Atmospheric "Clouding" of Distant Objects

I understand that light does not "travel infinitely" through the atmosphere and that, according to FET, this is why distant objects cannot be seen. But when night falls, the visibility of distant objects, such as stars, which aren't visible during the day, increases dramatically.

If, as FET claims, atmospheric "clouding" accounts for the sun's disappearance over the horizon at sunset, why does the nighttime moon set and vanish at precisely the same level, when there is virtually no clouding? Since atmospheric clouding is all but nonexistent at night, we would expect the moon to be visible for much longer, and perhaps even at a lower point than the sun is when approaching its vanishing point.

Instead, we see these celestial bodies setting at the same level, regardless of clouding; thus, their disappearance cannot be attributable to it. The corollary to this is that the nighttime invisibility of all distant, earthbound phenomena (e.g. mountains, buildings, city lights, ships, etc.) must be attributable to something other than atmospheric clouding. This raises questions as to why they are unobservable at night, even with powerful telescopes.


What is FET's response to this?

Atmosphere acts like a focusing telescope over distance.

Atmosphere acts like a focusing telescope over distance.

Then why aren't distant mountains, buildings, city lights, etc. visible at night, even with the aid of powerful telescopes? If the only reason we can't normally see these things is that they're obscured by atmospheric clouding, which is all but nonexistent at night, what accounts for their nighttime invisibility?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2016, 02:12:40 AM

Atmosphere acts like a focusing telescope over distance.

Then why aren't distant mountains, buildings, city lights, etc. visible at night, even with the aid of powerful telescopes? If the only reason we can't normally see these things is that they're obscured by atmospheric clouding, which is all but nonexistent at night, what accounts for their nighttime non-visibility?

As far as I know, at night, mountains do not have any light on them so cannot reflect to your vision.

As far as I know, at night, mountains do not have any light on them so cannot reflect to your vision.

They do when bathed in moonlight.

What about buildings and city lights?

Quote from: Logick on December 22, 2016, 04:14:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2016, 02:12:40 AM

Atmosphere acts like a focusing telescope over distance.

Then why aren't distant mountains, buildings, city lights, etc. visible at night, even with the aid of powerful telescopes? If the only reason we can't normally see these things is that they're obscured by atmospheric clouding, which is all but nonexistent at night, what accounts for their nighttime non-visibility?

As far as I know, at night, mountains do not have any light on them so cannot reflect to your vision.

of course they do. If you ever decide to actually venture outside your basement and outside your city and into the lights-free countryside you will discover that.... THERE IS LIGHT THERE.  Moonlight and starlight is surprisingly bright or do you think that nighttime is like the inside of your window-less basement if you turn the lights off?

Quote from: Logick on December 22, 2016, 04:14:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2016, 02:12:40 AM

Atmosphere acts like a focusing telescope over distance.

Then why aren't distant mountains, buildings, city lights, etc. visible at night, even with the aid of powerful telescopes? If the only reason we can't normally see these things is that they're obscured by atmospheric clouding, which is all but nonexistent at night, what accounts for their nighttime non-visibility?

As far as I know, at night, mountains do not have any light on them so cannot reflect to your vision.

What ever gave you that crazy idea, sceptimatic ? LOL !

If you should ever venture outside your windows or your basement or where ever you are, you can see plenty of mountains at night if you go to the right places.

For those in the USA, these are some of the places I have found with the clearest nights.:
Mc Donald Observatory on Mount Locke near Fort Davis, Texas, especially at one of the "Star Parties".
Big Bend National Park in Texas, especially in the Panther Junction Visitor Center area
Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, especially in the Yavapai Lodge West area
The motel at Chambers, Arizona, especially at the far end of the parking area, looking East, south of I-40
You can see lots of mountains at night at those places !

Incidentally, on a historic note, survivors of the Titanic tragedy, while seated in their life boats, reported clearly seeing stars  rising and setting on the horizon.

Incidentally, on a historic note, survivors of the Titanic tragedy, while seated in their life boats, reported clearly seeing stars  rising and setting on the horizon.

Hmm, that's interesting.

I think this blows a major hole in FET, as it largely depends on atmospheric clouding to explain why distant terrestrial and celestial phenomena are invisible. Frankly, I'm surprised no FEers have addressed this major oversight, though I'm hoping some will come forward in this thread.

I think this blows a major hole in FET, as it largely depends on atmospheric clouding to explain why distant terrestrial and celestial phenomena are invisible. Frankly, I'm surprised no FEers have addressed this major oversight, though I'm hoping some will come forward in this thread.

Sure, but why let a few facts get in the way? There's always a bit of spare carpet to brush them under.

Quote from: Googleotomy on December 24, 2016, 09:51:20 AM

Incidentally, on a historic note, survivors of the Titanic tragedy, while seated in their life boats, reported clearly seeing stars  rising and setting on the horizon.

Hmm, that's interesting.

I think this blows a major hole in FET, as it largely depends on atmospheric clouding to explain why distant terrestrial and celestial phenomena are invisible. Frankly, I'm surprised no FEers have addressed this major oversight, though I'm hoping some will come forward in this thread.

The survivors also saw the ship break in half except for those who said it didn't. They saw a nearby ship that apparently wasn't there. How can you trust their testimony? And even on the outside chance that there actually was "rising and setting" going on, it will have been due to perspective.

And even on the outside chance that there actually was "rising and setting" going on, it will have been due to perspective.

Might you elaborate? Are you referring to the perspective effects that account for the gradual shrinking and apparent disappearance of distant terrestrial phenomena, as exemplified by this photo of railroad tracks?



As celestial phenomena don't shrink along their journey over the horizon, this particular effect does not apply. Since they retain their size and relative positions and abruptly vanish upon contact with the horizon, something else accounts for why they do.

I realize some believe "atmoplanic lensing" keeps the sun's apparent size constant. These people use atmospheric clouding and "perspective" to explain its disappearance, but neither apply to nighttime celestial phenomena such as the moon and stars; additionally, such lensing and "perspective" would be mutually exclusive as regards their disappearance.


What is FET's response to this?

Quote from: Boots on December 25, 2016, 06:28:31 PM

And even on the outside chance that there actually was "rising and setting" going on, it will have been due to perspective.

Might you elaborate?

No. It's just due to perspective and that is that! Plane and simple.

No. It's just due to perspective and that is that! Plane and simple.

"Perspective" isn't some monolithic concept. It has subsets. For example:

Crepuscular rays:

train tracks:

and this shit:


Without having to get into the details as to why, we can tell the setting of the moon and stars doesn't fit under the category of these phenomena, so why do you assume their disappearance over the horizon is attributable to some sort of perspectival illusion?

Quote from: Boots on December 26, 2016, 11:09:11 AM

No. It's just due to perspective and that is that! Plane and simple.

...why do you assume their disappearance over the horizon is attributable to some sort of perspectival illusion?

Are you suggesting that I am illuded?

Are you suggesting that I am illuded?

Don't answer a question with a question. A question is not an answer... quite the opposite actually.

This is the Q&A forum, after all, so either provide an actual answer, or STFU.

Quote from: Boots on December 26, 2016, 07:56:17 PM

Are you suggesting that I am illuded?

Don't answer a question with a question. A question is not an answer... quite the opposite actually.

This is the Q&A forum, after all, so either provide an actual answer, or STFU.

You got your answer.  Because that is how perspective works on a FE.  If it does not then the Sun should never appear to touch the horizon as the math predicts.

You can see it happening in this experiment:



Keep in mind if you think the camera is below the surface of the table the person doing the experiment claims,"Actually no it was precisely on, but it doesn't really matter, you get the idea of the experiment."

So there you go. Experimental evidence that the Sun appears to set due to perspective.

To give the poster of that video some credit he admits to being deceived by other FE's.  He says he now sees how he was mistaken.

What is FET's response to this?

I just gave you a typical FEer response and you told me to STFU.

What is FET's response to this?

You have asked this quite correctly in the Flat Earth Q&A.

The only problem is that as of often the case you get few Flat Earth responses.
So far, the only ones have been:

Atmosphere acts like a focusing telescope over distance.

and

Quote from: Logick on December 22, 2016, 04:14:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2016, 02:12:40 AM

Atmosphere acts like a focusing telescope over distance.

Then why aren't distant mountains, buildings, city lights, etc. visible at night, even with the aid of powerful telescopes? If the only reason we can't normally see these things is that they're obscured by atmospheric clouding, which is all but nonexistent at night, what accounts for their nighttime non-visibility?

As far as I know, at night, mountains do not have any light on them so cannot reflect to your vision.

All others have been from Globe supporters, trying to give the FE explanation.

As is often the case, apart from sceptimatic's ideas you have had no genuine FE explanation.
I like the others could quote "the Wiki", but I guess you can look that up.

It seems as though few actually support the ideas given in "the Wiki".

You can see it happening in this experiment:

This experiment still wouldn't account for the sun's apparent constant size, which, since atmoplanic lensing and "perspective" are mutually exclusive as regards the disappearance of celestial phenomena over the horizon (i.e. lensing would cancel out the gradual shrinkage caused by perspective), cannot be attributable to the former if the latter is indeed the cause of its disappearance.

Keep in mind if you think the camera is below the surface of the table the person doing the experiment claims,"Actually no it was precisely on, but it doesn't really matter, you get the idea of the experiment."

Actually, it really does matter. Just because he claims it was "precisely on" doesn't mean he's telling the truth. In repeating the experiment, I don't achieve the same results. And using common sense, it's obvious that his results were due to his camera not being precisely on the surface.

If the sun's constant size is due to lensing, then its disappearance can't be attributable to perspective. And if its disappearance is due to perspective, lensing cannot account for its constant size. This applies to all celestial phenomena. (And we can rule out the atmospheric clouding excuse, at least for nighttime phenomena.)

So, how do we explain their disappearance?

You have asked this quite correctly in the Flat Earth Q&A

I know. I've asked the mods to move this to the debate forum, but they've seemingly ignored my request, haha.