How Far Can You See?

There has been threads about this. You need the sun for shadow lengths, yard sticks and measurements from locations a mile apart at the same time.

Oh the shadows....uh huh.  And you're positive there is nothing else that can explain the difference in shadow lengths?

Quote from: jroa on July 11, 2014, 06:52:02 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 11, 2014, 06:46:49 AM

Alright, look.  You clearly either did not read your link or you did not understand it.  Your objections fail to mention refraction which is probably the single largest contributor to the visibility of the mountain.

So, are you claiming bendy light is responsible for this?

Stop trolling please. 

I will when you do it. 

Quote from: Rama Set on July 11, 2014, 06:57:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on July 11, 2014, 06:52:02 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 11, 2014, 06:46:49 AM

Alright, look.  You clearly either did not read your link or you did not understand it.  Your objections fail to mention refraction which is probably the single largest contributor to the visibility of the mountain.

So, are you claiming bendy light is responsible for this?

Stop trolling please. 

I will when you do it.

I have not been trolling.  You are a mod, and I am respectfully asking you to stop trolling please.

And trig. Which means that you can't do it unfortunately.

You're such a smart guy, Rot.  Smart ASS.

So, are you claiming bendy light is responsible for this?

Can you give us a break from your repetitious, silly one-liner rhetoric jroa?  In case you hadn't noticed, some of us are actually trying to have an educated debate here.  Please grow up.

Quote from: jroa on July 11, 2014, 06:52:02 AM

So, are you claiming bendy light is responsible for this?

Can you give us a break from your repetitious, silly one-liner rhetoric jroa?  In case you hadn't noticed, some of us are actually trying to have an educated debate here.  Please grow up.

Yeah, you have added so much content to this thread.  Oh, wait, you haven't.  You simply jump from thread to thread complaining about how the FE'ers post. 

I can attest to that.

This is a kind of weird self debunking thread.

It certainly was thoughtful of Spacey to provide both a terrible argument and all the evidence against it in one post.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 08:00:56 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on July 10, 2014, 07:43:19 PM

Rot and Shmeg,
We KNOW how it works in your model.  No it's not possible on a round Earth because at that distance it really would be below the horizon.  You cannot have it both ways.

Both ways? This is the way we've always said it works.

smh No Rotty, what I mean is, even though the caps of the mountains are 15,000 feet high, in your model, that is still not high enough to be seen 400 miles away due to curvature.

Then something on that page must be wrong. What's wrong with it, and from how far can you see a 15,000 foot peak? Just provide the proper method to work it out.

even though the caps of the mountains are 15,000 feet high, in your model, that is still not high enough to be seen 400 miles away due to curvature.

Why don't you take us through the calculations that have led you to this conclusion?

Then something on that page must be wrong. What's wrong with it, and from how far can you see a 15,000 foot peak? Just provide the proper method to work it out.

Why don't you take us through the calculations that have led you to this conclusion?

Please re-read post #22

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 07:48:13 AM

Then something on that page must be wrong. What's wrong with it, and from how far can you see a 15,000 foot peak? Just provide the proper method to work it out.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 11, 2014, 08:01:33 AM

Why don't you take us through the calculations that have led you to this conclusion?

Please re-read post #22

That post contained no calculations nor did it even bother to mention refraction which is eloqently described in the article.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 07:48:13 AM

Then something on that page must be wrong. What's wrong with it, and from how far can you see a 15,000 foot peak? Just provide the proper method to work it out.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 11, 2014, 08:01:33 AM

Why don't you take us through the calculations that have led you to this conclusion?

Please re-read post #22

That is precisely the post Jimmy was responding to.  We are more than happy to assume that you have not done or can not do any calculations, or that you have not read the link you posted or even the quote that you cited in the OP.  This is what seems to be the case; you are completely ignoring the existence of refraction in your refutation when it is crucial to the optics involved in the situation.  The amount of refraction has been calculated in the link you cited.

Would you care to elaborate on what your problem with your OP is or shall we assume that you posted something far beyond your comprehension?

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 07:48:13 AM

Then something on that page must be wrong. What's wrong with it, and from how far can you see a 15,000 foot peak? Just provide the proper method to work it out.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 11, 2014, 08:01:33 AM

Why don't you take us through the calculations that have led you to this conclusion?

Please re-read post #22

Sorry, I'm confused: has someone been and edited #22 to remove the calculations?   

This conspiracy goes deeper than I could ever have imagined!

Wow, it's pretty clear in the post... I admitted it doesn't prove the Earth is flat.  No need for calculations.
*It also doesn't prove the Earth is curved.

Wow, it's pretty clear in the post... I admitted it doesn't prove the Earth is flat.  No need for calculations.
*It also doesn't prove the Earth is curved.

Do you know the difference between an assertion or claim and proof?  Your link proves that it is possible. Your refutation is only an opinion. Take the following statement: Earthisnotaspaceship is Barrack Obama. From your criteria evidenced in the thread, I have proven you are POTUS. However, you might notice there is no rationale or evidence. So in reality, nothing has been proved. I have only asserted or claimed you are POTUS.

Now, care to try and prove why your OP is false?

Lets keep this simple, no trig or other (hard) stuff. If 8 inches a mile is correct then 400 *8=3200 /12= 267 feet   1500-267=13527 feet. You gotta be blind not to see that. look no trig, did it hurt?.

Wow, it's pretty clear in the post... I admitted it doesn't prove the Earth is flat.  No need for calculations.
*It also doesn't prove the Earth is curved.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

Lets keep this simple, no trig or other (hard) stuff. If 8 inches a mile is correct then 400 *8=3200 /12= 267 feet   1500-267=13527 feet. You gotta be blind not to see that. look no trig, did it hurt?.

That 8 inches per mile is not a linear function. It grows exponentially.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on July 11, 2014, 02:45:14 PM

Wow, it's pretty clear in the post... I admitted it doesn't prove the Earth is flat.  No need for calculations.
*It also doesn't prove the Earth is curved.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

Indeed. Besides, the math isn't attempting to prove that the earth is round. It's attempting to demonstrate why you can see that mountain.

That 8 inches per mile is not a linear function. It grows exponentially.

This is a basic piece of mathematical theory that many flat earthers have misunderstood repeatedly in the past.

Maybe we should explain for their benefit that exponential change occurs when the growth or decreasing rate of the value of a mathematical function is proportional to the function's current value.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 11, 2014, 06:19:14 PM

That 8 inches per mile is not a linear function. It grows exponentially.

This is a basic piece of mathematical theory that many flat earthers have misunderstood repeatedly in the past.

Maybe we should explain for their benefit that exponential change occurs when the growth or decreasing rate of the value of a mathematical function is proportional to the function's current value.

It seems to me that many more RE'ers are confused by this than FE'ers.  Read back on the thread. 

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 12, 2014, 05:16:11 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 11, 2014, 06:19:14 PM

That 8 inches per mile is not a linear function. It grows exponentially.

This is a basic piece of mathematical theory that many flat earthers have misunderstood repeatedly in the past.

Maybe we should explain for their benefit that exponential change occurs when the growth or decreasing rate of the value of a mathematical function is proportional to the function's current value.

It seems to me that many more RE'ers are confused by this than FE'ers.  Read back on the thread.

Perhaps you could show us where we are confused?  I read back and I saw some vague refutation by spaceship and scepti saying, "lol, this is impossible!" without substantially addressing the modeling of the optics. Where I come from that is called a waste of time. This thread might be the oddest and most damaging thread to the FE hypothesis that a FEer has ever posted.

It seems to me that many more RE'ers are confused by this than FE'ers.  Read back on the thread.

Lots of things "seem" to be what they're not to you jroa—like many other flat earthers here.

EartIsASpaceship said earlier (of the distant mountain) that it:  "can still be visible even if the Earth curved  downward 8 inches per mile".

What she's apparently ignoring is that the 8" drop is only for the first mile from the observer.  The overall drop of the mountain peak—again from the observer—is a logarithmic function.  In other words, an object 10 miles distant from an observer has not dropped by approximately 80" (10 x 8").  It's actually dropped by approximately 8 hundred inches.

Perhaps you could show us where we are confused?  I read back and I saw some vague refutation by spaceship and scepti saying, "lol, this is impossible!" without substantially addressing the modeling of the optics.

This is sceptimatic's response to around 99% of the scientific evidence posted on these forums LOL.

In the past he's claimed to be both a "scientist" and a "genius" but is obviously neither.  One can only hope he was making these claims with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek.  You can safely ignore anything and everything that sceptimatic posts here.

—And I hope my little explanation (above) is of some help.

The fact that it is exponential should be news to the delight of flat earthers if they weren't already aware of the fact. Looking back on the thread it was only one round earther who demonstrated not understanding this. No sweat on my brow. I'm happy to correct a round earther as much as any flat earther. This exponential function was considered in the diagram though so it doesn't matter. The point of the problem that the diagram and math presented solves is how we can see the mountain despite the fact that we shouldn't be able to so long as refraction is present, which it always is. All accounted for by suggestions of perfect conditions and considerations of refraction. This thread is bad for flat earthers because it demonstrates not only that considering as many variables as possible, rotundity is plausible, but because it also demonstrates that some of them don't comprehend the evidence when it is presented to them.

Quote from: jroa on July 12, 2014, 05:41:00 AM

It seems to me that many more RE'ers are confused by this than FE'ers.  Read back on the thread.

Lots of things "seem" to be what they're not to you jroa—like many other flat earthers here.

EartIsASpaceship said earlier (of the distant mountain) that it:  "can still be visible even if the Earth curved  downward 8 inches per mile".

What she's apparently ignoring is that the 8" drop is only for the first mile from the observer.  The overall drop of the mountain peak—again from the observer—is a logarithmic function.  In other words, an object 10 miles distant from an observer has not dropped by approximately 80" (10 x 8").  It's actually dropped by approximately 8 hundred inches.

If 828m Burj Khalifa can be seen from a hundred km away, why a mountain over 5 times as tall shouldn't be visible from that much further? Especially given the perfect visual conditions.

Lets keep this simple, no trig or other (hard) stuff. If 8 inches a mile is correct then 400 *8=3200 /12= 267 feet   1500-267=13527 feet. You gotta be blind not to see that. look no trig, did it hurt?.

That is twice as many RE'ers who got confused about this compared to the FE'ers. 

So there are stupid RE'rs too. Your point?

My point is that ausGeoff acts as if FE'ers are idiots and RE'ers are perfect.  Did you even read his post? 

My point is that ausGeoff acts as if FE'ers are idiots and RE'ers are perfect.  Did you even read his post?

I did and I mentioned that I mostly agreed with you. I said that I didn't see anyone not recognizing that the earths curvature is not linear other than round earthers. I'm not ausgeoff so I'm not necessarily speaking for him but I did address what he said. So I found it confusing that you quoted people after I already resolved this. At least I thought I did anyway. Anyway, clearly ITT we can see that there are indoctrinated people on both sides. People accept that the earth is round without understanding or caring about why but some of your less intelligent flat earthers do exactly the same thing. Without even taking the time to digest the link people just drew conclusions. People just ignored how curvature works, how refractions works and so on.