2013 Virgin Galactic Flights

When the first Virgin Galactic flight takes off for a 68 mile high trip into space what will FE'rs do when thousands of photos from Joe Citizen flood the Internet and show the curvature of the Earth?  What about the interviews that will take place upon their return from the maiden flight.  There are more than 532 people on the waiting list for the space flights.  How will the FE conspiracy hold up when the average (albeit wealthy) citizen comes back with no agenda to report how amazing their space flight was and how they could "see the curve of the Earth".

At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle.

So if it looks like a circle and is a flat plane then the space flight will have to be directly above the circle.  And if they are not directly above the circle and are at any angle then it will look elliptical and flat.  There will be no apparent curve whatsoever correct?

So if it looks like a circle and is a flat plane then the space flight will have to be directly above the circle.  And if they are not directly above the circle and are at any angle then it will look elliptical and flat.  There will be no apparent curve whatsoever correct?

Correct, the curvature seen at such altitudes are slight and elliptical.

Quote from: RE or FE? on November 26, 2012, 11:02:51 AM

So if it looks like a circle and is a flat plane then the space flight will have to be directly above the circle.  And if they are not directly above the circle and are at any angle then it will look elliptical and flat.  There will be no apparent curve whatsoever correct?

Correct, the curvature seen at such altitudes are slight and elliptical.

You are admitting there will be a curvature?  If so then what you are saying is that the appearance would be similar to looking at the top of a dome.  This is not a flat plane then.  I am not trying to create an argument...just trying to understand what you are saying exactly.

At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle.

What is the diameter of that circle?

And will they see all the continents of the earth at once? 

And will they see all the continents of the earth at once?

Perhaps not all of the continents but a good portion of them if we are following FET rules of the Earth's shape according to their maps.  We should be able to see a good portion of the entire planet if FET actually proves to be true.

However, Tom has referenced in an above post that there will in fact be a curvature to the Earth so I am very perplexed by this statement considering it contravenes FET.

Curvature does not contradict FET. The atmolayer is not 100% transparent and thus the observers distance vision fades at a certain radius depending on the altitude. A 360 degree radial turn results in the observer looking down at a circle and circles have curvature. Thus the horizon will appear curved.

Though, of course the passengers will be able to see all the continents?  And the ice wall? And the infinite plane?

What's an atmolayer anyway?  Another postulate?

The sun lights up only a small section of earth. You wouldn't be able to see the infinite plane, or all of the continents. The distance is also faded by the atmosphere in such scenes.

The sun lights up only a small section of earth. You wouldn't be able to see the infinite plane, or all of the continents. The distance is also faded by the atmosphere in such scenes.

So the Sun (which emits light from all angles simultaneously) only shines its light onto a small portion of Earth at a time correct?

So the Flat Earth Society has redefined how the Sun works as well if I am understanding correctly?  The Sun somehow is now a flashlight correct?

The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions. Its light is limited in its duration across the surface of the earth much like the light from a lighthouse is limited in its extent around it. The light from a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. After a distance the light from a light house peters out due to terrestrial perspective and the density of the atmosphere.

have you done any experimentation? any measurements at all?

what's your scientific back on this?

Which part of my post are you questioning?

1. That the sun is a sphere
2. That the light of a light house does not propagate for infinity
3. That the light of a light house is limited by terrestrial perspective and density of the atmosphere

The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions.

Stop....right there.  If the Earth is a flat plane and the Sun is a sphere emitting light in all directions and the Sun is infinitely above the Earth at all times as claimed by FE'rs then the entire Earth would be illuminated 24/7/365.  Unless when you say "shines in all directions" you mean "shines only on one area".  Which do you mean?  Because if you agree the Sun is a sphere and shines light in all directions and the Earth is a flat plane then explain why it is now dark outside while I type this message.  Not only have FE'rs redefined what the Sun is am I now to understand that FE'rs have also redefined how light particles behave?

Now please provide some scientific backing and research that explains to me how light particles simultaneously dispersed in every direction illuminate ONLY a single spot on a flat plane and not the entire surface.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2012, 03:40:09 PM

The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions.

Stop....right there.  If the Earth is a flat plane and the Sun is a sphere emitting light in all directions and the Sun is infinitely above the Earth at all times as claimed by FE'rs then the entire Earth would be illuminated 24/7/365.  Unless when you say "shines in all directions" you mean "shines only on one area".  Which do you mean?  Because if you agree the Sun is a sphere and shines light in all directions and the Earth is a flat plane then explain why it is now dark outside while I type this message.  Not only have FE'rs redefined what the Sun is am I now to understand that FE'rs have also redefined how light particles behave?

Now please provide some scientific backing and research that explains to me how light particles simultaneously dispersed in every direction illuminate ONLY a single spot on a flat plane and not the entire surface.

The sun's light is limited in extent just as the light from a light house is limited in extent. The light does not propagate indefinitely into the distance. Its limit is diminished by the opacity of the atmosphere and terrestrial perspective.

The sun is also not infinitely above the Earth. Its approximate altitude is 3100 miles.

...and the Sun is infinitely above the Earth at all times...

The sun is also not infinitely above the Earth. Its approximate altitude is 3100 miles.

Comprehension 101..... Beautiful.

The sun's light is limited in extent just as the light from a light house is limited in extent.

The sun now includes a Fresnel Lens I am told.

Which part of my post are you questioning?

1. That the sun is a sphere
2. That the light of a light house does not propagate for infinity
3. That the light of a light house is limited by terrestrial perspective and density of the atmosphere

i am questioning your comparison between the sun and a light house

it's totally irrelevant. i don't see any point of comparing the two.

there's still no science, no data

The sun lights up only a small section of earth. You wouldn't be able to see the infinite plane, or all of the continents. The distance is also faded by the atmosphere in such scenes.

Doesn't the rest of the infinite plane ever get lit up?  Is it only "our" bit, that we call earth, that gets sunlight?  Otherwise might not see another load of land masses and go "err, what's that?"

Quote from: RE or FE? on November 26, 2012, 08:49:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2012, 03:40:09 PM

The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions.

Stop....right there.  If the Earth is a flat plane and the Sun is a sphere emitting light in all directions and the Sun is infinitely above the Earth at all times as claimed by FE'rs then the entire Earth would be illuminated 24/7/365.  Unless when you say "shines in all directions" you mean "shines only on one area".  Which do you mean?  Because if you agree the Sun is a sphere and shines light in all directions and the Earth is a flat plane then explain why it is now dark outside while I type this message.  Not only have FE'rs redefined what the Sun is am I now to understand that FE'rs have also redefined how light particles behave?

Now please provide some scientific backing and research that explains to me how light particles simultaneously dispersed in every direction illuminate ONLY a single spot on a flat plane and not the entire surface.

The sun's light is limited in extent just as the light from a light house is limited in extent. The light does not propagate indefinitely into the distance. Its limit is diminished by the opacity of the atmosphere and terrestrial perspective.

This argument and forum have made me realize regardless of the logic applied that FE'rs simply believe what they believe simply because they do not recognize or acknowledge those that have come before them who demonstrated findings through proven scientific results based on the scientific method.  I am not interested in debating semantics. 

You believe what you believe and it is not my right to say whether you are right or wrong.  What I can say is that your process for arriving at your conclusions is flawed.  If you disagree with this then it means you do not understand the fundamental process and basic structure of an argument. 

Your premises must be true in order for your conclusion to be true.  You may have 15 supporting premises be true and one untrue premise and it will always render a conclusion as false.

What is incorrect about Tom Bishop's statements? You can rant all your want (we have a section specifically for that, by the way), but what you say has no meaning when you can not even point to what you want to argue.

What is incorrect about Tom Bishop's statements? You can rant all your want (we have a section specifically for that, by the way), but what you say has no meaning when you can not even point to what you want to argue.

Nobody is "ranting" - you are just trying to typify an argument as emotional so you can dismiss it out of hand.  Another low content post from yourself.

I am just asking questions about the infinite plane as seen from space, maybe you could have a crack:

Doesn't the rest of the infinite plane ever get lit up?  Is it only "our" bit, that we call earth, that gets sunlight?  Otherwise might not see another load of land masses and go "err, what's that?"

So when someone sees this from space, this is the lit portion of the disk, correct?



So if the sun's light shines down on a circle of the earth, what is distorting the view from space to make it look like this crescent shape?

Also, since there is no atmosphere in space, the moon should be visible all of the time over the infinite plane given that there is nothing preventing one from being able to see it. So why can it not be seen all of the time, and why it can be seen rising up over the horizon while a craft/the ISS is in orbit. This image below will demonstrate what I'm talking about.



EDIT: Does the moon rest on the earth at times, and it is now rising up out of the fog of the atmosphere into space?

The larger picture is not real, the smaller images are of the Earth's lit disc.

Doesn't the rest of the infinite plane ever get lit up?  Is it only "our" bit, that we call earth, that gets sunlight?  Otherwise might not see another load of land masses and go "err, what's that?"

Lighting an infinite plane would require an infinite Sun. The Sun is not infinite in size.

The larger picture is not real, the smaller images are of the Earth's lit disc.

Well I guess I should have seen that one coming. How do you know it's not real? The source states that it's from Apollo 11.  I'm sure I can find other images from Apollo, or maybe from Russian space missions. If you want to wait a few years, I can pull images from Chinese moon missions.

Now, you say the other images are of "earth's lit disc," but that was not relevant to the questions about the other images.

Well I guess I should have seen that one coming. How do you know it's not real? The source states that it's from Apollo 11.  I'm sure I can find other images from Apollo, or maybe from Russian space missions. If you want to wait a few years, I can pull images from Chinese moon missions.

How do you know its real? Have you sent the equipment up yourself to see? Funny that all personal cameras sent up via balloons and rockets show a disc, but this picture shows a globe

Now, you say the other images are of "earth's lit disc," but that was not relevant to the questions about the other images.

The moon is simply fading from view, it is still obscured by the upper atmolayer.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 27, 2012, 12:46:44 PM

Now, you say the other images are of "earth's lit disc," but that was not relevant to the questions about the other images.

The moon is simply fading from view, it is still obscured by the upper atmolayer.

So the atmosphere extends indefinitely, even to the point of being at the same altitude as the moon? This means it would also be at the same altitude as the sun.

The moon is fading from view, appearing to move downward, from ~400km above the surface of the earth, where there is little to no atmosphere present. What phenomena are we invoking to explain the reason for this?

So the atmosphere extends indefinitely, even to the point of being at the same altitude as the moon? This means it would also be at the same altitude as the sun.

I can't say if the atmolayer extends indefinitely, as I have never had an indefinite altitude. However, the Moon is of lower altitude than the Sun, and thus the atmolayer would be a bit thicker at Moon level.

The moon is fading from view, appearing to move downward, from ~400km above the surface of the earth, where there is little to no atmosphere present. What phenomena are we invoking to explain the reason for this?

That is a perspective trick. If you look down a long street, the street lamps will appear to get closer to the horizon, but they're not. The farther something is, the harder time your eyes will have judging the perspective. It's the same reason the Moon appears larger when closer to the horizon.