Shouldn't we be able to see beaches of other countries if we used telescopes?

Hello everyone,

So, if there is not curvature, it should be easy, without any confusing math or calculations, to just stand on two opposing beaches of two different countries that are hundreds of miles apart and we should still be able to achieve line of sight vision. Has this been tried before? Because this would just end the argument right there to my initial understanding. There are so many examples if you look at the map. The water separating Poland and Sweden, Egypt and Turkey. The distance between a shore in Egypt and another in Turkey can easily exceed 350 miles. Shouldn't that be more than enough to make sure that WAY more than enough curvature should be in effect? Logically, it follows that if someone stood on the shores of Turkey, and if the earth is flat, then they would indeed see the shores of Egypt using a very powerful telescope. Can someone confirm if that would be a proper experiment?

EDIT: I understand that similar experiments have been done. But I haven't yet encountered one at that scale. What I've seen so far involves math and requires people to follow along with the calculation because the numbers just kinda barely make it. But if we want to prove this beyond the shadow if doubt, why not just really increase the scale of the experiment so that it would make doing the math kinda silly?

Air isn't clear / a vacuum so you can't see indefinitely.

Air isn't clear / a vacuum so you can't see indefinitely.

Yet we can see the constellations setting while the stars retain their angular separation.

Air isn't clear / a vacuum so you can't see indefinitely.

According to Flat Earth Hypothesis, the stars attached to the firmament are some 3K to 5K miles away, we can see them clearly enough with the naked eye. So why can we not see city lights, directly as opposed to atmospheric glow, from the same 3-5K miles away?

Air isn't clear / a vacuum so you can't see indefinitely.

Yet we see stars setting and rising.

inbdreams I understand that you wish to get a reasonable answer for this. Sadly the answers are seldom reasonable.

When confronted with factual observation, Flat Earthers won't hesitate to claim, for example, that light doesn't go in a straight line. I.E seeing an object somewhere doesn't mean that it is there, likewise not seeing it there doesn't mean it isn't.

Sad truth about Flat Earth, it works only without reason.

I'll give the answer a go in FE style.

Stars are a psyop, they don't exist. Chemtrails are used to create the illusion of stars. All historical records noting the existence of stars before chemtrail technology was developed have been retconned by NASA. That's why you can't see stars in video and pictures like the redbull ballon, because it's flying higher than the chemtrails.

Hey, this shit is easy.

There is less air as you travel upwards.

Whereas when you look across, for example, the ocean you have water vapor that scatters the light.  Have you ever wondered why mountains appear to fade away as you recede from them?

But sure, a completely unreasonable answer.

There is less air as you travel upwards.

Whereas when you look across, for example, the ocean you have water vapor that scatters the light.  Have you ever wondered why mountains appear to fade away as you recede from them?

But sure, a completely unreasonable answer.

Ok, with you so far for stars that are overhead, what other FE effect accounts for the light from visible stars on or near the horizon and would therefore be further away from the viewer than city lights and would travel through even more of the atmosphere/water vapour than the city lights?

Have you tried looking at stars on the horizon? It gets increasingly harder the closer you get the horizon. This is due to both light pollution and the previously mentioned reason.

Have you tried looking at stars on the horizon? It gets increasingly harder the closer you get the horizon. This is due to both light pollution and the previously mentioned reason.

Increasingly hard does not mean totally invisible like the city lights which you've claimed to be totally invisible at a shorter distance due to atmospheric conditions, even though both are in the same direction you're looking on a FE.

You've yet to answer, why, when looking towards a city on a FE, you can't see the city lights on the horizon but you can see the stars attached to the dome behind and further away and in the same direction as the city?

The Stars are still above all the air pollution, and all the water vapor.

The Stars are still above all the air pollution, and all the water vapor.

Yes the air near the horizon is not so clear because the effective air thickness is much greater,
but we can still see the moon, brighter planets and brighter stars down to quite close to the horizon when the air is clear!

So don't try to use this as an explanation of the sun or moon rising or setting!

The Stars are still above all the air pollution, and all the water vapor.

You can see stars that are a few degrees off the horizon on a FE, you'd actually be looking through even more of the atmosphere all the way to a star that's just above the horizon.

So I'll ask again, why can't you see the city lights directly between you and the star you can see just above the horizon on the FE?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 25, 2016, 05:07:47 PM

The Stars are still above all the air pollution, and all the water vapor.

You can see stars that are a few degrees off the horizon on a FE, you'd actually be looking through even more of the atmosphere all the way to a star that's just above the horizon.

So I'll ask again, why can't you see the city lights directly between you and the star you can see just above the horizon on the FE?

And extension of this is that if the earth was flat distant high mountains would block the sunrise and sunset.

Air isn't clear / a vacuum so you can't see indefinitely.

Thank you. Well, couldn't there be any other way to establish a line of sight communication? Like a really powerful and concentrated laser beam? Now, since we're on the topic, does the flat earth community have falsifiable criteria? As in, x happened we would be wrong? I am reading your material and it got me intrigued, but if you don't have falsifiability criteria, I can't take this seriously. For myself I will make my own falsifiable criteria. What are yours, however?

Quote from: John Davis on May 25, 2016, 08:06:23 AM

Air isn't clear / a vacuum so you can't see indefinitely.

Thank you. Well, couldn't there be any other way to establish a line of sight communication? Like a really powerful and concentrated laser beam? Now, since we're on the topic, does the flat earth community have falsifiable criteria? As in, x happened we would be wrong? I am reading your material and it got me intrigued, but if you don't have falsifiability criteria, I can't take this seriously. For myself I will make my own falsifiable criteria. What are yours, however?

Heads, the earth is flat, tails the earth isn't round, if it lands on neither, its round?

Shouldn't we be able to see beaches of other countries if we used telescopes?

Da ladies don't like tuh be called beaches.   

Quote from: inbdreams on May 25, 2016, 10:46:36 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 25, 2016, 08:06:23 AM

Air isn't clear / a vacuum so you can't see indefinitely.

Thank you. Well, couldn't there be any other way to establish a line of sight communication? Like a really powerful and concentrated laser beam? Now, since we're on the topic, does the flat earth community have falsifiable criteria? As in, x happened we would be wrong? I am reading your material and it got me intrigued, but if you don't have falsifiability criteria, I can't take this seriously. For myself I will make my own falsifiable criteria. What are yours, however?

Heads, the earth is flat, tails the earth isn't round, if it lands on neither, its round?

I wouldn't consider it round based on a coin flip like I admit most people do. But now I am asking you for your falsifiability criteria. What is it? When can you be proven wrong? If what happened? If what was demonstrated/discovered? Anything other than the obvious hard stuff for the regular folk to do? Because I can't fly to the dome or go to the south pole for obvious reasons. Anything within the scope of practicality?

Have you tried looking at stars on the horizon? It gets increasingly harder the closer you get the horizon. This is due to both light pollution and the previously mentioned reason.

Is that what is happening here?



Presumably the pollution is so thick round Chicago that it looks like, err, a lake?  And the tops of those skyscrapers just stick out of the impenetrable smog?

Strangely, if you move away from Chicago another couple of miles the tops of the building also disappear into the smog as well.....

Quote from: John Davis on May 25, 2016, 01:14:29 PM

Have you tried looking at stars on the horizon? It gets increasingly harder the closer you get the horizon. This is due to both light pollution and the previously mentioned reason.

Is that what is happening here?



Presumably the pollution is so thick round Chicago that it looks like, err, a lake?  And the tops of those skyscrapers just stick out of the impenetrable smog?

Strangely, if you move away from Chicago another couple of miles the tops of the building also disappear into the smog as well.....

No. I'm sure you heard the common explanation. Of course, mine differs. The line from the cities base travels a straight line into the ground. The light from the top travels a straight line to our eyes. The light from stars beyond also travels a straight line to our eyes. This is because the space is non-euclidean.

Of course, mine differs. The line from the cities base travels a straight line into the ground. The light from the top travels a straight line to our eyes.

That doesn't make any sense.  Can you draw me a diagram to demonstrate what you mean?

If you guys really want to know why things disappear into the distance. Read and try to understand this explanation. Even take some time andstudy this. Please overcome your ignorance.

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

If you guys really want to know why things disappear into the distance. Read and try to understand this explanation. Even take some time andstudy this. Please overcome your ignorance.

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

And then get your telescope out and realise that a ship "hull down" remains "hull down" even when magnified.

I agree, read Earth: Not A Globe. I'll work on that diagram though for you when I get some spare time.

If you guys really want to know why things disappear into the distance. Read and try to understand this explanation. Even take some time and study this. Please overcome your ignorance.

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

Obscured and small are not the same thing.

So I'll ask again, why can't you see the city lights directly between you and the star you can see just above the horizon on the FE?

--- because light does not travel forever through everything.  Eventually, light dies out. 

Quote from: SkepticMike on May 25, 2016, 10:11:42 PM

So I'll ask again, why can't you see the city lights directly between you and the star you can see just above the horizon on the FE?

--- because light does not travel forever through everything.  Eventually, light dies out.

On a FE the light from stars attached to the dome at or near eye level have a longer distance to travel than the city lights that are in between you and the stars, yet you can see the stars but not the city lights, explain why?

I agree, read Earth: Not A Globe. I'll work on that diagram though for you when I get some spare time.

So not air pollution then?  If we believe ENaG then with a powerful enough telescope you could see all of Chicago from St Joseph's?



Is this what you are now saying John?

If you guys really want to know why things disappear into the distance. Read and try to understand this explanation. Even take some time andstudy this. Please overcome your ignorance.

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

The maths are completely wrong and easily invalidated by experience.

He's basically saying that ships disappear hull first because your eye line is closer to the bottom of the ship than it is to the top.

If that was the case, a man at half the altitude of the mast should never see the hull disappear. His eye line being at the exact middle between the top and the bottom of the ship, everything should fade evenly.

Even worse : if you believe his maths, a man with an eye line closer to the top of the ship than the bottom would see the ship disappear top first !

It is the kind of absurdity told by his figures. If you don't see it, I can make other diagrams to ellaborate on his.