100 mile view from sea-level

I took this photo this weekend for you guys.
The mountains on the left are 100 miles away

Thank you for this powerful evidence of a planar Earth.

I'd call it evidence that you can see 100+ miles at sea-level.

Okay and my use of sea-level is a little um, loose. Technically the tide was out so the sea was below "sea-level" while i was on rocks that would've been covered had it been high-tide.  It didn't affect what I'm gonna see 100 miles out because I have a photo of that too.

This is supposed to convince me of a globular earth, how?


 

Thank you for this powerful evidence of a planar Earth.

This is supposed to convince me of a globular earth, how?


 

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on July 01, 2013, 03:56:35 PM

Thank you for this powerful evidence of a planar Earth.

There's been some discussion on atmo... air... getting in the way and limiting sight.

If I wanted to prove something I'd get a boat and time-lapse boating towards that mountain range that holds glaciers and a national boarder like this gif.



Here's another photo.

There's been some discussion on atmo... air... getting in the way and limiting sight.

Some days are clearer than others, this is true in all models of the earth that I know of.  I am willing to take you on your word that those mountains are 100 miles from the photographer but that does not mean that air is transparent.

I am willing to take you on your word that those mountains are 100 miles from the photographer but that does not mean that air is transparent.

Seriously, if a medium that you can see 100 miles through isn't transparent, then what is? 

What is the height of the mountain above sea level? The drop on round earth would be 6666'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

What is the height of the mountain above sea level? The drop on round earth would be 6666'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

  that is not correct. it is about half that.

Lets start with EnaG. It says the horizon always rises to the eye line, due to perspective.

What is really happening is that the eye is always drawn to the horizon. It is an optical illusion. If the angle is measured it is easily shown. I live on high enough hills to of roughly verified this personally.



This is what is really what you are looking at when seeing something disappear over the horizon when standing on a globe. It is a little hard to grasp for most, but this is how it is. Of course my image is wildly exaggerated. But this may help in the future when debunking RET.

FlatOrange, is there any chance you could try this experiment on those mountains? I'd be interested to see how high they look, compared to how high they should look for a FE. Measurement from one point should do for this purpose.

I took this photo this weekend for you guys.
The mountains on the left are 100 miles away

Nice picture.  If you don't mind sharing, what's the location?  I'd like to check those mountains out on google earth to see how much is hidden behind the horizon.

Quote from: FlatOrange on July 01, 2013, 03:44:29 PM

(clip)

I took this photo this weekend for you guys.
The mountains on the left are 100 miles away

Nice picture.  If you don't mind sharing, what's the location?  I'd like to check those mountains out on google earth to see how much is hidden behind the horizon.

58.6474833, -137.1480167
57.2968639, -135.8408917

FlatOrange, is there any chance you could try this experiment on those mountains? I'd be interested to see how high they look, compared to how high they should look for a FE. Measurement from one point should do for this purpose.

I won't be going back there for awhile. Plus... I didn't read that thread. I'm zonked for today. Good night.

Quote from: hoppy on July 01, 2013, 06:58:17 PM

What is the height of the mountain above sea level? The drop on round earth would be 6666'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

  that is not correct. it is about half that.

Lets start with EnaG. It says the horizon always rises to the eye line, due to perspective.

What is really happening is that the eye is always drawn to the horizon. It is an optical illusion. If the angle is measured it is easily shown. I live on high enough hills to of roughly verified this personally.



This is what is really what you are looking at when seeing something disappear over the horizon when standing on a globe. It is a little hard to grasp for most, but this is how it is. Of course my image is wildly exaggerated. But this may help in the future when debunking RET.

12,431 ft at the peak.

The drawing is really crude. No one's angled forward to look over a hill. You're so small your line of sight is tangent to the earth at the point you're standing.  100 miles is .4% of the circumference.

Please note; "this image is wildly exaggerated". It is for illustration purposes. If drawn to scale there would be nothing to see.

Seriously, if a medium that you can see 100 miles through isn't transparent, then what is? 

A perfect vacuum, and only that. No medium will allow light to pass entirely unobstructed, and as such no medium is perfectly transparent.

Quote from: markjo on July 01, 2013, 06:34:39 PM

Seriously, if a medium that you can see 100 miles through isn't transparent, then what is? 

A perfect vacuum, and only that. No medium will allow light to pass entirely unobstructed, and as such no medium is perfectly transparent.

Who said anything about "perfectly" transparent?

Who said anything about "perfectly" transparent?

Well, if you're not talking about perfect transparency, then you're wasting everyone's time. Air is partially transparent. We all know that. Therefore, I assumed that you asked your question in good faith and answered accordingly. If you didn't, we'll have to settle on "Irrelevant." as your answer.

Quote from: markjo on July 02, 2013, 06:27:13 AM

Who said anything about "perfectly" transparent?

Well, if you're not talking about perfect transparency, then you're wasting everyone's time. Air is partially transparent. We all know that. Therefore, I assumed that you asked your question in good faith and answered accordingly. If you didn't, we'll have to settle on "Irrelevant." as your answer.

Then blame Pong for wasting everyone's time because his post (that I responded to) never said anything about perfect transparency.

I am willing to take you on your word that those mountains are 100 miles from the photographer but that does not mean that air is transparent.

Then blame Pong for wasting everyone's time because his post (that I responded to) never said anything about perfect transparency.

No, markjo, your failure to understand the usage of terms on this forum is your own fault. However, now that you've clarified that you are wasting everyone's time, you should probably consider stopping.

Quote from: markjo on July 02, 2013, 07:07:44 AM

Then blame Pong for wasting everyone's time because his post (that I responded to) never said anything about perfect transparency.

No, markjo, your failure to understand the usage of terms on this forum is your own fault.

Since when is transparency an absolute term?

Well unless those moutains rise right up out of the water, the bottom part must be hidden from view. Any chance we can zoom in for a closer look?

Since when is transparency an absolute term?

Quite a long time, I'd imagine, but I can't find any historical records of when it was first defined. From Wikipedia:

In the field of optics, transparency (also called pellucidity or diaphaneity) is the physical property of allowing light to pass through the material without being scattered.

Light cannot pass through air without being scattered. The scattering is small, but there. Air is therefore not transparent.

Can you point us to the glossary of PizzaPlanet approved definitions? Maybe that would cut down on the "time wasting". 

Wikipedia will work for the most part, really. Just use it responsibly. Cue angry noob linking me to a page defining the Earth as round.

Quote from: markjo on July 02, 2013, 08:05:49 AM

Since when is transparency an absolute term?

Quite a long time, I'd imagine, but I can't find any historical records of when it was first defined. From Wikipedia:

Quote

In the field of optics, transparency (also called pellucidity or diaphaneity) is the physical property of allowing light to pass through the material without being scattered.

Light cannot pass through air without being scattered. The scattering is small, but there. Air is therefore not transparent.

Then "transparency" is just a theoretical term with no real world applications.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Then "transparency" is just a theoretical term with no real world applications.  Thanks for clearing that up.

It's useful for approximations and simplifications, so it actually has quite a few applications. Are you done shitting up this thread yet?

Quote from: markjo on July 02, 2013, 09:37:41 AM

Then "transparency" is just a theoretical term with no real world applications.  Thanks for clearing that up.

It's useful for approximations and simplifications, so it actually has quite a few applications.

Then it can be said that if you can see through 100 miles of atmosphere, then it is transparent?  Sheesh, will you make up your mind?

What's the limit? We can't just say some days are clearer than others. There must be some limit to clear day atmo air. I've seen 160 miles on a cloudy day. On a clear day can I see Hawaii or Russia? No, why not?

Typically, the transparency (or lack thereof) of the atmosphere is not the limiting factor.  In RET, the limiting factor is more likely to be the curvature of the earth,  while obstructions and the limit of angular resolution make it hard to see far away lands in FET.

What is the height of the mountain above sea level? The drop on round earth would be 6666'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

Did you have no rebuttal when you read 12k feet? Do you suppose that since only mountains so tall are viewable 100 miles across a body of water that it's an indication that the body of water is curved?

FErs have gone silent on my most recent threads. Apart from ski who admits my diagram didn't make sense to him.