Maximum seeing distance

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in. The top, being in hard vacuum and thus not obscured by atmosphere should easily be seen.

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

Air stringency decreases rapidly in vertical direction. air density at sea level is very high. in some regions it is comparable to the weight of water. however, after 10 kilometers highness the air density is very low. 20-50 kilometers of a person horizontally is the distance of sight. After 20-50 kilometers high, there is almost no air. therefore, every object after 20-50 kilometers is visible, no matter how far / high it is. the sun is at a distance of 6000 kilometers when rising. but it is also possible to see it because it is bigger and it is actually higher because of the light breaking. I gave the number of seeing limit as 20-50 kms because it is related the observe point and observing objects' being whether through sea, land, sand, or something else affect the density of air in see level.

in other words, the horizontal vision limit is 20-30 kilometers, while the vertical vision limit is infinite.

Quote from: Souleon on May 05, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

Air stringency decreases rapidly in vertical direction. air density at sea level is very high. in some regions it is comparable to the weight of water. however, after 10 kilometers highness the air density is very low. 20-30 kilometers of a person horizontally is the distance of sight. After 20-30 kilometers high, there is almost no air. therefore, every object after 20-30 kilometers is visible, no matter how far / high it is. the sun is at a distance of 6000 kilometers when rising. but it is also possible to see it because it is bigger and it is actually higher because of the light breaking.

in other words, the horizontal vision limit is 20-30 kilometers, while the vertical vision limit is infinite.

Well since the air density at the horizon is the same for sun and horizon, that leaves only the larger brightness of the sun as argument for sun rise and set being visible. Then, why does horizon distance look the same for dawn (darker if not near the sun) and mid day (brighter)?

in some regions it is comparable to the weight of water.

No. No where on Earth is the density of air in any way comparable to the density of air.
The density of air is roughly 1/1000 times that of water.
Water has a density of ~ 1 g/cm^3 or 1000 kg/m^3.
Air has a density of roughly 1.2 kg/m^3

therefore, every object after 20-50 kilometers is visible, no matter how far / high it is.

So the sun should not be seen past 20-50 km.

At the very least, it should mean the sun disappears high in the sky, fading to a blur.
It would be impossible for the sun to be visible on the horizon as the light needs to pass through all that atmosphere.

It should also mean that the horizon is nothing more than a blur, rather than the clear horizons we see.

So that clearly isn't the case.

Quote from: wise on May 05, 2019, 12:10:34 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 05, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

Air stringency decreases rapidly in vertical direction. air density at sea level is very high. in some regions it is comparable to the weight of water. however, after 10 kilometers highness the air density is very low. 20-30 kilometers of a person horizontally is the distance of sight. After 20-30 kilometers high, there is almost no air. therefore, every object after 20-30 kilometers is visible, no matter how far / high it is. the sun is at a distance of 6000 kilometers when rising. but it is also possible to see it because it is bigger and it is actually higher because of the light breaking.

in other words, the horizontal vision limit is 20-30 kilometers, while the vertical vision limit is infinite.

Well since the air density at the horizon is the same for sun and horizon, that leaves only the larger brightness of the sun as argument for sun rise and set being visible. Then, why does horizon distance look the same for dawn (darker if not near the sun) and mid day (brighter)?

The "Maximum seeing distance" is highly dependent on the current atmospheric conditions and these depend on air purity and the altitude (air density).

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.

Take the same numbers and apply the last statement to starlight. How are they able to cut through and be visible?

While the atmospheric density falls off exponentially with height, it can be very roughly 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.

So the contrast falls by about a factor of roughly three for each extinction distance (about 60 km in the clearest air). So the visibility distance depends on the contrast and the clarity of the atmosphere.

But the bottom line is that it is rare to see anything over about 300 km even at higher altitudes.
Even in the clearest air Raleigh Scattering limits vision to somewhere around 300 km depending on the contrast ratio of the object and background.
See: Hyperphysics, Blue Sky, Rayleigh and Mie Scattering.

Though with mountains silouhetted against a red sky the visibility can be more as in: Beyond Horizons, Pic de Finestrelles – Pic Gaspard / Ecrins | 443 km.

World Record picture at 443 kilometers, labelled

While in many cases poor atmospheric conditions limit the visibilty to far shorter distances, as in a photo at 80 km in Israel

On clear days, Tel Aviv's skyline is visible from the Carmel mountains, 80km north

So Wise is correct with his "the vertical vision limit is infinite" but while "the horizontal vision limit is 20-30 kilometers" might sometimes be correct it is far from the usual case.

Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in.

Nice straw man. Where did you read this was a thing?

Quote from: wise on May 05, 2019, 12:10:34 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 05, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

Air stringency decreases rapidly in vertical direction. air density at sea level is very high. in some regions it is comparable to the weight of water. however, after 10 kilometers highness the air density is very low. 20-30 kilometers of a person horizontally is the distance of sight. After 20-30 kilometers high, there is almost no air. therefore, every object after 20-30 kilometers is visible, no matter how far / high it is. the sun is at a distance of 6000 kilometers when rising. but it is also possible to see it because it is bigger and it is actually higher because of the light breaking.

in other words, the horizontal vision limit is 20-30 kilometers, while the vertical vision limit is infinite.

Well since the air density at the horizon is the same for sun and horizon, that leaves only the larger brightness of the sun as argument for sun rise and set being visible. Then, why does horizon distance look the same for dawn (darker if not near the sun) and mid day (brighter)?

You're saying something I doN't agree. Then you have put forward a theory depend on. I don't agree sun's being at horizon. You see it at horizon but it may be more and more closer and higher because of light refraction.

A lot of light related issues are Optical illusion. I have many workings about this issue but want to shortify it for you.



In this photo, you see the object on your way to the moon are clearly seen as brightly, and the remain areas are in darkness. This is because the earth's being 2D simulation and fake. Because if you move to any direction to right or left, then the past brightly area turns to darkness and another dar area turns to brightly. This is nothing but the nonsence of this weak system.

This system only tries to prevent smart people like me. But when issue comes to create its own components, then it turns a cheap computer program. the system fights against intelligent people to hide their mistakes and weaknesses. and so the retards manage the world. This is not related the issue but related the jackblack and other angry globularists here. I hope you'll not turn an angry globularists here.

You see it at horizon but it may be more and more closer and higher because of light refraction.

Refraction from the atmosphere, except in rare circumstances, makes things appear higher, not lower. So that doesn't work.

In this photo, you see the object on your way to the moon are clearly seen as brightly, and the remain areas are in darkness.

This is because the "object" on the way to the moon is water or some other reflective surface.
The light from the moon reflects off it and stops likely at the horizon, with the moon high above.

No need for any simulation nonsense, just a simple understanding of how light works.

Now care to address the rest of your claims about why the sun doesn't magically vanish high in the sky fading to a blur?

Quote from: Souleon on May 05, 2019, 12:14:29 PM

Quote from: wise on May 05, 2019, 12:10:34 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 05, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

Air stringency decreases rapidly in vertical direction. air density at sea level is very high. in some regions it is comparable to the weight of water. however, after 10 kilometers highness the air density is very low. 20-30 kilometers of a person horizontally is the distance of sight. After 20-30 kilometers high, there is almost no air. therefore, every object after 20-30 kilometers is visible, no matter how far / high it is. the sun is at a distance of 6000 kilometers when rising. but it is also possible to see it because it is bigger and it is actually higher because of the light breaking.

in other words, the horizontal vision limit is 20-30 kilometers, while the vertical vision limit is infinite.

Well since the air density at the horizon is the same for sun and horizon, that leaves only the larger brightness of the sun as argument for sun rise and set being visible. Then, why does horizon distance look the same for dawn (darker if not near the sun) and mid day (brighter)?

You're saying something I doN't agree. Then you have put forward a theory depend on. I don't agree sun's being at horizon. You see it at horizon but it may be more and more closer and higher because of light refraction.

A lot of light related issues are Optical illusion. I have many workings about this issue but want to shortify it for you.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This system only tries to prevent smart people like me. But when issue comes to create its own components, then it turns a cheap computer program. the system fights against intelligent people to hide their mistakes and weaknesses. and so the retards manage the world.

So you don't agree, but that changes nothing.

The sun is supposed about 5000 above the flat earth.
The sun cannot possibly be more than 32,600 km away (from North Pole to the sun over the Tropic of Capricorn) but at sunrise or sunset is closer to 15,000 km away.
So at sunrise or sunset the sun must be at least 8.7° above the horizon and more realistically nearer 19° above the horizon.

Now there are two problems with your claim that "You see it at horizon but it may be more and more closer and higher because of light refraction."

• Near sea-level air has a refractive index of only about 1.0003 so light travelling from the near vacuum around the sun into the air cannot refract light more than a few tenths of a degree and
• light passing from the near vacuum into the denser air is bent towards the normal, so makes the sun appear higher not lower.

But I have seen and taken numerous photos of the sun clearly being hidden by the horizon as it sets, as in:

Have you ever seen a real sunset, especially one over the ocean. The sunlight does not simply fade out, but the sun itself is clearly seen to disappear bottom first apparently behind the horizon. Like these:

Time lapse of a sunset: Hawaii Sunset with Green Flash, Natalie Sirgo

And the last bit of the sun disappearing: PACIFIC OCEAN SUNSET...Mardoval

See how it seems be clearly the sun itself becoming hidden. I don't see how directed from a "spotlight" or from something similar to car headlights could cause what anyone can easily over the ocean or over land.

Then finally a couple of stills of the sun setting at Weipa in Queensland:

Sun near setting at Weipa

Sunset at Weipa

Those are not the result of any "cheap computer program"! They are real videos and real photographs of sunsets.
And your "may be more and more closer and higher because of light refraction" does not work because atmospheric refraction is far too small and is in the wrong direction!

Quote from: turtles on May 05, 2019, 11:45:05 AM

Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in.

Nice straw man. Where did you read this was a thing?

What's "straw man" about it? For a FE without a dome the ice walls need to be thousands of km tall to keep the air in, there's no mystery about that. But why can't we see them?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 05, 2019, 07:15:53 PM

Quote from: turtles on May 05, 2019, 11:45:05 AM

Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in.

Nice straw man. Where did you read this was a thing?

What's "straw man" about it? For a FE without a dome the ice walls need to be thousands of km tall to keep the air in, there's no mystery about that.

This is a position that you have made up, not held by any significant supporters of FE. If you care to dispute, provide examples of references to the "thousands of km tall" ice wall that is required to "keep the air in", as opposed to the 150 foot high ice wall referenced in Wikipedia, the wikis of tfes.org, theflatearthsociety.org, and numerous conversations here.

This is one of the clearest examples of a straw man that I have seen here ... inventing a position not held by any of your opponents so you can argue against that invented position.

A lot of light related issues are Optical illusion. I have many workings about this issue but want to shortify it for you.



In this photo, you see the object (which object?) on your way to the moon are clearly seen as brightly, and the remain areas are in darkness. This is because the earth's being 2D simulation and fake. Because if you move to any direction to right or left, then the past (?) brightly area turns to darkness and another dar area turns to brightly (?). This is nothing but the nonsence of this weak system.

This system only tries to prevent smart people like me. But when issue (?) comes to create its own components (?), then it turns a cheap computer program. the system fights against intelligent people to hide their mistakes and weaknesses. and so the retards manage the world. This is not related the issue but related the jackblack and other angry globularists here. I hope you'll not turn an angry globularists here.

Sorry, but I have problems in understanding your writing.

But you seem to have got the believe, if I understood correctly, that it is an illusion that the sun is behind the horizon during rising and setting, because it has to be higher according to FET.
Thus, are you basically thinking:
"reality does not fit to FET, therefore, reality has to be a cheap computer program with errors"?
Or, to nail your logic down:
FET == reality: false
FET := true
→ reality: false.
(which is confirmed by the moon picture discussion).

Did I get this right?

Quote from: turtles on May 06, 2019, 08:48:59 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 05, 2019, 07:15:53 PM

Quote from: turtles on May 05, 2019, 11:45:05 AM

Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in.

Nice straw man. Where did you read this was a thing?

What's "straw man" about it? For a FE without a dome the ice walls need to be thousands of km tall to keep the air in, there's no mystery about that.

This is a position that you have made up, not held by any significant supporters of FE. If you care to dispute, provide examples of references to the "thousands of km tall" ice wall that is required to "keep the air in", as opposed to the 150 foot high ice wall referenced in Wikipedia, the wikis of tfes.org, theflatearthsociety.org, and numerous conversations here.

This is one of the clearest examples of a straw man that I have seen here ... inventing a position not held by any of your opponents so you can argue against that invented position.

Well someone made up all the parts of FET (mostly Rowbotham I suppose) so why can't I make something up and have it become part of FE canon? What makes one person's theories better than someone else's?

But anyway, ice wall thousands of km high. I didn't exactly make it up, it was just the logical conclusion of the problem of what's keeping the air in? (assuming a none-domed FE). I'm perfectly happy to hear and discuss your theory of what's keeping the air in.

Quote from: wise on May 06, 2019, 12:13:46 AM

A lot of light related issues are Optical illusion. I have many workings about this issue but want to shortify it for you.



In this photo, you see the object (which object?) on your way to the moon are clearly seen as brightly, and the remain areas are in darkness. This is because the earth's being 2D simulation and fake. Because if you move to any direction to right or left, then the past (?) brightly area turns to darkness and another dar area turns to brightly (?). This is nothing but the nonsence of this weak system.

This system only tries to prevent smart people like me. But when issue (?) comes to create its own components (?), then it turns a cheap computer program. the system fights against intelligent people to hide their mistakes and weaknesses. and so the retards manage the world. This is not related the issue but related the jackblack and other angry globularists here. I hope you'll not turn an angry globularists here.

Sorry, but I have problems in understanding your writing.

But you seem to have the believe, if I understood correctly, that it is an illusion that the sun is behind the horizon during rising and setting, because it has to be higher according to FET.
Thus, are you basically thinking:
"reality does not fit to FET, therefore, it has to be a cheap computer program with errors"?
so, to nail your logic down: "false" = "false" is true?

This object:



You have completly missunderstand me. If you try to get my thinking you can not do that.

If you really want to get my thinking and want to give up kiding as how you did, I can reply it. But by this wording you can't get a sincere answer. I recommend you give up to be an angry globularist logic, and be a man, normal man. Otherwise you can unable to get me.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 06, 2019, 10:09:09 AM

Quote from: turtles on May 06, 2019, 08:48:59 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 05, 2019, 07:15:53 PM

Quote from: turtles on May 05, 2019, 11:45:05 AM

Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in.

Nice straw man. Where did you read this was a thing?

What's "straw man" about it? For a FE without a dome the ice walls need to be thousands of km tall to keep the air in, there's no mystery about that.

This is a position that you have made up, not held by any significant supporters of FE. If you care to dispute, provide examples of references to the "thousands of km tall" ice wall that is required to "keep the air in", as opposed to the 150 foot high ice wall referenced in Wikipedia, the wikis of tfes.org, theflatearthsociety.org, and numerous conversations here.

This is one of the clearest examples of a straw man that I have seen here ... inventing a position not held by any of your opponents so you can argue against that invented position.

Well someone made up all the parts of FET (mostly Rowbotham I suppose) so why can't I make something up and have it become part of FE canon? What makes one person's theories better than someone else's?

Because making up something and touting it as your opponents' position, just so that you can argue against it is the definition of a straw man argument. If your invented position was something that you suggested and then your opponent used as an argument in support of a position, then arguing against it is acceptable. What makes one person's "theories" better in this case is that it is an argument they actually make. Your "theory" is an argument that you made up just so you could argue with yourself.

But anyway, ice wall thousands of km high. I didn't exactly make it up, ...

Yes, that's exactly what you did!

it was just the logical conclusion of the problem of what's keeping the air in? (assuming a none-domed FE). I'm perfectly happy to hear and discuss your theory of what's keeping the air in.

I don't think you understand what a logical conclusion is.

Sorry. You should not use my talkings to other people as your main argument.

He was taking your statements made in a  public forum as your argument and objecting to it.

Be a man among man, be like a flat earther.

You are yet to present any reason why someone should be a FEer. So far you have just spouted a bunch of nonsense that is easily refuted.

I recommend you give up to be an angry globularist logic, and be a man, normal man. Otherwise you can unable to get me.

It isn't angry globularist logic. It is simply logic. Something you seem to hate because it never seems to support your position.

Now how about you address the issue of the OP?
How you can see the sun, especially when it sets, if we can only see such a limited distance?
We know it isn't refraction as that would make it appear higher, not lower.
We know it isn't simply a case of it getting too thick into the atmosphere. If that was the case then it would disappear high in the sky as it fades to a blur.
We know your "optical illusion" and claims of being in a simulation is just you not understand or misrepresenting how reflection works. (I take it you don't have mirrors in your place?)

It is not a conversation you are in

It is a public conversation in a public forum. Anyone who posts in this thread is in this conversation.

Now can you address the issue, or just complain? Why do you seem so afraid of answering? Is it because you can't answer and no that your position has no rational defence?

How you can see the sun, especially when it sets, if we can only see such a limited distance?
We know it isn't refraction as that would make it appear higher, not lower.
We know it isn't simply a case of it getting too thick into the atmosphere. If that was the case then it would disappear high in the sky as it fades to a blur.
We know your "optical illusion" and claims of being in a simulation is just you not understand or misrepresenting how reflection works. (I take it you don't have mirrors in your place?)

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 06, 2019, 01:43:02 PM

Quote from: turtles on May 06, 2019, 12:09:35 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 06, 2019, 10:09:09 AM

Quote from: turtles on May 06, 2019, 08:48:59 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 05, 2019, 07:15:53 PM

Quote from: turtles on May 05, 2019, 11:45:05 AM

Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in.

Nice straw man. Where did you read this was a thing?

What's "straw man" about it? For a FE without a dome the ice walls need to be thousands of km tall to keep the air in, there's no mystery about that.

This is a position that you have made up, not held by any significant supporters of FE. If you care to dispute, provide examples of references to the "thousands of km tall" ice wall that is required to "keep the air in", as opposed to the 150 foot high ice wall referenced in Wikipedia, the wikis of tfes.org, theflatearthsociety.org, and numerous conversations here.

This is one of the clearest examples of a straw man that I have seen here ... inventing a position not held by any of your opponents so you can argue against that invented position.

Well someone made up all the parts of FET (mostly Rowbotham I suppose) so why can't I make something up and have it become part of FE canon? What makes one person's theories better than someone else's?

Because making up something and touting it as your opponents' position, just so that you can argue against it is the definition of a straw man argument. If your invented position was something that you suggested and then your opponent used as an argument in support of a position, then arguing against it is acceptable. What makes one person's "theories" better in this case is that it is an argument they actually make. Your "theory" is an argument that you made up just so you could argue with yourself.

Where did I claim it was a position held by other people here? From the number of people arguing against it in other threads I'd say it certainly isn't a position held by FEers. I'm not even arguing against it myself, I'm saying if there is an edge wall it must be thousands of km tall.

Quote

Quote from: turtles on May 06, 2019, 12:09:35 PM

But anyway, ice wall thousands of km high. I didn't exactly make it up, ...

Yes, that's exactly what you did!

Yup, so you formulated a reply before reading the whole sentence....

Quote

Quote from: turtles on May 06, 2019, 12:09:35 PM

it was just the logical conclusion of the problem of what's keeping the air in? (assuming a none-domed FE). I'm perfectly happy to hear and discuss your theory of what's keeping the air in.

I don't think you understand what a logical conclusion is.

...and then you read the rest of the sentence and realised you had nowhere else to go. So, a quick platitude and you hoped you got away with it without having to think about what is actually keeping the air in.

You heard about an ice wall.

You invented that it was thousands of km high based on nothing other than casual thought. You stated "It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in." (Notwithstanding that keeping air "in" would require 200-ish km. Certainly not more than 600 km.)

You asked why we can't see this wall.

No one else believes in a wall thousands of km high.

Positing a non-existent thing just to argue against it is a straw man.

The rest of your post about what I think and how I constructed my reply is rubbish -- another one of your inventions that is not true.

Your logical conclusion is that the only possible thing that keeps air in is your invented ice wall. You have shown no "logical conclusion" other than "Well, *I* can't think of anything, therefore it excludes all other explanations." That is why I think you don't understand what a logical conclusion is. Either that, or you do understand, and are intentionally trying to hoodwink readers.

You heard about an ice wall.

You invented that it was thousands of km high based on nothing other than casual thought.
You stated "It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in." (Notwithstanding that keeping air "in" would require 200-ish km. Certainly not more than 600 km.)

Nope, you may well be able to orbit in the rarified gases at 200km, 600km, or more and a wall that height would keep 99% of the atmosphere in, but you let that last 1% leak over the top and the 99% that's left will expand and then the top 1% of that will leak away until you've got nothing less. Not 1% you think? Only 0.0001%? Fine, it'll just take longer, the Earth has been here long enough already.

So, if you want to shoot this theory down, tell me, what's keeping the air in?

You asked why we can't see this wall.

Yes, why can't we?

No one else believes in a wall thousands of km high.

Hardly anyone believes in the FE either, if belief is based on numbers you're on shaky ground too.

Positing a non-existent thing just to argue against it is a straw man.

Right, so now you're saying the whole of Flat Earth is a straw man?

The rest of your post about what I think and how I constructed my reply is rubbish -- another one of your inventions that is not true.

What, you think that what you think  isn't important? I think it is, tell me what you think keeps the air in. You do have an opinion don't you?

Your logical conclusion is that the only possible thing that keeps air in is your invented ice wall. You have shown no "logical conclusion" other than "Well, *I* can't think of anything, therefore it excludes all other explanations." That is why I think you don't understand what a logical conclusion is. Either that, or you do understand, and are intentionally trying to hoodwink readers.

We're never going to progress without a discussion. If you think logic leads in a different direction then tell me. Maybe you're a dome believer in which case you don't need a tall wall in your universe?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 06, 2019, 11:18:04 PM

You heard about an ice wall.

You invented that it was thousands of km high based on nothing other than casual thought.
You stated "It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in." (Notwithstanding that keeping air "in" would require 200-ish km. Certainly not more than 600 km.)

Nope, you may well be able to orbit in the rarified gases at 200km, 600km, or more and a wall that height would keep 99% of the atmosphere in, but you let that last 1% leak over the top and the 99% that's left will expand and then the top 1% of that will leak away until you've got nothing less. Not 1% you think? Only 0.0001%? Fine, it'll just take longer, the Earth has been here long enough already.

Oh, is that now your invented process with invented values for how things work? (At 600 km, it's about 5 x 10^-12. That's 0.0001% of your 0.0001%). But by your unassailable logic, the same thing happens on a spherical Earth. Atmospheric molecules randomly collide and statistically a small percentage of them acquire sufficient kinetic energy to achieve escape velocity and are ejected into space (i.e., they "leak over the edge" of the gravity well). It's a small fraction, but the rest of the atmosphere will expand and the process continues until there's nothing left. It takes longer, but the Earth has been here long enough. By your reasoning, the Earth therefore has no atmosphere.

So, if you want to shoot this theory down, tell me, what's keeping the air in?

Off-topic. Pointing out your poor logic and rhetorical fallacies does not compel me to solve the problem for you.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 06, 2019, 11:18:04 PM

Quote

You asked why we can't see this wall.

Yes, why can't we?

Quote

No one else believes in a wall thousands of km high.

Hardly anyone believes in the FE either, if belief is based on numbers you're on shaky ground too.

Quote

Positing a non-existent thing just to argue against it is a straw man.

Right, so now you're saying the whole of Flat Earth is a straw man?

Quote

The rest of your post about what I think and how I constructed my reply is rubbish -- another one of your inventions that is not true.

What, you think that what you think  isn't important? I think it is, tell me what you think keeps the air in. You do have an opinion don't you?

Quote

Your logical conclusion is that the only possible thing that keeps air in is your invented ice wall. You have shown no "logical conclusion" other than "Well, *I* can't think of anything, therefore it excludes all other explanations." That is why I think you don't understand what a logical conclusion is. Either that, or you do understand, and are intentionally trying to hoodwink readers.

We're never going to progress without a discussion. If you think logic leads in a different direction then tell me. Maybe you're a dome believer in which case you don't need a tall wall in your universe?

I already told you why you can't see the wall ... you invented it and it doesn't exist. Let's not play that game.

Belief isn't based on numbers (another of your inventions). But if no one has presented an explanation except you, and you use that to then argue why that explanation should not be used by your opponents, that's a fallacious argument. (E.g. Dragons at the edge keep the air in. The dragons need to fly around in the air to blow the air back. Why can't we see these dragons that you keep talking about?)

"The whole of Flat Earth is a straw man?" You really either don't understand or are being intentionally thick.

And then more off-topic nonsense.

Who says I have any interest in progressing? Your inability to understand simple logic and common rhetorical fallacies makes discussions like this wearisome and unproductive.

Though also, why can't we see the top of the ice wall from across the whole flat earth? It is several thousand km high in order to keep the air in. The top, being in hard vacuum and thus not obscured by atmosphere should easily be seen.

The flat Earth Wiki says the ice wall is only 150 feet high ?

For the ice wall, I would like to ask you to make a new thread.
And rabinoz and blackjack please hold back for a while. You are overhelming wise. I would like to talk with wise here for a while 1on1. No offensive, but that would just be very kind, thanks.

Quote from: Souleon on May 06, 2019, 10:09:56 AM

Quote from: wise on May 06, 2019, 12:13:46 AM

A lot of light related issues are Optical illusion. I have many workings about this issue but want to shortify it for you.



In this photo, you see the object (which object?) on your way to the moon are clearly seen as brightly, and the remain areas are in darkness. This is because the earth's being 2D simulation and fake. Because if you move to any direction to right or left, then the past (?) brightly area turns to darkness and another dar area turns to brightly (?). This is nothing but the nonsence of this weak system.

This system only tries to prevent smart people like me. But when issue (?) comes to create its own components (?), then it turns a cheap computer program. the system fights against intelligent people to hide their mistakes and weaknesses. and so the retards manage the world. This is not related the issue but related the jackblack and other angry globularists here. I hope you'll not turn an angry globularists here.

Sorry, but I have problems in understanding your writing.

But you seem to have the believe, if I understood correctly, that it is an illusion that the sun is behind the horizon during rising and setting, because it has to be higher according to FET.
Thus, are you basically thinking:
"reality does not fit to FET, therefore, it has to be a cheap computer program with errors"?
so, to nail your logic down: "false" = "false" is true?

This object:



You have completly missunderstand me. If you try to get my thinking you can not do that.

If you really want to get my thinking and want to give up kiding as how you did, I can reply it. But by this wording you can't get a sincere answer. I recommend you give up to be an angry globularist logic, and be a man, normal man. Otherwise you can unable to get me.

Wise,
I was and am not angry and also not kidding. This was a misunderstanding because you cannot hear my tone by reading written text. If we would talk you would hear my tone to be friendly, calm and interested. Maybe you can read it again with this just described tone in mind.

Ok, let us try again. Please try to write in simple logic, so I can understand.

Something like
"In reality strange phenomena can be observed" → ... → "RE wrong and FE true".

What exactly is bothering you with the moon pictures? Please use short and clear sentences.

For the ice wall, I would like to ask you to make a new thread.
And rabinoz and blackjack please hold back for a while. You are overhelming wise. I would like to talk with wise here for a while 1on1. No offensive, but that would just be very kind, thanks.

Quote from: wise on May 06, 2019, 01:16:40 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 06, 2019, 10:09:56 AM

Quote from: wise on May 06, 2019, 12:13:46 AM

A lot of light related issues are Optical illusion. I have many workings about this issue but want to shortify it for you.



In this photo, you see the object (which object?) on your way to the moon are clearly seen as brightly, and the remain areas are in darkness. This is because the earth's being 2D simulation and fake. Because if you move to any direction to right or left, then the past (?) brightly area turns to darkness and another dar area turns to brightly (?). This is nothing but the nonsence of this weak system.

This system only tries to prevent smart people like me. But when issue (?) comes to create its own components (?), then it turns a cheap computer program. the system fights against intelligent people to hide their mistakes and weaknesses. and so the retards manage the world. This is not related the issue but related the jackblack and other angry globularists here. I hope you'll not turn an angry globularists here.

Sorry, but I have problems in understanding your writing.

But you seem to have the believe, if I understood correctly, that it is an illusion that the sun is behind the horizon during rising and setting, because it has to be higher according to FET.
Thus, are you basically thinking:
"reality does not fit to FET, therefore, it has to be a cheap computer program with errors"?
so, to nail your logic down: "false" = "false" is true?

This object:



You have completly missunderstand me. If you try to get my thinking you can not do that.

If you really want to get my thinking and want to give up kiding as how you did, I can reply it. But by this wording you can't get a sincere answer. I recommend you give up to be an angry globularist logic, and be a man, normal man. Otherwise you can unable to get me.

Wise,
I was and am not angry and also not kidding. This was a misunderstanding because you cannot hear my tone by reading written text. If we would talk you would hear my tone to be friendly, calm and interested. Maybe you can read it again with this just described tone in mind.

Ok, let us try again. Please try to write in simple logic, so I can understand.

Something like
"In reality strange phenomena can be observed" → ... → "RE wrong and FE true".

What exactly is bothering you with the moon pictures? Please use short and clear sentences.

I did not see an angry globularist accept himself being an angry globularist. Anyways, I'll pre agree your not being angry globularist, till you show an evidence again you are so.



Under moon light, you are clearly seing the object A.

In darkside, you almost can not see any detail of ship B.

So much so that, you can zoom men on object A and see men are fishing. But you can not see any details in ship B.

The problem here, the light on the ship is "IMAGINARY". Because the light on the ship is relevant with the position of observer, inother say, you see the ship A because it is under the moon according to your point of view. If you move right to get moon upside of SHIP B, then you'll see all details in SHIP B and then OBJECT A will go in darkness.

So that, moon light on the ship is imaginary, not real. It is because there is a program, and the simulation allows you to see OBJECT A when it stays under the position of the moon according to your point of view.

For the ice wall, I would like to ask you to make a new thread.

New thread

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.0

Under moon light, you are clearly seing the object A.

You are seeing a silhouette. You are "seeing" the light being reflected by the water being blocked by the ship.
So once again, this matches simple physics. No need for a simulation.

Now care to address the issues more directly related to the topic?
How you can see the sun, especially when it sets, if we can only see such a limited distance?
We know it isn't refraction as that would make it appear higher, not lower.
We know it isn't simply a case of it getting too thick into the atmosphere. If that was the case then it would disappear high in the sky as it fades to a blur.
We know your "optical illusion" and claims of being in a simulation is just you not understand or misrepresenting how reflection works. (I take it you don't have mirrors in your place?)

The problem here, the light on the ship is "IMAGINARY". Because the light on the ship is relevant with the position of observer, inother say, you see the ship A because it is under the moon according to your point of view. If you move right to get moon upside of SHIP B, then you'll see all details in SHIP B and then OBJECT A will go in darkness.

So that, moon light on the ship is imaginary, not real. It is because there is a program, and the simulation allows you to see OBJECT A when it stays under the position of the moon according to your point of view.

A what??? ? "there is a program, and the simulation allows you to see" are you totally crazy? Who or what makes this "simulation"?

Moonlight is exactly the same as sunlight except that it is less bright - get used to it! Look at these two photos - one with full moonlight and one direct sunlight:

Karajini Gorge National Park, Western Australia, taken under full moonlight, see the stars?

Start of the Great Central Road, taken under full direct sunlight.

Moonlight is almost identicial to sunlight except its intensity is very much reduced because moonlight is simply reflected sunlight. That has been know for millennia!

Wise, you certainly have to dream up such amazing fantasies to support your funny "theories".

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

When you light a flashlight in the dark, say on a camping trip - does it extend forever? Or does it fade away?

Rabinoz and jackblack your are doing it again ... Ok never mind.. 

Quote from: Souleon on May 05, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

When you light a flashlight in the dark, say on a camping trip - does it extend forever? Or does it fade away?

Hello John, thanks for joining the debate. It fades away. Please go on!

Quote from: Souleon on May 07, 2019, 10:52:50 PM

Rabinoz and jackblack your are doing it again ... Ok never mind.. 

I've replied your question. Its their job. Don't get serious them. This is their job. They are two robots continue to talk whether you tell them shut up or not.

I do not take orders from you, Mr Wise!

I hope you now get the moon light problem.

There is no "moon light problem" with the Globe earth. We know that moonlight is simply reflected sunlight. Everything fits perfectly.
If you have a "moon light problem" with your flat earth, that might simply be because your flat earth with sun and moon circling overhead is wrong.

Have you read this, Maximum seeing distance « Reply #41 on: Today at 12:48:05 PM »?