A question for RE'ers

I have a theory. There are millions of luminous blue faeries who live underground, and at sunrise they all fly up into the sky and this is why the sky is blue. If this is true, then you would expect to see a blue sky during the day. Observation matches my theory; does this make my theory correct?

No. Your theory is that there are blue fairies. You haven't observed blue fairies you've observed a blue sky.

Your theory is that the Earth is round. You've observed an earth which matches the round theory. This includes, but not limited to, a horizon that varies according to altitude.

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 04:36:24 AM

Your theory is that the Earth is round. You've observed an earth which matches the round theory. This includes, but not limited to, a horizon that varies according to altitude.

Fixed your typo.

Quote from: preco on September 09, 2009, 07:07:34 AM

The question is, what attributes of a spherical world would you actually see?

If we model the Earth as a perfect sphere and light as travelling in perfectly straight lines, I would expect to see a horizon which is at all points equidistant from the observer. If the surface of the Earth is perfectly homogeneous in its fine detail, I would not expect to notice any other features which are suggestive of a spherical world.

We were specifically discussing my assertion that a horizon would be visible on a Round Earth

And how would this differ from a comparable FE view?

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 04:49:13 AM

We were specifically discussing my assertion that a horizon would be visible on a Round Earth

Which is what is observed.

So... you're posting evidence that the round earth model is plausible and verifiable. Ummmm....

That's like saying "the sky would be blue on a round Earth, therefore the sky being blue is evidence for the Earth being round".

No it's not. Please don't put words in my mouth, or try and coat me with your own false analogies.

All I said was:

"If Theory A is true, then we would see Observation B."

And you are turning it into:

"Observation B is evidence that Theory A is correct."

Please don't put words in my mouth, or try and coat me with your own false analogies.

Sigh!!!!

"I would expect to see a horizon which is at all points equidistant from the observer"


How else could all the points of the horizon be equidistant from the observer?

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 07:34:40 AM

All I said was:

"If Theory A is true, then we would see Observation B."

And you are turning it into:

"Observation B is evidence that Theory A is correct."

Which is faily reasonable in the context that a round earth would provide a visible horizon.

However it's nothing like: "the sky would be blue on a round Earth, therefore the sky being blue is evidence for the Earth being round".

You're failing to provide the link between the blue sky and the shape of the earth.

Quote from: preco on September 10, 2009, 07:38:10 AM

Sigh!!!!

"I would expect to see a horizon which is at all points equidistant from the observer"


How else could all the points of the horizon be equidistant from the observer?

A horizon, in the context of this discussion of an observation from a single point, is a virtual locus, drawn in two-dimensional elliptical geometry about an observer, because a point observer cannot perceive any radial component to it. It has no physical meaning in three-dimensional Euclidean space, though of course if one transformed it into three-dimensional Euclidean space it would take on rather drastic curvature. When I refer to the curvature of the horizon, I refer to its curvature within two-dimensional elliptical geometry, because that is the only place it has any meaning.

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 07:46:44 AM

A horizon, in the context of this discussion of an observation from a single point, is a virtual locus, drawn in two-dimensional elliptical geometry about an observer, because a point observer cannot perceive any radial component to it. It has no physical meaning in three-dimensional Euclidean space, though of course if one transformed it into three-dimensional Euclidean space it would take on rather drastic curvature. When I refer to the curvature of the horizon, I refer to its curvature within two-dimensional elliptical geometry, because that is the only place it has any meaning.

Which perfectly describes the FE model & not what is actually seen in real world!

Quote from: preco on September 10, 2009, 07:53:27 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 07:46:44 AM

A horizon, in the context of this discussion of an observation from a single point, is a virtual locus, drawn in two-dimensional elliptical geometry about an observer, because a point observer cannot perceive any radial component to it. It has no physical meaning in three-dimensional Euclidean space, though of course if one transformed it into three-dimensional Euclidean space it would take on rather drastic curvature. When I refer to the curvature of the horizon, I refer to its curvature within two-dimensional elliptical geometry, because that is the only place it has any meaning.

Which perfectly describes the FE model & not what is actually seen in real world!

What the heck are you talking about? I'm not describing any model at all, I'm defining what I consider to be the curvature of a horizon.

In a RE model!

Quote from: preco on September 10, 2009, 07:59:07 AM

In a RE model!

In any model. We are talking about the horizon as perceived by a point observer, regardless of the shape of the Earth.

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 08:05:14 AM

Quote from: preco on September 10, 2009, 07:59:07 AM

In a RE model!

In any model. We are talking about the horizon as perceived by a point observer, regardless of the shape of the Earth.

So in summary your argument appears to be that regardless of the model there will always be a horizon.

Oh boy.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 10, 2009, 02:58:05 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 08:05:14 AM

Quote from: preco on September 10, 2009, 07:59:07 AM

In a RE model!

In any model. We are talking about the horizon as perceived by a point observer, regardless of the shape of the Earth.

So in summary your argument appears to be that regardless of the model there will always be a horizon.

Oh boy.

Do you have a counter argument? (Besides just "oh boy" of course.)

My question was aimed at Robosteve. Thanks for your interest in my post!!!

My question was aimed at Robosteve. Thanks for your interest in my post!!!

Quote from: Crustinator on September 10, 2009, 06:05:20 PM

My question was aimed at Robosteve. Thanks for your interest in my post!!!

Do you have a counter argument?

So in summary your argument appears to be that regardless of the model there will always be a horizon.

What argument? A question was asked, and I answered it.

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 08:27:59 PM

What argument? A question was asked, and I answered it.

Let me rephrase it for you.

So in summary your argument appears to be that regardless of the model there will always be a horizon. Correct?

So in summary your argument appears to be that regardless of the model there will always be a horizon. Correct?

Quote from: Crustinator on September 11, 2009, 07:17:09 AM

So in summary your argument appears to be that regardless of the model there will always be a horizon. Correct?

No. I don't have an argument in this thread, I was simply answering a question.

And when you answer a question (in a debating forum such as this) you are putting forward some kind of argument.

Come on kid, don't shy away, it makes you look like you're doubting your own posts.