs. The difference is irrelevent.

This still fails to explain why someone is unable to see large structures from distant places.  For example the sears tower.  At a distance so that you can still see it, yet you would only be able to see the top part of the tower because the curve of the earth would cause the inability to see the bottom half