Why can't I see the Santa Catalina Island Casino from the California Coast ?

  • 50 Replies
  • 10989 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
The distance from Brazil to Mt Everest is roughly 15,000 km and there is no possible way that anything, even the sun, could be see through that much of the clearest air.
The issue with this is that it means we should see the horizon as a blur, not as a clear line.
We can see stars on the horizon. So clearly visibility through the atmosphere isn't an issue.
If it was going to be we wouldn't stand a chance at seeing the stars or moon on the horizon.
It's a bit hard to visual what a flat earth horizon might be like because . . . . . .

There would be  a "blur" but it would be very narrow, almost a line.
For an eye height of 2 m the horizon on the Globe is about 5 km away and 0.045 below eye-level.
That's a hardly noticeable 0.55 mm at arms-length and even that is a just gradually increasing blur till it fully merges with the light blue sky at the "horizon".

I've seen one claim that a more obvious difference might be when tall white-sided cumulus clouds are on the horizon.
The base of such clouds is typical about 1000 m above the surface and on the Globe would meet the horizon a little over 100 km away.
So on the Globe we would see only the white sides of the cumulus clouds. I've seen this sort of thing but have no photographic evidence.

But on a flat-earth the undersides of these clouds would be visible forming an obvious dark line along the horizon.

It might be subtle but possibly more definitive difference.

The following is a bit long so skip  it if you like.
Now you say that:
"We can see stars on the horizon. So clearly visibility through the atmosphere isn't an issue.
  If it was going to be we wouldn't stand a chance at seeing the stars or moon on the horizon."
Visibility is certainly a huge issue near the horizon and this is amenable to at least approximate calculations.

There are of necessity many holes in what appears below.
I don't want to go into detail here, but even in the clearest air Rayleigh and Mie Scattering cause the contrast between an object and background to be reduced by a factor of about e for each 60 km of air path.
The lIght from a celestial object that appears on the Globe horizon will pass through roughly the equivalent of 300 km of air path.

The apparent brightness of the sun, moon, planet and stars  is compared using "apparent stellar magnitude".
Magnitude 1 was originally assigned to the brightest star and the faintest star visible to the unaided eye is magnitude 6.
This is a log scale and each "magnitude" represents (for ancient reasons) a factor of 1001/5 or 2.512. This translates to 1 extra magnitude and it be shown that each 55 km of the above clearest air will add an extra magnitude. 
So that 300 km will decrease the brightness by 300/55 or about 5.5 magnitudes.

Now the magnitudes of common objects are, the Sun -26.7 and the full moon -12.6 so these would still be quite visible though very much dimmed, as observed at sunset.
And the magnitudes of Venus (at brightest) -4.4, Mars (at brightest) -3.0, Sirius (brightest star) -1.6 and the Naked eye limit in an urban neighborhood +3.0.
So in this "clearest air" the brightness objects should be seen at the horizon but this "clearest air" rarely occurs and there is often haze that obscures even the moon right on the horizon.

That's a hardly noticeable 0.55 mm at arms-length and even that is a just gradually increasing blur till it fully merges with the light blue sky at the "horizon".
It would become a lot more noticeable with a telescope.

There are of necessity many holes in what appears below.
I don't want to go into detail here, but even in the clearest air Rayleigh and Mie Scattering cause the contrast between an object and background to be reduced by a factor of about e for each 60 km of air path.
The lIght from a celestial object that appears on the Globe horizon will pass through roughly the equivalent of 300 km of air path.
Whereas for a FE, it should be anywhere from roughly 0 to 40 000 km, depending upon location and direction.

but this "clearest air" rarely occurs and there is often haze that obscures even the moon right on the horizon.
But it does occur some times and that time would be when you want to look for Mt Everest.

*

mikeyjames

  • 11
  • Another Aussie
The distance from Brazil to Mt Everest is roughly 15,000 km and there is no possible way that anything, even the sun, could be see through that much of the clearest air.
The issue with this is that it means we should see the horizon as a blur, not as a clear line.
We can see stars on the horizon. So clearly visibility through the atmosphere isn't an issue.
If it was going to be we wouldn't stand a chance at seeing the stars or moon on the horizon.





So if the earth were flat, I should be able to go out to a coastal cliff around Sydney tomorrow morning, get out my telescope, and just before sunrise watch Jupiter rise in the ESE with New Zealand in the background. I don't see why this shouldn't work on a flat earth, as the Jupiter that I see coming into view - supposedly due to perspective - would obviously have to be much further away than New Zealand, in the same direction, through the same atmosphere. So why one and not the other?





*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
That's a hardly noticeable 0.55 mm at arms-length and even that is a just gradually increasing blur till it fully merges with the light blue sky at the "horizon".
It would become a lot more noticeable with a telescope.

There are of necessity many holes in what appears below.
I don't want to go into detail here, but even in the clearest air Rayleigh and Mie Scattering cause the contrast between an object and background to be reduced by a factor of about e for each 60 km of air path.
The lIght from a celestial object that appears on the Globe horizon will pass through roughly the equivalent of 300 km of air path.
Whereas for a FE, it should be anywhere from roughly 0 to 40 000 km, depending upon location and direction.
So? The sun's apparent magnitude is -26.7 and a barely visible star under the best conditions has an apparent magnitude of 6.
Hence if the sun's apparent magnitude is raised (weird ancient upside-down unit!) by 32.7 the sun becomes barely visible.
This 32.7 change in apparent magnitude corresponds to about 1800 km of the clearest sea-level air.

Quote from: JackBlack
but this "clearest air" rarely occurs and there is often haze that obscures even the moon right on the horizon.
But it does occur some times and that time would be when you want to look for Mt Everest.
Yes, but even the clearest air still has Rayleigh and Mie Scattering and the figures I gave were for this clearest air.
And the question that brought this up was seeing Mt Everest from Brazil to which I answered:
Quote
The distance from Brazil to Mt Everest is roughly 15,000 km and there is no possible way that anything, even the sun, could be see through that much of the clearest air.
Even the sun could not be seen through much more than 1800 km of the clearest sea-level air.
This would be increased by the path from 400m in Brazil to Mt Everest, at 8,848 m, being in less dense air, but not to anything like 15,000 km.

So if the earth were flat, I should be able to go out to a coastal cliff around Sydney tomorrow morning, get out my telescope, and just before sunrise watch Jupiter rise in the ESE with New Zealand in the background. I don't see why this shouldn't work on a flat earth, as the Jupiter that I see coming into view - supposedly due to perspective - would obviously have to be much further away than New Zealand, in the same direction, through the same atmosphere. So why one and not the other?
Mikey, Brisbane's a lot closer. Point your telescope this way and I'll wave ;D  ;)!
We Australians are a hard bunch to convince on this flat-earth stuff - aren't we.

PS JackBlack's also Australian and very much a flat-earth sceptic too.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18447
  • Thread Janitor
I should be able to go out to a coastal cliff around Sydney tomorrow morning, get out my telescope, and just before sunrise watch Jupiter rise in the ESE with New Zealand in the background.

Awesome, can't wait for your report.



This 32.7 change in apparent magnitude corresponds to about 1800 km of the clearest sea-level air.
Which would just be further evidence against a FE.
The fact that we can clearly see objects on the horizon further away than the object in question shows that limited visibility through the atmosphere is not the issue.

I fully understand that things that far away shouldn't be visible. Yet we clearly see objects on the horizon, much further away, so if Earth is flat, that can't be the issue.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
This 32.7 change in apparent magnitude corresponds to about 1800 km of the clearest sea-level air.
Which would just be further evidence against a FE.
Of course I don't for a second think that the earth is flat.
What I'm arguing against those that claim if the earth were flat they should be able so see XXX from YYY where XXX is many thousands of kilometres from YYY.

And that is no evidence against the flat earth.
XXX would not be visible from YYY on a flat earth because the atmosphere is not sufficiently transparent and
XXX would not be visible from YYY on the Globe because XXX would be hidden by the earth.

That's all.

Quote from: JackBlack
The fact that we can clearly see objects on the horizon further away than the object in question shows that limited visibility through the atmosphere is not the issue.

I fully understand that things that far away shouldn't be visible. Yet we clearly see objects on the horizon, much further away, so if Earth is flat, that can't be the issue.
Sure, and those things that we see on, or near, the horizon are seen through mot more than the equivalent of 300 km of air.
But I would contend that only the very brightest of planets (Venus, Mars and Jupiter) and stars (Sirius) will ever be seen on the horizon.

Sure, and those things that we see on, or near, the horizon are seen through mot more than the equivalent of 300 km of air.
Yes, for the RE.
But if Earth is flat, then it needs to pass through a lot more.


The Tunguska incident which sandokhan keeps repeating was a one time incident under unusual conditions.
There has been no evidence of this except at this one time.
On a normal day, under normal conditions , can you see Tunguska from London ?
In the original incident, could you really see Tunguska or just the light above Tunguska at the very most stretches of the imagination ?


Again, each issue was addressed in this link:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3937.0


To repeat such an event, in London, we need the ball lightning technology employed by Tesla.

The very fact that the explosion was seen from London, where newspapers could be read at midnight without the need of street lighting, while at the same time the light from the Sun could not be seen at all (due to the curvature of the Earth, say the RE) means one thing: there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.


Moreover, we have the eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and other villages which did see the explosion (and described it in great detail), an event which could not possibly have taken place on a spherical Earth, given the precise calculations involving curvature.


As if this wasn't enough, the very trajectory of the ball lightning object was seen from London (the letter sent to the London Times on July 1, 1908), having occurred between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (7:00 am - 7:15 am Tunguska time), exactly the FIFTEEN MINUTES calculated for the object to go from Khezma to Preobrazhenka and then back to Tunguska.


Let us read again the words of Dr. Felix Zigel,  aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation: "no natural object is capable of such a feat".



Let us remember that the explosion took place at some 7 km in the atmosphere, that is why it could be seen over great distances on the flat earth.


https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/582x643q90/203/l6sl.jpg


The explosion was seen all over Europe and Asia: newspapers could be read in Stockholm without street lighting (not to mention Berlin and Antwerp).


And we also have very detailed data showing that the lights could be seen (at a lower intensity) for three days PRIOR to the explosion: confirming the fact that Tesla was carefully preparing the experiment for it to take place on June 30, 1908 (that is, he was sending only one scalar wave in the region of Tunguska).
Tunguska is roughly 5800 miles away from london and the explosion was observed by many. Why can't we see the sun or the moon at much shorter distances

Perhaps the atmosphere is thinner at higher altitudes, hence things are visible from farther away.
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

Of course I don't for a second think that the earth is flat.
What I'm arguing against those that claim if the earth were flat they should be able so see...

Why are you spending your free time arguing with people over an issue that doesn't affect you in any way?

Does it upset you from an ideological standpoint?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 11:26:48 PM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

Stash

  • 4920
Of course I don't for a second think that the earth is flat.
What I'm arguing against those that claim if the earth were flat they should be able so see...

Why are you spending your free time arguing with people over an issue that doesn't affect you in any way?

Does it upset you from an ideological standpoint?

Why are you spending your free time asking people why they are arguing with people over an issue that doesn't affect you in any way?

Does it upset you from an ideological standpoint?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Of course I don't for a second think that the earth is flat.
What I'm arguing against those that claim if the earth were flat they should be able so see...
Why are you spending your free time arguing with people over an issue that doesn't affect you in any way?
Not in the slightest!

What bothers me is that flat-Earthers simply have to claim that at least hundreds of thousands of people are either directly lying or at least deceiving the "common people" simply to "hide the true shape of the Earth".

Somehow these people, including YOU apparently, seem to regard NASA and space missions as part of this deception.
What seems to be ignored is that at least in European countries and the  Middle East, including India, the Globe has been the accepted shape of the Earth.

I'll give you numerous references supporting that if you so choose.

The modern flat-Earth hypothesis seems to quite a recent development starting around 1800 and strengthening with Rowbotham's Zetetic Astronomy in the latter part of the 1800s.

It has only gained traction with the spread of pseudo-science made easy by the Internet.
That is more an indication of weaknesses in the modern education system.
I think that a big reason for that is that there is so much "knowledge" these days that schools feel obliged to "teach" that this teaching has become more akin to "indoctrination" - just as flat-Earthers claim!
Schools should concentrate more on why we believe these things even if less material can be covered.
I see the problem but don't have a simple solution that would satisfy everybody.

One huge problem for flat Earthers is that there is no flat Earth theory that explains many of the simple things that anyone can see.
And the is no one flat Earth map that comes close to "working"!

All most flat-Earthers ever seem to do is come up with things that they cannot understand and claim it's evidence for a flat-Earth.
It is not - it is simple evidence that said flat-Earthers cannot understand some things about the Globe - even when explanations are available.

It's scary to think we are being lied to but also kind of hilarious because the lie is not even remotely plausible.

If water lies flat, then all you would need is a long canal, say 7 miles long and straight and then see if you can see a flag from one end to the other.

If you can see the flag then the earth is flat.

Really that should be the end of it.
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

Yes

  • 604
Really that should be the end of it.

So be it!
Welcome to round earth!
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 14254
Of course I don't for a second think that the earth is flat.
What I'm arguing against those that claim if the earth were flat they should be able so see...

Why are you spending your free time arguing with people over an issue that doesn't affect you in any way?

Does it upset you from an ideological standpoint?
Why are you spending your free time necroing long-dead threads claiming there is an argument happening when no one has posted in this thread for over a year?

Does it upset you from an ideological standpoint?

If water lies flat
It doesn't.

All you need to see that is to go out to the ocean and watch how large ships disappear as the go over the horizon, then get higher and see that it is still visible.

then all you would need is a long canal, say 7 miles long and straight and then see if you can see a flag from one end to the other.
If you can see the flag then the earth is flat.
No.
Lets say you aren't standing with your eyes at water level and likewise the flag isn't at water level.
That means you need to take into consideration the distance to the horizon from where you are standing, and then how much should be obscured by the horizon.

Even if you ignore refraction, if your eye level is 8 feet above the water, and the flag is slightly over 8 feet high, then it should be visible, even with Earth being round.
If you factor in refraction, it gets even worse for you.

A better experiment would be a series of markers placed an equal height above the water, and see if they all line up.
If Earth is flat, they should.
If Earth is round, with the commonly accepted radius (again ignoring refraction), they shouldn't line up. If you ignore refraction, over 7 miles the middle point should be roughly 8 feet above the first and last flags. Refraction will lesson that.

This has been done, and it was shown that Earth wasn't flat.

*

Macarios

  • 2028
It's scary to think we are being lied to but also kind of hilarious because the lie is not even remotely plausible.

If water lies flat, then all you would need is a long canal, say 7 miles long and straight and then see if you can see a flag from one end to the other.

If you can see the flag then the earth is flat.

Really that should be the end of it.

The canal was measured and the curve was found.
But if you get close enough to water, the refraction index under selected condition will allow you to see the flag.

See what Wallace did at the Old Bedford.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

To come back to the topic:
Could someone please post a photo of the Santa Catalina Island taken from the California Coast?

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18447
  • Thread Janitor

Could someone please post a photo of the Santa Catalina Island taken from the California Coast?



Could someone please post a photo of the Santa Catalina Island taken from the California Coast?



Extremely revealing, indeed.