I have A question

I live in San Francisco.  I have looked at maps and there is no land mass between me and China.  So if I were to stand atop one of the coastal mountains with an extremely strong telescope I should be able to see China right?

As you can see there is Canada, the North pole and Russia between you and China.

Also, the atmosphere prevents you from seeing very far.

And also, the Earth is round, so no.

And also, the Earth is round, so no.

No, its not, open your eyes to the overwhelming evidence. Though you are free to believe whatever you choose.

Most of the evidence (that doesn't involve "tEh c0sp1raNCy!" ) points to a round earth.

Quote from: Ungoliant on February 02, 2010, 11:44:31 AM

And also, the Earth is round, so no.

No, its not, open your eyes to the overwhelming evidence. Though you are free to believe whatever you choose.

Yeah, as if FE's have evidence to almost everything they say. We have evidence, but since everything is a conspiracy, you ignore it or try to counter it with some nonsense that has no evidence at all.

Still awaiting pics of the ice wall.

Attention newbies:

Welcome to FES!  Also, there are about four, maybe five active members here who genuinely believe the Earth is flat.  "Lord Excalibur" is not one of them, and the idea of pretending to be a radical FE'er to "parody" us has been done about fifty times before.

Attention newbies:

Welcome to FES!  Also, there are about four, maybe five active members here who genuinely believe the Earth is flat.  "Lord Excalibur" is not one of them, and the idea of pretending to be a radical FE'er to "parody" us has been done about fifty times before.

I remember when you did it. It was really not funny. You should do it again some time. Only funny.

I remember when you did it. It was really not funny. You should do it again some time. Only funny.

I don't see how you would be able to "remember" something I did years ago when you weren't here, but I agree, it wasn't very funny.  Still, at least I grew out of it, unlike you.

Air is not transparent.

Air is not transparent.

I wondered why I kept bumping into things.

Air is not transparent.

You sir, Fail.

Quote from: Johannes on February 02, 2010, 02:18:22 PM

Air is not transparent.

You sir, Fail.

Johannes is correct. The atmosphere is not transparent.

The atmosphere consists of a haze of loosely spaced non-transparent particles. When you look into the distance you can see a buildup of particles, which is why mountains in the distance are often faded and indistinct.

Air is about as transparent as you can get Bishop. Nothing is perfectly transparent but air does a good job.

Yes, it does do a pretty good job, though I'm glad you can tell it is not perfectly transparent.

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 02, 2010, 02:46:11 PM

Quote from: Johannes on February 02, 2010, 02:18:22 PM

Air is not transparent.

You sir, Fail.

Johannes is correct. The atmosphere is not transparent.

The atmosphere consists of a haze of loosely spaced non-transparent particles. When you look into the distance you can see a buildup of particles, which is why mountains in the distance are often faded and indistinct.

Jesus, you love to make shit up don't you?

trans?par?ent??[trans-pair-uhnt, -par-]
–adjective
1.   having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance so that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen.
2.   admitting the passage of light through interstices.
3.   so sheer as to permit light to pass through; diaphanous.

I can see my hand, therefore the air in between in and my eyes is transparent.

http://www.ashtonwoodswv.com/AW-DistantMountains.JPG

The mountains cannot be seen clearly. Why is this?

http://www.ashtonwoodswv.com/AW-DistantMountains.JPG

The mountains cannot be seen clearly. Why is this?

They CAN be distinctly seen and recognised as mountains. I appreciate the fact that clarity will decrease with distance but it is indisputable that air is transparent. It allows light to pass through therefore it fits the description.

Try not to argue for the sake of arguing please.

[semantics] People need to get to grips with the distinction between transparent and invisible. Johannes is wrong. Air is transparent, but not invisible. [/semantics]

Air particles are not transparent. The space between those particles is, however.

Air particles are not transparent. The space between those particles is, however.

Then what is glass? It is solid and yet I can see through it. It's particles must either be non-existent or transparent. Just like air OmGzOrZ/!?

looking back on the topic at hand, do you really think getting your own way in this argument matters? The point is that I can see through air. It is transparent

Attention newbies:

there are about four, maybe five active members here who genuinely believe the Earth is flat.  "Lord Excalibur" is not one of them, and the idea of pretending to be a radical FE'er to "parody" us has been done about fifty times before.

I am not trying parody anybody here, I do in fact believe the world is flat, hence why I signed up for this forum.

Air particles are not transparent. The space between those particles is, however.

The various kinds of atoms and molecules that make up the air (Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, etc.) are mostly transparent because they don't absorb much visible light.  Light does scatter from these particles though.  The light is scattered by them more at some wavelengths than others, which is why the sky appears bluish during the daytime (shorter wavelengths tend to scatter more than longer ones).  The amount of scattering is small though, as the relative transmission of visible light after traveling horizontally through the atmosphere is still 50%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosph%C3%A4rische_Absorption.png

I'm not trying to prove anything with this post, I just thought I'd throw my two cents in, as atomic and molecular absorption spectroscopy is my specialty.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 02, 2010, 05:38:21 PM

Air particles are not transparent. The space between those particles is, however.

The various kinds of atoms and molecules that make up the air (Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, etc.) are mostly transparent because they don't absorb much visible light.  Light does scatter from these particles though.  The light is scattered by them more at some wavelengths than others, which is why the sky appears bluish during the daytime (shorter wavelengths tend to scatter more than longer ones).  The amount of scattering is small though, as the relative transmission of visible light after traveling horizontally through the atmosphere is still 50%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosph%C3%A4rische_Absorption.png

I'm not trying to prove anything with this post, I just thought I'd throw my two cents in, as atomic and molecular absorption spectroscopy is my specialty.

Lol, take a hit of that knowledge bong, TB.

The various kinds of atoms and molecules that make up the air (Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, etc.) are mostly transparent because they don't absorb much visible light.

Atoms aren't transparent. 

Not even even the atoms in a pane of glass are transparent.

Quote

The various kinds of atoms and molecules that make up the air (Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, etc.) are mostly transparent because they don't absorb much visible light.

Atoms aren't transparent. 

Not even even the atoms in a pane of glass are transparent.

Then how the fuck do you see through it, genius?

If glass isn't transparent, then what the hell is?

From http://www.glassonweb.com/articles/article/159/

Q. Glass is something we use every day, a transparent material produced by melting a mixture of sand, calcium, oxide, and other raw materials and then cooling the resulting product. But have you ever wondered what makes glass transparent? Why can we see through window and not through the frame that enclose it?

A. In general most liquids and gases like water, air, natural gas, cooking oil, or rubbing alcohol are transparent, while solid materials like wood, metal, ceramics, etc. are opaque. That is because of a difference between the molecular structure of solids, liquids and gases. When a substance is in its solid state, molecules are ordered in a regular lattice just like bricks stacked neatly on top of one another, being virtually impenetrable for light waves. The molecules of an substance in the liquid stage are disordered and are not rigidly bound. This causes the disordered stacking of the molecules, creating gaps and holes that allow portions of light waves to pass through. The greater the gaps in molecular organization the easier it is for light to pass through. As glass in neither liquid nor solid, because its molecules are motionless (like a solid) but random in configuration (like a liquid), glass exists in a solid yet transparent state

So glass is transparent? Good to know.

The atoms in glass are not transparent, as I've said.

One can only see through glass because of how the atoms are arranged. The "transparency" is open space. Just as the "transparency" in air is open space.

Then what is glass? It is solid and yet I can see through it.

Some people say that glass is actually a very viscous liquid.

looking back on the topic at hand, do you really think getting your own way in this argument matters? The point is that I can see through air. It is transparent

It really depends on how you define air.

If you're defining it as a collection of atoms, then no, atoms are not transparent.

However, if you define air as a collection of atoms and the space between them, then sure, you could sort of construe that air is transparent.

It's much like saying that you can see through a brick wall with a big round hole in it, and that it's transparent. Sure, you can "see" through the brick wall with a hole in it. But you're not really looking through the wall. You're looking through the hole.

Quote

Air particles are not transparent. The space between those particles is, however.

Then what is glass? It is solid and yet I can see through it. It's particles must either be non-existent or transparent. Just like air OmGzOrZ/!?

Some people say that glass is actually a liquid.

And those people would be misinterpreting evidence based on church windows and do not take into consideration antique telescopic lenses which would have lost all their clarity if glass did indeed flow.