How come I can't see the UK from the East Coast?

it did not work...
haha
ok anyways

my point was taht if the sun goes soooo far away that it appears near the horizon, at some point the SOH angle will approach zero.
At some point there will be a section of Hypotenuse that will cut through the haze, equal or near equal to the X visual distance limit.
So what point would that be.

how does one attach a photo?

it did not work...
haha
ok anyways

my point was taht if the sun goes soooo far away that it appears near the horizon, at some point the SOH angle will approach zero.
At some point there will be a section of Hypotenuse that will cut through the haze, equal or near equal to the X visual distance limit.
So what point would that be.

how does one attach a photo?

Why is the Sun going out of view remotely relevant to atmospheric haze?

What?

What was the op?
The reason you cant is this haze.
Ok.
At some point the sun will be behind the same amount of haze.
How far is that?

What?

What was the op?
The reason you cant is this haze.
Ok.
At some point the sun will be behind the same amount of haze.
How far is that?

The OP was dealing with the coast, not a giant glaring light source. You can see the lamp in a lighthouse long before you can see the actual building, no matter how foggy it is.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 21, 2018, 11:29:02 AM

What?

What was the op?
The reason you cant is this haze.
Ok.
At some point the sun will be behind the same amount of haze.
How far is that?

The OP was dealing with the coast, not a giant glaring light source. You can see the lamp in a lighthouse long before you can see the actual building, no matter how foggy it is.

And you can clearly make out details on the moon, even when it’s close to the horizon.

Quote from: Jane on December 21, 2018, 11:32:52 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 21, 2018, 11:29:02 AM

What?

What was the op?
The reason you cant is this haze.
Ok.
At some point the sun will be behind the same amount of haze.
How far is that?

The OP was dealing with the coast, not a giant glaring light source. You can see the lamp in a lighthouse long before you can see the actual building, no matter how foggy it is.

And you can clearly make out details on the moon, even when it’s close to the horizon.

In the right conditions, sure. So? It is immeasurably easier to observe illuminated objects than non-illuminated, especially huge and particularly bright ones. The situations don't compare.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2018, 11:35:54 AM

Quote from: Jane on December 21, 2018, 11:32:52 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 21, 2018, 11:29:02 AM

What?

What was the op?
The reason you cant is this haze.
Ok.
At some point the sun will be behind the same amount of haze.
How far is that?

The OP was dealing with the coast, not a giant glaring light source. You can see the lamp in a lighthouse long before you can see the actual building, no matter how foggy it is.

And you can clearly make out details on the moon, even when it’s close to the horizon.

In the right conditions, sure. So? It is immeasurably easier to observe illuminated objects than non-illuminated, especially huge and particularly bright ones. The situations don't compare.

Well I assume we’re talking about in the day when land masses are illuminated by the sun.  I don’t think anyone wondered why we can’t see things that are in the dark.

Quote from: Jane on December 21, 2018, 11:42:26 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2018, 11:35:54 AM

Quote from: Jane on December 21, 2018, 11:32:52 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 21, 2018, 11:29:02 AM

What?

What was the op?
The reason you cant is this haze.
Ok.
At some point the sun will be behind the same amount of haze.
How far is that?

The OP was dealing with the coast, not a giant glaring light source. You can see the lamp in a lighthouse long before you can see the actual building, no matter how foggy it is.

And you can clearly make out details on the moon, even when it’s close to the horizon.

In the right conditions, sure. So? It is immeasurably easier to observe illuminated objects than non-illuminated, especially huge and particularly bright ones. The situations don't compare.

Well I assume we’re talking about in the day when land masses are illuminated by the sun.  I don’t think anyone wondered why we can’t see things that are in the dark.

Exactly. When you're directly observing an object that has a light shining directly on it, or is emitting light directly depending on the model, it's hardly ordinary circumstances. Why use the Sun and moon then?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2018, 12:17:23 PM

Quote from: Jane on December 21, 2018, 11:42:26 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2018, 11:35:54 AM

Quote from: Jane on December 21, 2018, 11:32:52 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 21, 2018, 11:29:02 AM

What?

What was the op?
The reason you cant is this haze.
Ok.
At some point the sun will be behind the same amount of haze.
How far is that?

The OP was dealing with the coast, not a giant glaring light source. You can see the lamp in a lighthouse long before you can see the actual building, no matter how foggy it is.

And you can clearly make out details on the moon, even when it’s close to the horizon.

In the right conditions, sure. So? It is immeasurably easier to observe illuminated objects than non-illuminated, especially huge and particularly bright ones. The situations don't compare.

Well I assume we’re talking about in the day when land masses are illuminated by the sun.  I don’t think anyone wondered why we can’t see things that are in the dark.

Exactly. When you're directly observing an object that has a light shining directly on it, or is emitting light directly depending on the model, it's hardly ordinary circumstances. Why use the Sun and moon then?

The sun shining on the moon is very ordinary.  The sun shining on the earth is very ordinary (even shining on the UK isn’t that unusual).

I have no idea what you are claiming now.  Or why you say exactly when I’m directly contradicting you.

Quote from: Jane on December 21, 2018, 12:20:02 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2018, 12:17:23 PM

Quote from: Jane on December 21, 2018, 11:42:26 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2018, 11:35:54 AM

Quote from: Jane on December 21, 2018, 11:32:52 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 21, 2018, 11:29:02 AM

What?

What was the op?
The reason you cant is this haze.
Ok.
At some point the sun will be behind the same amount of haze.
How far is that?

The OP was dealing with the coast, not a giant glaring light source. You can see the lamp in a lighthouse long before you can see the actual building, no matter how foggy it is.

And you can clearly make out details on the moon, even when it’s close to the horizon.

In the right conditions, sure. So? It is immeasurably easier to observe illuminated objects than non-illuminated, especially huge and particularly bright ones. The situations don't compare.

Well I assume we’re talking about in the day when land masses are illuminated by the sun.  I don’t think anyone wondered why we can’t see things that are in the dark.

Exactly. When you're directly observing an object that has a light shining directly on it, or is emitting light directly depending on the model, it's hardly ordinary circumstances. Why use the Sun and moon then?

The sun shining on the moon is very ordinary.  The sun shining on the earth is very ordinary (even shining on the UK isn’t that unusual).

I have no idea what you are claiming now.  Or why you say exactly when I’m directly contradicting you.

You're not contradicting me. The Sun and moon would not be obscured by atmospheric haze, that's all; they're substantially brighter than anything else. Same reason you can see lighthouses through fog. Even during the day landmasses don't get as bright as the moon is during the night, which makes sense because even in models where it reflects the Sun's light, it's reflecting light undampened by haze, unlike anything on the Earth.

A close sun lights up a certain area of the flat earth causing night
(Does it matter if Non spotlight sun??).
Darkness is due to the haze.
We know our timezones in canada.
We know how bright the sun is when directly overhead.
And it was already broguht up in another thread that star light is very weak but yet can cut through at the horizom.

The model obviously doesnt work because its not consistent.

A close sun lights up a certain area of the flat earth causing night
(Does it matter if Non spotlight sun??).
Darkness is due to the haze.

No one except you is saying that. Darkness is due to the Sun being a spotlight; it doesn't point everywhere.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 24, 2018, 03:35:08 PM

A close sun lights up a certain area of the flat earth causing night
(Does it matter if Non spotlight sun??).
Darkness is due to the haze.

No one except you is saying that. Darkness is due to the Sun being a spotlight; it doesn't point everywhere.

Sure
Spot light then.
Still doesnt explain starlight on the horizon.

Quote from: Jane on December 24, 2018, 03:43:16 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 24, 2018, 03:35:08 PM

A close sun lights up a certain area of the flat earth causing night
(Does it matter if Non spotlight sun??).
Darkness is due to the haze.

No one except you is saying that. Darkness is due to the Sun being a spotlight; it doesn't point everywhere.

Sure
Spot light then.
Still doesnt explain starlight on the horizon.

Why?

Trolling?
Stars have weak light
How are they (ones on the horizon(  able to break through the haze.

Trolling?
Stars have weak light
How are they (ones on the horizon(  able to break through the haze.

Because they are brighter than the coast of the UK. Why does this need explaining?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 19, 2018, 02:51:26 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 19, 2018, 11:08:38 AM

Also why can't I shoot a laser from East Coast to the UK and see it.

1. If you are shooting the laser beam from the East Coast, how are you in the UK?

2. You've never seriously tried. You're just engaging in a thought experiment, and a bad one at that.

3. Come back when you've had experience with lasers.


Corrected faulty quoting.

1) Don't be an anal retentive moron.  You know what I meant.

2) Except it's not a though experiment.  We shoot a laser to the moon which is then reflected back.  You can see the light being shot out and returning.  If the moon is only 5000km the entire trip would be 10,000km which is further than Boston to UK.  No reason it can't be seen.

3) You should do some research yourself clown.

1. I can't be held responsible for your inability to express yourself coherently.

2. You say "we" and assert the light can be seen shot out and returning.
"You" have clearly never had anything to do with a measurement of this type, as the returning signal is spread out over a huge area and is only a few photons per square meter. It can't be "seen." You are just making up what you think lasers are capable of, and creating a silly thought experiment with no basis in reality.

3. No need for me to do research, I have professional experience in retroreflecting lasers >1000 miles, and I understand the complexity involved. You, on the other hand, need a basic tutorial on diffraction and atmospheric effects.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 24, 2018, 05:24:34 PM

Trolling?
Stars have weak light
How are they (ones on the horizon(  able to break through the haze.

Because they are brighter than the coast of the UK. Why does this need explaining?

Reaching.
Its not brighter.
Thats actually measureable.
Admit the model is limited.

Quote from: Jane on December 24, 2018, 05:43:28 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 24, 2018, 05:24:34 PM

Trolling?
Stars have weak light
How are they (ones on the horizon(  able to break through the haze.

Because they are brighter than the coast of the UK. Why does this need explaining?

Reaching.
Its not brighter.
Thats actually measureable.
Admit the model is limited.

Sorry, you think that the coast of the UK, a surface that barely qualifies as reflective, is brighter than stars?

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 24, 2018, 06:02:34 PM

Quote from: Jane on December 24, 2018, 05:43:28 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 24, 2018, 05:24:34 PM

Trolling?
Stars have weak light
How are they (ones on the horizon(  able to break through the haze.

Because they are brighter than the coast of the UK. Why does this need explaining?

Reaching.
Its not brighter.
Thats actually measureable.
Admit the model is limited.

Sorry, you think that the coast of the UK, a surface that barely qualifies as reflective, is brighter than stars?

What about all the light houses on the west coast of the UK. Not one can be seen. not even the sweep of there light is seen.

What about all the light houses on the west coast of the UK. Not one can be seen. not even the sweep of there light is seen.

Study up on Transparency and Atmospheric Extinction By: Tony Flanders and Phillip J. Creed | June 10, 2008.

I can't find the source just now but a rough expression atmospheric attenuation is exp(path_length/ext_dist) for even the clearest air ext_dist ≈ 60 km.
The shortest distance from the USA to England is about 4500 km and on a flat earth this would be the approximate path length.
For this distance the atmospheric attenuation (in the clearest air) would be a factor of roughly 4 x 10³² and you wouldn't see diddly-squat of the light from the brightest lighthouse.

For the Globe earth sunlight and moonlight never pass through a path length of more than a few hundred kilometres.

Quote from: MouseWalker on December 24, 2018, 07:37:13 PM

What about all the light houses on the west coast of the UK. Not one can be seen. not even the sweep of there light is seen.

Study up on Transparency and Atmospheric Extinction By: Tony Flanders and Phillip J. Creed | June 10, 2008.

I can't find the source just now but a rough expression atmospheric attenuation is exp(path_length/ext_dist) for even the clearest air ext_dist ≈ 60 km.
The shortest distance from the USA to England is about 4500 km and on a flat earth this would be the approximate path length.
For this distance the atmospheric attenuation (in the clearest air) would be a factor of roughly 4 x 10³² and you wouldn't see diddly-squat of the light from the brightest lighthouse.

For the Globe earth sunlight and moonlight never pass through a path length of more than a few hundred kilometres.

So take the same numbers and apply last statement with flat earth sun and horizon star light.
How are they able to cut through and be visible.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 24, 2018, 11:43:03 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on December 24, 2018, 07:37:13 PM

What about all the light houses on the west coast of the UK. Not one can be seen. not even the sweep of there light is seen.

Study up on Transparency and Atmospheric Extinction By: Tony Flanders and Phillip J. Creed | June 10, 2008.

I can't find the source just now but a rough expression atmospheric attenuation is exp(path_length/ext_dist) for even the clearest air ext_dist ≈ 60 km.
The shortest distance from the USA to England is about 4500 km and on a flat earth this would be the approximate path length.
For this distance the atmospheric attenuation (in the clearest air) would be a factor of roughly 4 x 10³² and you wouldn't see diddly-squat of the light from the brightest lighthouse.

For the Globe earth sunlight and moonlight never pass through a path length of more than a few hundred kilometres.

So take the same numbers and apply last statement with flat earth sun and horizon star light.
How are they able to cut through and be visible.

I'd assume so for the sun but certainly so for the stars and moon.
The FET claims that the sun etc are always about 5000 km above the earth.
Hence, unless they postulate "magic refraction " the sun etc cannot never get to these low angles .

While the atmospheric density density falls off exponentially with vertical height it can be very roughy approximated by a sea-level density up to about 9 km (one "air mass").
Then path_length ≈ 1/sin (elev_angle) though on the Globe, the curvature will reduce that very low angles - I won't even attempt an approximate expression for that.

But the bottom line is that it is rare to see anything over about 300 km even at higher altitudes. From earlier in this thread:

One answer to both is that even in the clearest air Raleigh Scattering limits vision to somewhere around 300 km depending on the contrast ratio of the object and background.
With mountains silouhetted against a red sky the visibility can be more as in: Beyond Horizons, Pic de Finestrelles – Pic Gaspard / Ecrins | 443 km.
See: Hyperphysics, Blue Sky, Rayleigh and Mie Scattering.

Quote from: Jane on December 24, 2018, 06:04:08 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 24, 2018, 06:02:34 PM

Quote from: Jane on December 24, 2018, 05:43:28 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 24, 2018, 05:24:34 PM

Trolling?
Stars have weak light
How are they (ones on the horizon(  able to break through the haze.

Because they are brighter than the coast of the UK. Why does this need explaining?

Reaching.
Its not brighter.
Thats actually measureable.
Admit the model is limited.

Sorry, you think that the coast of the UK, a surface that barely qualifies as reflective, is brighter than stars?

What about all the light houses on the west coast of the UK. Not one can be seen. not even the sweep of there light is seen.

Can be seen from further away. Stars are stll brighter.

There, jane.
Rab says no.
Whoopwhoop
Merry christmas

There, jane.
Rab says no.
Whoopwhoop
Merry christmas

if you don't want to acknowledge any actual model, just say and stop wasting everyone's time.
Sun, stars, moon etc don't go out of view because of haze. They are bright enough that they can shine through it. They are significantly brighter than a bloody lighthouse.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 25, 2018, 04:40:42 AM

There, jane.
Rab says no.
Whoopwhoop
Merry christmas

if you don't want to acknowledge any actual model, just say and stop wasting everyone's time.
Sun, stars, moon etc don't go out of view because of haze. They are bright enough that they can shine through it. They are significantly brighter than a bloody lighthouse.

But not through the 4500 km of atmoplane on a flat earth, No way José.
You globalists who ask "If the earth is flat, why can't I see XXXX?" Where XXXX is usually thousands of kilometres away don't know what they are talking about".

The reason "I can't see the UK from the East Coast" is simply because light cannot penetrate that far through the atmoplane. Read what that wise old flat-earther Son of Orospu wrote:

Light can not propagate infinitely through the atmoplane.  Just look at a mountain in the distance.  It is hardly visible 40 miles away.  The sun is roughly 3000 miles above you when it is directly overhead, but only a few miles of that is dense atmoplane.  As the sun moves away from you, the angle of view changes, increasing the total distance between you and the sun, and exponentially increasing the effective distance as there is increasingly more dense atmoplane.  The effect of this is that at a certain distance, light from the sun is no longer visible, even though there is a line of sight to the sun.  This is what is meant by the sun acting like a spotlight.  The sun can only shine on a portion of the Earth, because the lands on the other side are simply too far away for the light to reach.

Get me Steve ?

But not through the 4500 km of atmoplane on a flat earth, No way José.

Where the hell are you getting that figure from?! Or you you too just pretending the atmosphere doesn't lose 90% its density at just 16km altitude? Good luck getting to 4500km with that.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 25, 2018, 03:45:28 PM

But not through the 4500 km of atmoplane on a flat earth, No way José.

Where the hell are you getting that figure from?! Or you you too just pretending the atmosphere doesn't lose 90% its density at just 16km altitude? Good luck getting to 4500km with that.

No, Jane, I do not pretend!
And I was presenting the 4500 km as the length of the light path to see the "see the UK from the East Coast", which is the topic.

Learn a little about Rayleigh and Mie Scattering, scale height and extinction distance and I'll try to explain it further.

But a couple of points might be relevant.
On the Globe, because of curvature, we never look through an effective atmospheric distance of more than roughly 300 km, based on a scale height of 9 km.
But on a flat-earth, ignoring possible refraction, seeing an object on the surface (horizon?) looking at a distant object (mountain or lighthouse) means looking through that "thickness" of Atmoplanic.

Very roughly, even in the clearest air, each 60 km (approximate extinction distance) reduces the contrast by a factor of roughly e.

You do the sums but a couple of realistic cases (on the Globe) are:
Looking at the sun, moon or a star:
      directly overhead though an effective atmospheric thickness of about 9 km (one air mass to an astronomer) reduces contrast (intensity) by a factor of about 1.16 and
      on the horizon though an effective atmospheric thickness of about 300 km reduces contrast (intensity) by a factor of almost 150.
I believe that you'll find those not far off when comparing the illumination from the sun when overhead and near sunset.

Quote from: Jane on December 25, 2018, 03:58:14 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 25, 2018, 03:45:28 PM

But not through the 4500 km of atmoplane on a flat earth, No way José.

Where the hell are you getting that figure from?! Or you you too just pretending the atmosphere doesn't lose 90% its density at just 16km altitude? Good luck getting to 4500km with that.

No, Jane, I do not pretend!
And I was presenting the 4500 km as the length of the light path to see the "see the UK from the East Coast", which is the topic.

Wait, what? You said you would not be able to observe something 4500km, to refer to something we can't see, that was 4500km away? What was the point of that?

You do the sums but a couple of realistic cases (on the Globe) are:

Already done, with an actual formula to boot. Check back.