The Horizon On A Flat Earth

Googleotomy, you know I have been to sea.  Remember that time you tried to make yourself out to be a Naval genious, and then you admitted that you were only in the Navy for 2 years, and then we laughed when I stated that I had probably been on more ships and spent more time at sea than you in my 8 years in the Marine Corps?  Oh, those were the good old days. 

I miss the good old days.

Googleotomy, you know I have been to sea.  Remember that time you tried to make yourself out to be a Naval genious, and then you admitted that you were only in the Navy for 2 years, and then we laughed when I stated that I had probably been on more ships and spent more time at sea than you in my 8 years in the Marine Corps?  Oh, those were the good old days.

OK. No claims for being a genius. I'm no intikam or sceptimatic. I don't even claim to be a  "real sailor".
But back to the question. It appears to me that if the earth was flat you could see all the way across the earth from ice wall to ice wall if it wasn't for "the thickness of the atmoplane."
There is no curvature to limit the distance you could see and that's where the horizon is on the "round earth." So where is the horizon on a flat earth ? And how would you estimate the distance to it on a flat earth ?. Would there even be a horizon as we know it on a flat earth ?

When you were at sea, what did you see ?

Corrrection . I was in the Navy 4 years. 3 years of that was sea duty.1 year was Boot Camp and ET School and Leaves.

Full Disclosure, I am a 'round earther' but given this is Flat Earth Q&A I will attempt a 'flat earth answer',

The point of a horizon is an illusion. It's like saying because you can see a rainbow, there must be an edge. There is no edge or point where the rainbow begins or ends.

Also keep in mind our eyesight is very poor. Our ability to resolve objects far out is very limited. An eagle could make out an individual ant from a 10 storey high building or read the headline of a newspaper from several kilometres (if it could read!), so, how far out one can actually see is relative to ones ability. When an eagle looks out in the distance I am sure it sees things much different (and better) than us!

Grab a telescope and you can certainly see further, Now I've been thinking about 'could you see from wall to wall on a flat earth' and I got to thinking. Just because it may 'look' to be clear where you are, doesn't mean it actually is everywhere else. The build up of pollution, smog and fog etc will hamper your ability to see across the earth. This is why pointing a telescope up to look at the sky is less troublesome then pointing it horizontally, because the pollution and fog usually settle on the bottom. Also a telescope wont make an object that is obscured by km of smog and fog visible.

The 'horizon' still has the same terminology regardless of what model or shape you call the earth, be it round, flat or some weird 4D tesseract.

Hey, great your effort to try to give an FE answer but unfortunately this doesn't cover the whole issue.
you may answer it is more troublesome to point a telescope horizontal due to pollution, smog, atmosphere, etc.
But then again, you don't have much trouble looking at objects low on the horizon such as satellites and stars, so how about that? In this case you also looking right through the same pollution and smog, but still you are able to see a satellite, which is much smaller than a mountain, but you can't see a mountain or a lighthouse from very far.

So it still doesn't add up.

If I remember correctly jroa saw the sea and could see a see saw.

But who has seen the horizon on the flat earth ?

Hey, great your effort to try to give an FE answer but unfortunately this doesn't cover the whole issue.
you may answer it is more troublesome to point a telescope horizontal due to pollution, smog, atmosphere, etc.
But then again, you don't have much trouble looking at objects low on the horizon such as satellites and stars, so how about that? In this case you also looking right through the same pollution and smog, but still you are able to see a satellite, which is much smaller than a mountain, but you can't see a mountain or a lighthouse from very far.

So it still doesn't add up.

One of the things that the survivors of the RMS Titanic disaster, sitting in their lifeboats, reported was seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon.

So, remind us whom gives a shit again, please.

Him cares. And us care a little bit.

So, remind us whom gives a shit again, please.

See Reply #27

The problem is in just imagining how things would have to be if the earth was flat for those of us who have worked in the real world on a day-to-day routine.
The horizon in particular.

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative to the observer, for example -

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative to the observer, for example -

So on a flat earth there should be a 'void' in between where the ocean meets the sky then?

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative to the observer, for example -

I fail to see where that picture is any indication of a horizon.
It seems to be just a picture taken with a wide angle lens camera looking down a long corridor.
It is in no way what you see when looking at the horizon.
The definition of the horizon is "The line where earth or sea appears to meet the sky."

I am a "round earth" person, too, but I will make an attempt at an explanation for the horizon on a flat earth.

If you were in a ship, sailing around the earth,  just a few miles off shore from the ice wall, but close enough so that the ice wall would not be obscured by "atmoplanic" conditions, haze or fog, the horizon would be a distinct line where the top of the 150 feet tall ice wall and the bottom of the dome appear to meet directly in front of you and a few miles to either side. As you looked to the sides or rear of the ship, the view would gradually fade away in a indistinct blur.

If you were in the middle of the ocean, you would not see a horizon. You would just be in the middle of a circle, looking into a blur in all directions.

I know from experience what the horizon really looks like. It certainly doesn't look like the description above. I have a difficult time trying to imagine what the huorizon would look like on a flat earth. That was the best explanation I could come up with.

The horizon, or lack of it, seems to me to be one of the simplest and most elementary fallacies of flat earth.

As the most renowned person on this site I will say only this. The horizon that we see at times is just a NASA projected hologram meant to fool us

As the most renowned person on this site I will say only this. The horizon that we see at times is just a NASA projected hologram meant to fool us

Could be true but how did we get fooled in 100 BC ? What Global Power  had projection tech, where is the projector located.

If im on top of a mountain and look in all directions I can see the horizon in all directions, explain where the projector is   

Quote from: Kuijiblob on April 11, 2017, 09:03:14 AM

As the most renowned person on this site I will say only this. The horizon that we see at times is just a NASA projected hologram meant to fool us

Could be true but how did we get fooled in 100 BC ? What Global Power  had projection tech, where is the projector located.

If im on top of a mountain and look in all directions I can see the horizon in all directions, explain where the projector is 

I was semi joking but people believe what they want to see and raised from infants they will regurgitate anything that they have absorbed during the peak of their brain elasticity. Which is why people continue to believe things in history books and continue to debate them. While several things in history books has been debunked. Like how in my christian school we weren't allowed to believe in a world that was more than a couple thousand years old. Now I meet my fellow classmates a decade later after all those schools became interdenominational. (the ones who had religious parents and wanted them in a private catholic school) They all believe exactly what was trying to be forced into my noggin back then. Schools often lie to protect funding and interests of politicians who in part answer to a higher power who are also manipulating them in turn

But yeah, lets see some REs explain why the helmet swivels in this video

This isn't even a video trying to prove FE, just a video proving NASA lies all the time. In 1965 I don't even think the suits were updated to even allow the pilot to swivel his head INSIDE the helmet. Let alone the entire helmet itself because of the pressure-sealed ring.

But yeah, lets see some REs explain why the helmet swivels in this video

This isn't even a video trying to prove FE, just a video proving NASA lies all the time. In 1965 I don't even think the suits were updated to even allow the pilot to swivel his head INSIDE the helmet. Let alone the entire helmet itself because of the pressure-sealed ring.

If you were to prove nasa faked SOME of their chiz it would prove only that NASA faked a few things not FE or BE to be true/false.

Forget NASA and its images, space games etc as these topics are unrelated, look at the math that supports BE thats enough on its own. Your ignoring the math and changing topic which is exactly what 100% of these FE posts end up like.

The FE people have no case so resort to NASA,GRAVITY,SPINNING TENNIS BALL, ETC and change topic because they have no comeback to the math.

Quote from: Kuijiblob on April 11, 2017, 09:43:20 AM

But yeah, lets see some REs explain why the helmet swivels in this video

This isn't even a video trying to prove FE, just a video proving NASA lies all the time. In 1965 I don't even think the suits were updated to even allow the pilot to swivel his head INSIDE the helmet. Let alone the entire helmet itself because of the pressure-sealed ring.

If you were to prove nasa faked SOME of their chiz it would prove only that NASA faked a few things not FE or BE to be true/false.

Forget NASA and its images, space games etc as these topics are unrelated, look at the math that supports BE thats enough on its own. Your ignoring the math and changing topic which is exactly what 100% of these FE posts end up like.

The FE people have no case so resort to NASA,GRAVITY,SPINNING TENNIS BALL, ETC and change topic because they have no comeback to the math.

Yes but hundreds of RE people claim that NASA is grounds for the theory of a round earth and they provide FACTS. But this is evidence that they clearly do not and no one can ever explain why his helmet swiveled. I don't believe this is stop motion but there is still no explanation for the content of this video and the part where the helmet swiveled. EXPLAIN instead of parroting the fact that we use this kind of stuff to push our agenda! The scientific approach dictates that it a series of methods that incorporates dozens of methods before reaching a conclusion. History has taught us otherwise since theories have been accepted and used in textbooks when they are only the OPINION of one person. That is very unscientific don't you think? Here I'll even use wikipedia which you REs like to do so much to debunk the truth that they themselves know nothing about.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

FE is pretty much the same thing but explored and approached from thousands of different areas. Which in turn is more scientific than believe the ideas of a single person. Which in turn makes it more scientific than say Newton's law of universal gravitation. Which was turned into Principia Mathematica which in turn became every instance of math on the subject, before debate or further inquiry into the principles that the man put forward. There are countless other examples of this over history. It isn't science when you say "the math explains it all" when there is so much evidence that this math was invented solely to promote the word and research of one person. Explain this to us please? Also stop dodging the fact I was pointing out about the inability for the astronaut's head to swivel

Quote from: Kuijiblob on April 11, 2017, 09:43:20 AM

But yeah, lets see some REs explain why the helmet swivels in this video

This isn't even a video trying to prove FE, just a video proving NASA lies all the time. In 1965 I don't even think the suits were updated to even allow the pilot to swivel his head INSIDE the helmet. Let alone the entire helmet itself because of the pressure-sealed ring.

If you were to prove nasa faked SOME of their chiz it would prove only that NASA faked a few things not FE or BE to be true/false.

Forget NASA and its images, space games etc as these topics are unrelated, look at the math that supports BE thats enough on its own. Your ignoring the math and changing topic which is exactly what 100% of these FE posts end up like.

The FE people have no case so resort to NASA,GRAVITY,SPINNING TENNIS BALL, ETC and change topic because they have no comeback to the math.

And facts. FE folks are hoping that we have no facts:

https://hubpages.com/education/NASA-Project-Gemini-Space-Suit

Quote from: Semnomic on April 11, 2017, 10:13:04 AM

Quote from: Kuijiblob on April 11, 2017, 09:43:20 AM

But yeah, lets see some REs explain why the helmet swivels in this video

This isn't even a video trying to prove FE, just a video proving NASA lies all the time. In 1965 I don't even think the suits were updated to even allow the pilot to swivel his head INSIDE the helmet. Let alone the entire helmet itself because of the pressure-sealed ring.

Quote from: Kuijiblob on April 11, 2017, 10:33:28 AM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 11, 2017, 10:21:25 AM

Quote from: Kuijiblob on April 11, 2017, 09:59:36 AM

Quote from: Kuijiblob on April 11, 2017, 09:43:20 AM

But yeah, lets see some REs explain why the helmet swivels in this video

This isn't even a video trying to prove FE, just a video proving NASA lies all the time. In 1965 I don't even think the suits were updated to even allow the pilot to swivel his head INSIDE the helmet. Let alone the entire helmet itself because of the pressure-sealed ring.

Just love how all the RE paid shills tried to avoid my question that blew their minds and made them scramble to post as many times as they could all over the forum just so my post wasn't visible in new posts *claps* Also they could swivel their head inside the helmet but at the expense of comfort unlike today.

Oops! Facts beat FE speculation again:

https://hubpages.com/education/NASA-Project-Gemini-Space-Suit

You are clearly unintelligent since the very same locking ring is still used to this day. In the video you clearly see the HELMET itself swivel which would be impossible due to the locking ring.

You yourself have baseless facts and point to an article that mentions nothing about the fact that the helmets themselves were allowed to swivel. After pressurization it becomes even harder just to move in those suits. Go put on a pressurized suit and attempt the same head turn. I say this because you would break your neck trying to replicate the same instance shown in that video and the official video. Which would probably be for the better because we would have one less troll/government shill to deal with.

If you were to prove nasa faked SOME of their chiz it would prove only that NASA faked a few things not FE or BE to be true/false.

Forget NASA and its images, space games etc as these topics are unrelated, look at the math that supports BE thats enough on its own. Your ignoring the math and changing topic which is exactly what 100% of these FE posts end up like.

The FE people have no case so resort to NASA,GRAVITY,SPINNING TENNIS BALL, ETC and change topic because they have no comeback to the math.

And facts. FE folks are hoping that we have no facts:

https://hubpages.com/education/NASA-Project-Gemini-Space-Suit

Seems you rushed over to my other instance explaining myself out of fear. What propagates such fear in you? Afraid NASA or the Government going to stop paying you for trying to debunk every instance of common sense on this site?? Also math was CREATED by humans. It isn't something that existed before our existence. Nobody can use math to explain everything in the universe. Countless have tried and that's why there are THEORIES instead of facts. Stephen Hawking has a theory that wormholes and blackholes exist based solely on "math" but no one has ever been able to stand next to one in order to prove it. We even spent billions building the LHC only to come up with more questions than answer just based on the "math" of other people.

The unbelievable irony here is that people from the other side of the debate are trying to tell us to think for ourselves. When they themselves have already had their way of thinking about the subject manufactured for them in the most absurd way. I've joked and made a couple posts that make me look insincere but the people who have spent years and made over 10k posts trying to debate something on the principle that their already manufactured beliefs come from a complete lack of understanding as to what came before they were alive, and the inability to "think for themselves" which is a slogan that all RE people use. Even if the earth wasn't flat, the hypocrisy and proof from people that are against this site sure seems to run flat. That's for sure

TO ALL ROUND EARTH BELIEVERS:  SPECIAL NOTICE!!  They found us out... I repeat, they found us out.  It has been stated very clearly on this website that they know that NASA is all paying us to lie about the round earth. I mean, obviously it's flat.  Just look outside.  Duh!!!  We all need to meet at our super secret bunker in the hollow earth, inside the flat earth, so we can go into hiding with the NAZI's.  You know where the entrance is, can't type it out, we don't want others to know, it is OUR secret.  Just remember our super secret password.  We all need to meet, and don't forget your pay-stub.  The government, as you all know, has no problems lying about everything, but one this is for sure, they want there tax money, and we all owe so much because, you know, we are filthy rich from our huge paychecks to keep lying about, well you know...  And just to let you know, I have seen tomorrow's cover of the New York Times spelling out the myth and how we have been lying to them all of this time.  It is hilarious, but be careful, a vengeful mob might want to hurt us.  We all know people can't think for themselves, and we are really going to confuse them when we tell them that the earth is really flat.  They are going to be so mad!!!!!

Oh, and don't worry, Adolf won't be there.  He is on double secret probation....

Oh, one more thing.  We all need to brainstorm ideas of other lies that we can get the whole planet to believe in so we can make money off of NASA again.  I am not sure how much longer we will be able to hold on to the man on the moon lie, they seem to be onto that one also.  I mean, my great-great-great grandfather had to fess up with the whopper that the moon was made of cheese.  He really did have egg on his face with that one.  You have all heard the stories... I have a family to feed, so we have to think of something good. 

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 10, 2017, 07:21:10 AM

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative to the observer, for example -

So on a flat earth there should be a 'void' in between where the ocean meets the sky then?

If the hallway was a little longer and brighter, the ceiling and floor would eventually appear to merge.
They nearly merged in this photograph.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 10, 2017, 07:21:10 AM

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative to the observer, for example -

I fail to see where that picture is any indication of a horizon.
It seems to be just a picture taken with a wide angle lens camera looking down a long corridor.
It is in no way what you see when looking at the horizon.
The definition of the horizon is "The line where earth or sea appears to meet the sky."

I am a "round earth" person, too, but I will make an attempt at an explanation for the horizon on a flat earth.

If you were in a ship, sailing around the earth,  just a few miles off shore from the ice wall, but close enough so that the ice wall would not be obscured by "atmoplanic" conditions, haze or fog, the horizon would be a distinct line where the top of the 150 feet tall ice wall and the bottom of the dome appear to meet directly in front of you and a few miles to either side. As you looked to the sides or rear of the ship, the view would gradually fade away in a indistinct blur.

If you were in the middle of the ocean, you would not see a horizon. You would just be in the middle of a circle, looking into a blur in all directions.

I know from experience what the horizon really looks like. It certainly doesn't look like the description above. I have a difficult time trying to imagine what the huorizon would look like on a flat earth. That was the best explanation I could come up with.

The horizon, or lack of it, seems to me to be one of the simplest and most elementary fallacies of flat earth.

No it's caused by perspective.
The further an object is from the observer, the more it moves towards the center of vision.
Like if you have two objects approximately the same size and horizontal distance from you, the one further away from you in vertical distance will be closer to the center of vision.

For example -



With bigger objects and objects placed further apart from one another, like the earth, moon and sky, the sun and stars, it takes longer for them to move towards the center of vision, but they inevitably do.

Furthermore, refraction could be causing the sun to appear to sink below the horizon, when it's really just moving further and further away from the observer.
Refraction (as well as obfuscation) happens more across vast distances and when objects approach sea level because the atmosphere light travels through on the way to your eyes is denser and more heterogeneous.

So the horizon is relative to the observer, and the objects surrounding him.
Rather than speaking of the horizon, we may speak of horizons produced by differing circumstances.

Another example -



You may criticize the photograph, say it's produced by a certain sort of camera, but it's not, and we can verify that it's a natural effect of our vision, not an artificial effect of a camera, just by taking a walk, and being conscientious of your surroundings.
Show me a photograph of a long hallway that doesn't have this effect.

There is a natural limit to how far the human eye can see, but this limit is relative, it depends on a few things, how bright things are, how thin the atmosphere is, how perceptive a persons eyes are, and the width of the objects observed, both the width of the objects themselves, and the width in between them.
The greater the width, the farther you'll be able to see them, until they merge.

Again, the horizon is relative.

But yeah, lets see some REs explain why the helmet swivels in this video

This isn't even a video trying to prove FE, just a video proving NASA lies all the time. In 1965 I don't even think the suits were updated to even allow the pilot to swivel his head INSIDE the helmet. Let alone the entire helmet itself because of the pressure-sealed ring.

How about make your own thread for it, rather than derailing this one?