i think we should switch it around

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 04, 2009, 10:39:21 AM

I think I see where you're mistaken now.  According to Tom's logic, our ability to see across long distances is obscured by the atmosphere.  Air is not perfectly transparent.  Let's remember that even the sun is limited in the distance its light can travel due to the atmosphere, at 3000 miles above the Earth's surface, which is why it acts like a circular spotlight, and why it is night in Australia when it is day in the US.

Yet the atmosphere isn't that opaque is it? We can see the sun, the moon and the stars on the horizon, all of which *according to FET) are 3000 miles away, if not more.

I wonder...

To go further into Tom's logic, the atmosphere is a gradient.  It is much denser closer to the ground than it is high above it.  That's why we are able to see greater distances, with the naked eye, the higher we are above the Earth's surface.  There's a lot less atmosphere to go through vertically than there is horizontally.  Thus, there is no limit to how far we are able to observe vertically, but there always is a limit to what we can observe horizontally.

To go further into Tom's logic, the atmosphere is a gradient.  It is much denser closer to the ground than it is high above it.  That's why we are able to see greater distances, with the naked eye, the higher we are above the Earth's surface.  There's a lot less atmosphere to go through vertically than there is horizontally.  Thus, there is no limit to how far we are able to observe vertically, but there always is a limit to what we can observe horizontally.

I know, that's why I used the word "horizon" in my post.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 04, 2009, 10:48:18 AM

To go further into Tom's logic, the atmosphere is a gradient.  It is much denser closer to the ground than it is high above it.  That's why we are able to see greater distances, with the naked eye, the higher we are above the Earth's surface.  There's a lot less atmosphere to go through vertically than there is horizontally.  Thus, there is no limit to how far we are able to observe vertically, but there always is a limit to what we can observe horizontally.

I know, that's why I used the word "horizon" in my post.

You do realize that they're not literally "on the horizon", right? 

You do realize that they're not literally "on the horizon", right? 

They observably intersect the horizon.

Is this where we go bendy?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 04, 2009, 10:54:39 AM

You do realize that they're not literally "on the horizon", right?  

They observably intersect the horizon.

Is this where we go bendy?

No.  When they appear to cross beyond the horizon is when the atmosphere obstructs our ability to observe them.  I would have thought that was obvious.

Remember, I'm using Tom's logic here, so bendy light never actually comes into the picture.

No.  When they appear to cross beyond the horizon is when the atmosphere obstructs our ability to observe them.  I would have thought that was obvious.

No it's not obvious, because it's the ground that stops them being visible and not a mysterious opaque atmosphere.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 04, 2009, 11:04:49 AM

No.  When they appear to cross beyond the horizon is when the atmosphere obstructs our ability to observe them.  I would have thought that was obvious.

No it's not obvious, because it's the ground that stops them being visible and not a mysterious opaque atmosphere.

Not according to Tom's logic.

Not according to Tom's logic.

Let's let Tom argue Tom's logic.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 04, 2009, 11:15:06 AM

Not according to Tom's logic.

Let's let Tom argue Tom's logic.

If you feel that way why did you engage me in this thread in the first place?

Quote from: youareallwrong on October 04, 2009, 10:22:54 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 04, 2009, 10:10:51 AM

Quote from: youareallwrong on October 04, 2009, 10:06:55 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 04, 2009, 09:36:59 AM

Quote from: youareallwrong on October 04, 2009, 09:23:29 AM

According to your logic, if we are high enough in the sky, we would be able to see everything on the Earth.

Wrong.  Please explain how you think Tom's logic leads to this conclusion and I will explain why you are wrong.

This is the only way you FE'ers are able to justify your beliefs. I hope everyone realizes this. You should be able to assume why I said that anyways.

I have no idea why you would say that, but then, I probably have a much better grasp on Tom's logic than you do.  I can only figure that you said that because you were mistaken about Tom's opinion on this matter.  That's why I wanted you to tell me how you think Tom's logic leads to that conclusion, so that I can explain where you're mistaken.

Hah, yes you do. And you know it to be true. If you really need me to explain, I meant that according to his logic, if you go high enough, say, over the United States of America, you would be able to see all the way to Australia, with the correct telescopic equipment.

I think I see where you're mistaken now.  According to Tom's logic, our ability to see across long distances is obscured by the atmosphere.  Air is not perfectly transparent.  Let's remember that even the sun is limited in the distance its light can travel due to the atmosphere, at 3000 miles above the Earth's surface, which is why it acts like a circular spotlight, and why it is night in Australia when it is day in the US.

Wait. So you're saying that FE'ers believe that air can actually stop light?

Yes.  So do round earthers.  Unless you claim air is empty space.

Yes.  So do round earthers.  Unless you claim air is empty space.

Air can't stop light like that. Not in the conditions that are specified by those who think it can in the Earth's atmosphere.

Quote from: bl4ke360 on October 03, 2009, 09:51:11 PM

Oh, for God's sake...

Look out your window.

Is this supposed to prove something here?

Looks pretty flat to me.

That coldesaq in the picture is actually rather concave, as in not flat. So you fail tremendously in 2 areas.
The sidewalk is flat, but are you really suggesting that a 4 feet wide slab of concrete represents the entire Earth's shape?

The sidewalk is flat, but are you really suggesting that a 4 feet wide slab of concrete represents the entire Earth's shape?

No; if I understand him correctly, he is suggesting that we should not assume otherwise, and that the burden of proof is on anybody who wishes to suggest otherwise.

Quote from: bl4ke360 on October 04, 2009, 02:26:13 PM

The sidewalk is flat, but are you really suggesting that a 4 feet wide slab of concrete represents the entire Earth's shape?

No; if I understand him correctly, he is suggesting that we should not assume otherwise, and that the burden of proof is on anybody who wishes to suggest otherwise.

In that case, the Earth doesn't look flat at all. It's more like a graph:

In that case, the Earth doesn't look flat at all. It's more like a graph:

Please justify this statement.

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on October 04, 2009, 08:56:40 PM

In that case, the Earth doesn't look flat at all. It's more like a graph:

Please justify this statement.

How is this flat?

How is this flat?

It's not. Do you have any evidence that it is a photograph of the Earth?

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on October 04, 2009, 09:01:59 PM

How is this flat?

It's not. Do you have any evidence that it is a photograph of the Earth?

I don't need any evidence. Unless, this is a picture of Mars millions of years ago.

I don't need any evidence. Unless, this is a picture of Mars millions of years ago.

If you're not going to provide evidence that that is a picture of the Earth, we cannot assume that it is.

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on October 04, 2009, 09:06:51 PM

I don't need any evidence. Unless, this is a picture of Mars millions of years ago.

If you're not going to provide evidence that that is a picture of the Earth, we cannot assume that it is.

What do you think it is? I for one, live in a valley with mountains on either side. From my perspective, the Earth is not flat at all.

Quote from: bl4ke360 on October 04, 2009, 02:26:13 PM

The sidewalk is flat, but are you really suggesting that a 4 feet wide slab of concrete represents the entire Earth's shape?

No; if I understand him correctly, he is suggesting that we should not assume otherwise, and that the burden of proof is on anybody who wishes to suggest otherwise.

I'm sorry, but why should we assume that such a small sample is representative of the whole earth?  I seriously doubt that any statistician would consider such a small sample size to be significant enough to justify a conclusion either way.

What do you think it is?

Irrelevant.

I for one, live in a valley with mountains on either side. From my perspective, the Earth is not flat at all.

Anecdotal evidence is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is.

I'm sorry, but why should we assume that such a small sample is representative of the whole earth?  I seriously doubt that any statistician would consider such a small sample size to be significant enough to justify a conclusion either way.

Why should we assume that the Earth's shape is anything else without further evidence?

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on October 04, 2009, 09:12:16 PM

What do you think it is?

Irrelevant.

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on October 04, 2009, 09:12:16 PM

I for one, live in a valley with mountains on either side. From my perspective, the Earth is not flat at all.

Anecdotal evidence is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is.

Quote from: markjo on October 04, 2009, 09:25:56 PM

I'm sorry, but why should we assume that such a small sample is representative of the whole earth?  I seriously doubt that any statistician would consider such a small sample size to be significant enough to justify a conclusion either way.

Why should we assume that the Earth's shape is anything else without further evidence?

That's where you fail, because there is further evidence. As soon as you stop trolling, you might realize how stupid your arguments are.

Anecdotal evidence is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is.

Why isn't that in the FAQ in fine print?

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on October 04, 2009, 09:12:16 PM

I for one, live in a valley with mountains on either side. From my perspective, the Earth is not flat at all.

Anecdotal evidence is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is.

Then why is anecdotal evidence (i.e. look out your window) one of the foundations of FET? 

Oh, when I get home today, I'll take my new nikon d90 and get some pictures proving, without a doubt, that the earth is round. I mean, as long as it doesn't look flat in the pictures.

Some photoshop will be involved, because I'll be stitching photographs together, but it's easy enough.

I don't need any evidence. Unless, this is a picture of Mars millions of years ago.

So there were mountain villages on Mars millions of years ago?  AWESOME!!

Some photoshop will be involved...

'nuf said.  Win for FE!

Quote from: Parsifal on October 04, 2009, 09:52:47 PM

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on October 04, 2009, 09:12:16 PM

I for one, live in a valley with mountains on either side. From my perspective, the Earth is not flat at all.

Anecdotal evidence is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is.

Then why is anecdotal evidence (i.e. look out your window) one of the foundations of FET? 

Yeah Parsifal why don't you answer this? It's quite true.

Quote from: Parsifal on October 04, 2009, 09:52:47 PM

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on October 04, 2009, 09:12:16 PM

I for one, live in a valley with mountains on either side. From my perspective, the Earth is not flat at all.

Anecdotal evidence is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is.

Then why is anecdotal evidence (i.e. look out your window) one of the foundations of FET? 

It's a foundation of reality.