# Clouds vs Mountains

• 10 Replies
• 3668 Views
?

#### icanbeanything

• 472
##### Clouds vs Mountains
« on: May 07, 2013, 01:55:11 PM »
WARNING: The following post contains basic trigonometry!

Let's start from two basic assumptions:
1) Distant mountains are not visible beyond ~100km because the air is not transparent enough, i.e. it becomes hazy.
2) When there's a full cloud cover, it appears to touch the horizon because of perspective, but in reality it's two parallel planes.

Let's calculate how far away the line of clouds is, which appears to touch the horizon due to perspective. According to Wikipedia, the angular resolution of the naked eye is about one arcminute [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye]. Objects that fall within this angle on your visual field cannot be told apart and appear as one. It can vary among individuals, but let's take this as the value (it cannot vary too dramatically anyway). Let's also assume a cloud cover at a height of 10km, for simplicity. NOTE that you can do the following simple calculation using your own values for angular resolution and cloud cover height, just to compare.

Cue epic MS Paint skills:

To get the distance d between the observer and the cloud cover at the point it 'touches' the horizon due to perspective, we must divide the cloud cover height by the sine of the resolution angle.

d = 10km/(sin(1')) = 10km/0.00029 = 34483 km

We get that the point where the cloud cover meets the horizon is almost 34500 km from the viewer. It's basically outside the 'habitable world'. Yet your eyes can clearly see it through all that air. We can deduce that assumptions 1 and 2 can not be true at the same time.

Addendum: assumption 1 is, by itself, false, proven by simple observation. You can see the moon rising on the horizon, yet its light travels much further through the same layers of air that would stand between you and a mountain.

Just for funzies, here is the same calculation for cloud cover distance at the point it touches the visible horizon, on a globe:

Taking Ro (Earth radius) as 6371 km, we can apply the Pythagorean theorem:

d2 = 63812 - 63712 (in km of course)
d = 357 km

This is the distance that'd be between you and the cloud cover on the horizon. Unless there's a mountain in the way

?

#### Scintific Method

• 1448
• Trust, but verify.
##### Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2013, 03:28:35 PM »
Going with a more realistic cloud height of 1km doesn't help either. Distance to the point where cloud cover blends with the horizon only comes back to 3,448km for a flat earth, but all the way back to 113km for a round earth.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

#### Lolflatdisc

• 635
##### Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2013, 03:44:25 PM »
What is this suppose to proof? Using a telescope allows you to see further away, yet you will not be able to see more clouds, because of the curvation of the earth.
Hello!

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2013, 03:54:04 PM »
He is showing that the FE excuse of atmospheric opacity does not hold true.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Scintific Method

• 1448
• Trust, but verify.
##### Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2013, 06:12:15 PM »
Thanks Rama. Yes, I was showing that, even with lower cloud cover, the FE theory still doesn't work.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

#### Lolflatdisc

• 635
##### Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2013, 07:35:40 PM »
Thanks Rama. Yes, I was showing that, even with lower cloud cover, the FE theory still doesn't work.

Pretty much everything does. Can't believe people like Daniel Shenton is still not convinced. There are so many ways to disproof the flat earth in general. Surely some parts of the theory, like a wall keeping in the water in the oceans could exist, but then again this contradicts a whole lot of other things.

The simplest way for Daniel Shenton to actually see the curvation of the earth is to send a camera up into the sky using a weather balloon like so many amateurs already did. Then he would hold raw footage of the curvation of the earth he knows no one could have tampered with.

Surely it will be explained by some unknown phenomenae, but then again there is so much other proof, including your explanation. As long as the flat earth theory contradicts itself, where the spherical earth has all the answers, it is proven to me we live on a spherical earth.

Hello!

?

#### darknavyseal

• 439
• Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
##### Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2013, 12:24:35 PM »
Thanks Rama. Yes, I was showing that, even with lower cloud cover, the FE theory still doesn't work.

Pretty much everything does. Can't believe people like Daniel Shenton is still not convinced. There are so many ways to disproof the flat earth in general. Surely some parts of the theory, like a wall keeping in the water in the oceans could exist, but then again this contradicts a whole lot of other things.

The simplest way for Daniel Shenton to actually see the curvation of the earth is to send a camera up into the sky using a weather balloon like so many amateurs already did. Then he would hold raw footage of the curvation of the earth he knows no one could have tampered with.

Surely it will be explained by some unknown phenomenae, but then again there is so much other proof, including your explanation. As long as the flat earth theory contradicts itself, where the spherical earth has all the answers, it is proven to me we live on a spherical earth.

Ah, but then, a curved Earth will prove that bendy light exists! It's a catch-22. They believe in FE, so they will warp whatever data they find to match the theory. They accuse us of dogma. hm...

?

#### APenNameAndThatA

• 21
##### Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2013, 07:19:49 AM »
Thanks Rama. Yes, I was showing that, even with lower cloud cover, the FE theory still doesn't work.

Pretty much everything does. Can't believe people like Daniel Shenton is still not convinced. There are so many ways to disproof the flat earth in general. Surely some parts of the theory, like a wall keeping in the water in the oceans could exist, but then again this contradicts a whole lot of other things.

The simplest way for Daniel Shenton to actually see the curvation of the earth is to send a camera up into the sky using a weather balloon like so many amateurs already did. Then he would hold raw footage of the curvation of the earth he knows no one could have tampered with.

Surely it will be explained by some unknown phenomenae, but then again there is so much other proof, including your explanation. As long as the flat earth theory contradicts itself, where the spherical earth has all the answers, it is proven to me we live on a spherical earth.

You know perfectly well that most people do not have the resources to do this.  If you paid the cost of the balloon, then I'm sure that he would do it.  But you will not, will you?  It is clear that you are saying that it is only reasonable for someone to do something that you would not assist them to do.  I am disappointed in you.  At the risk of being impolite, I must confess that I am not surprised by you.  Such is human nature.

#### DuckDodgers

• One Duck to Rule Them All
• 5479
• What's supposed to go here?
##### Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2013, 07:26:37 AM »
Thanks Rama. Yes, I was showing that, even with lower cloud cover, the FE theory still doesn't work.

Pretty much everything does. Can't believe people like Daniel Shenton is still not convinced. There are so many ways to disproof the flat earth in general. Surely some parts of the theory, like a wall keeping in the water in the oceans could exist, but then again this contradicts a whole lot of other things.

The simplest way for Daniel Shenton to actually see the curvation of the earth is to send a camera up into the sky using a weather balloon like so many amateurs already did. Then he would hold raw footage of the curvation of the earth he knows no one could have tampered with.

Surely it will be explained by some unknown phenomenae, but then again there is so much other proof, including your explanation. As long as the flat earth theory contradicts itself, where the spherical earth has all the answers, it is proven to me we live on a spherical earth.

You know perfectly well that most people do not have the resources to do this.  If you paid the cost of the balloon, then I'm sure that he would do it.  But you will not, will you?  It is clear that you are saying that it is only reasonable for someone to do something that you would not assist them to do.  I am disappointed in you.  At the risk of being impolite, I must confess that I am not surprised by you.  Such is human nature.

It is not unreasonable for someone to propose an experiment that could show the truth.  If Daniel Shenton is the one questioning the shape of the Earth, he should be the one that pays for the experiment if he so chooses to do it.  It is truly unreasonable to demand someone else to assist him in his endeavor, and basically pay the him to do this experiment wholly.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

#### Lolflatdisc

• 635
##### Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2013, 08:01:37 AM »
Thanks Rama. Yes, I was showing that, even with lower cloud cover, the FE theory still doesn't work.

Pretty much everything does. Can't believe people like Daniel Shenton is still not convinced. There are so many ways to disproof the flat earth in general. Surely some parts of the theory, like a wall keeping in the water in the oceans could exist, but then again this contradicts a whole lot of other things.

The simplest way for Daniel Shenton to actually see the curvation of the earth is to send a camera up into the sky using a weather balloon like so many amateurs already did. Then he would hold raw footage of the curvation of the earth he knows no one could have tampered with.

Surely it will be explained by some unknown phenomenae, but then again there is so much other proof, including your explanation. As long as the flat earth theory contradicts itself, where the spherical earth has all the answers, it is proven to me we live on a spherical earth.

You know perfectly well that most people do not have the resources to do this.  If you paid the cost of the balloon, then I'm sure that he would do it.  But you will not, will you?  It is clear that you are saying that it is only reasonable for someone to do something that you would not assist them to do.  I am disappointed in you.  At the risk of being impolite, I must confess that I am not surprised by you.  Such is human nature.

I am not the one who's telling the earth is flat. If he wants to proof the earth is flat and get solid evidence, that is the way to go forward. I believe weather balloons are available for around €40,-/\$50, so the whole experiment isn't a costly one. If he cannot find the resources himself, he may ask the flat earth community or anyone interested to donate for this experiment, to provide proof of a flat earth. It is very impolite to demand someone else to pay for the experiment like that.
Hello!

?

#### icanbeanything

• 472
##### Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2013, 10:54:55 AM »

You know perfectly well that most people do not have the resources to do this.  If you paid the cost of the balloon, then I'm sure that he would do it.  But you will not, will you?  It is clear that you are saying that it is only reasonable for someone to do something that you would not assist them to do.  I am disappointed in you.  At the risk of being impolite, I must confess that I am not surprised by you.  Such is human nature.

Launching a weather balloon with a few attached HD cameras and a return parachute can cost about \$200. Make sure to add a GPS tracker so you can find it after it lands. I haven't done this personally, but many groups in my city have, it has a nearly 100% success rate.

It may not convince flat earthers about the shape of the world, but nevertheless it's a very cool experience to have, and it definitely isn't expensive!