How far up?

Pick your favorite flat Earth model and answer the following question if you can:

How far up in elevation have manmade objects gone and/or how far up can they go?

Bonus question: What is the limiting factor?

I ask because depending on the answer, I may have a stupendous new experiment to verify the distance to the moon.

I pick non-Euclidean. The only limiting factor is whether they have the fuel and thrust to reach escape velocity.
Next 

I pick non-Euclidean.

He was after flat earth answers I believe, not ones pertaining to a sketchy thought experiment.

Quote from: Jane on January 29, 2018, 06:19:35 AM

I pick non-Euclidean.

He was after flat earth answers I believe, not ones pertaining to a sketchy thought experiment.

Is there any FE model you wouldn't call a sketchy thought experiment?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 29, 2018, 06:33:18 AM

Quote from: Jane on January 29, 2018, 06:19:35 AM

I pick non-Euclidean.

He was after flat earth answers I believe, not ones pertaining to a sketchy thought experiment.

Is there any FE model you wouldn't call a sketchy thought experiment?

Nice!

Quote from: Jane on January 29, 2018, 06:34:53 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 29, 2018, 06:33:18 AM

Quote from: Jane on January 29, 2018, 06:19:35 AM

I pick non-Euclidean.

He was after flat earth answers I believe, not ones pertaining to a sketchy thought experiment.

Is there any FE model you wouldn't call a sketchy thought experiment?

Nice!

Not really. Just a fact. You'd call any FE model that, it's pointless to reject one specific one because of it.

I pick non-Euclidean. The only limiting factor is whether they have the fuel and thrust to reach escape velocity.
Next 

Try a flat one.
You may as well have said "I pick non-flat."

I pick non-Euclidean. The only limiting factor is whether they have the fuel and thrust to reach escape velocity.
Next 

Please do one of:

• explain in detail the non-Euclidean model, including experimental and/or theoretical justification,
• direct me to a reference containing such justification or
• refrain from presenting figments of John Davis's as though they were serious theories.

Quote from: Jane on January 29, 2018, 06:19:35 AM

I pick non-Euclidean. The only limiting factor is whether they have the fuel and thrust to reach escape velocity.
Next 

Please do one of:

• explain in detail the non-Euclidean model, including experimental and/or theoretical justification,
• direct me to a reference containing such justification or
• refrain from presenting figments of John Davis's as though they were serious theories.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921473#msg1921473

I ask because depending on the answer, I may have a stupendous new experiment to verify the distance to the moon.

Your stupendous new experiment is dependent on the thoughts and beliefs of others?

Pick your favorite flat Earth model and answer the following question if you can:

How far up in elevation have manmade objects gone and/or how far up can they go?

Bonus question: What is the limiting factor?

I ask because depending on the answer, I may have a stupendous new experiment to verify the distance to the moon.

Would you explain the details and methods of your "stupendous new experiment to verify the distance to the moon" and how they differ from the proven ones that have already been done ?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921473#msg1921473

So you can't fulfill his request and instead just link to the same old nonsense.

Perhaps the best part is you refute yourself, and then try to recover.

i.e. take RET, but then pretend Earth is flat. That is all this non-Euclidean BS is.

A good analogy here is the difference between heliocentrism and geocentrism. Ultimately it is just a choice of reference frame; choose one in which the Earth is stationary, and you can mathematically describe everything just fine. The model works. The reason RET favours heliocentrism now is explanatory power; heliocentrism can explain why the Earth goes around the Sun, and explain retrograde motion, while the geocentric explanation is questionable.

Ultimately is is not just a choice of reference frame. It is a choice of having explanations which make sense or pure nonsense.
It is the explanatory power which distinguishes the model.
Geocentrism cannot offer an explanation, nor can a non-flat flat Earth.

There is a reason we treat Euclidean space as the default.
Ignoring the minor variations due to gravity, straight parallel lines (such as lasers) remain equidistant in reality.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 28, 2018, 09:07:55 PM

Pick your favorite flat Earth model and answer the following question if you can:

How far up in elevation have manmade objects gone and/or how far up can they go?

Bonus question: What is the limiting factor?

I ask because depending on the answer, I may have a stupendous new experiment to verify the distance to the moon.

Would you explain the details and methods of your "stupendous new experiment to verify the distance to the moon" and how they differ from the proven ones that have already been done ?

Well, let's suppose the moon were really 3000 miles or so above the Earth. If we view it at Sea Level and then ascend to 3 miles in altitude, the moon would appear .1% larger. Now that isn't very much, but it is measurable with precision equipment. At an altitude of 30 miles, the difference becomes 1%. Now instead of precision equipment, all you need is a very good camera to see the difference. At a altitude of 300 miles, the moon should look 10% larger. So I am wondering how high up man can go because if it is more than a few miles, there is now an easy way to confirm the size and distance of the Moon.

Well, let's suppose the moon were really 3000 miles or so above the Earth. If we view it at Sea Level and then ascend to 3 miles in altitude, the moon would appear .1% larger. Now that isn't very much, but it is measurable with precision equipment. At an altitude of 30 miles, the difference becomes 1%. Now instead of precision equipment, all you need is a very good camera to see the difference. At a altitude of 300 miles, the moon should look 10% larger. So I am wondering how high up man can go because if it is more than a few miles, there is now an easy way to confirm the size and distance of the Moon.

But it should be even simpler.
If the moon is 5000 km high, then when it is on the horizon it is above a point 10 000 km away (further if you use the FE maps to figure out the distance).
That puts it over twice the distance and it should appear less than half the size.
But it doesn't.
Regardless of where you are on Earth and what time it is, the size varies far less than that.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 29, 2018, 07:17:43 PM

Well, let's suppose the moon were really 3000 miles or so above the Earth. If we view it at Sea Level and then ascend to 3 miles in altitude, the moon would appear .1% larger. Now that isn't very much, but it is measurable with precision equipment. At an altitude of 30 miles, the difference becomes 1%. Now instead of precision equipment, all you need is a very good camera to see the difference. At a altitude of 300 miles, the moon should look 10% larger. So I am wondering how high up man can go because if it is more than a few miles, there is now an easy way to confirm the size and distance of the Moon.

But it should be even simpler.
If the moon is 5000 km high, then when it is on the horizon it is above a point 10 000 km away (further if you use the FE maps to figure out the distance).
That puts it over twice the distance and it should appear less than half the size.
But it doesn't.
Regardless of where you are on Earth and what time it is, the size varies far less than that.

This is true.