Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth

  • 40 Replies
  • 5900 Views
Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2019, 10:17:28 AM »
Guess I don't quite understand how to do quotes on this site so that my comment is separated.
you start a quote with: [ quote] remove space
end quote with: [/ quote] remove space
use preview to see it, be for posting.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

Macarios

  • 1890
Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2019, 04:50:11 AM »
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.

So, when you have your horizon at 4 miles away the rest is obscured by air.
And then, suddenly, the upper half of that mountain 20 miles farther than that horizon is not obscured by the same air?

The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.

Those street lamps are just glare in the foggy and/or smoky air.
The Sun has the surface features clearly visible through proper filter all the way until sunset.
The size of the Sun itself doesn't get complemented with some glare around it.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16341
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2019, 01:02:15 PM »
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.

So, when you have your horizon at 4 miles away the rest is obscured by air.
And then, suddenly, the upper half of that mountain 20 miles farther than that horizon is not obscured by the same air?
I've never seen a mountain "dip" below the horizon. It has always faded in in my experience. That said, the upper half clearly would pass through less dense air.

Quote
The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.

Those street lamps are just glare in the foggy and/or smoky air.
The Sun has the surface features clearly visible through proper filter all the way until sunset.
The size of the Sun itself doesn't get complemented with some glare around it.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Macarios

  • 1890
Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2019, 04:08:28 PM »
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.

So, when you have your horizon at 4 miles away the rest is obscured by air.
And then, suddenly, the upper half of that mountain 20 miles farther than that horizon is not obscured by the same air?
I've never seen a mountain "dip" below the horizon. It has always faded in in my experience. That said, the upper half clearly would pass through less dense air.

Horizon at 4 miles seen "at the eye level".
Mountain top at 20 miles seen one degree above it.
How much less should be the air to allow the mountain to be seen at the 5 times greater distance?
How can people still breathe (and have a picnic) at the top of that mountain?

Quote
The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.

Those street lamps are just glare in the foggy and/or smoky air.
The Sun has the surface features clearly visible through proper filter all the way until sunset.
The size of the Sun itself doesn't get complemented with some glare around it.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to.

I'm refering to the explanation in Rowbotham's book where he replaces
the angular size of the glare around street lamp
with the angular size of the lamp itself.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2019, 03:49:01 AM »
The level of detail Tom gave, and his decades long dedication to the flat earth leaves any reasonable person no room for doubt of his intentions or honesty.
I have absolutely no doubt concerning Tom's intentions or honesty.

Quote
You may disagree with his interpretation of results, but I see no way one can levy an attack against his honesty.
He lied about his tests and got caught.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4096
Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2019, 04:09:58 AM »
Horizon at 4 miles seen "at the eye level".
Mountain top at 20 miles seen one degree above it.
How much less should be the air to allow the mountain to be seen at the 5 times greater distance?
How can people still breathe (and have a picnic) at the top of that mountain?
Considerably less thin and therefore considerably more clear.

Objective fact.

People do not have picnics on tops of mountains.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2019, 05:50:47 AM »
Considerably less thin and therefore considerably more clear.

Objective fact.
(I assume you meant less thick or more thin)
Not an objective fact.
I highly subjective fact based upon your definition of "considerably".
Absorbance is proportional to the product of concentration and path length, so in order for that to be the reason why you can see an object 5 times the distance, it would need to be 0.2 times the "thickness", i.e. density.
But that requires going well above 10 000 m.


As a note, Mt Everest is <9000 m.

So that clearly can't explain it.

And that was being nice and assuming the entire path is at that altitude.

Instead, the path ends basically the same as the one which starts at the horizon.
At 4 miles, 1 degree is only ~112 m.

That means that (assuming Earth is flat), light from the  ground can only travel 4 miles, but by going just a tiny bit above that, it can go for 20?

That just doesn't add up.

And of course, if the atmosphere was an issue, the horizon would be a blur, not a clear line.
It would be a blur, from the ground/water, until you eventually got high enough for a more distant object to go through a small enough amount of atmosphere to not get blurred out.

*

Macarios

  • 1890
Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2019, 03:28:14 PM »
Horizon at 4 miles seen "at the eye level".
Mountain top at 20 miles seen one degree above it.
How much less should be the air to allow the mountain to be seen at the 5 times greater distance?
How can people still breathe (and have a picnic) at the top of that mountain?
Considerably less thin and therefore considerably more clear.

Objective fact.

People do not have picnics on tops of mountains.

And when the light from the mountain top comes to the horizon
weakened somewhat through those 16 miles of air,
it "does not" continue through the thicker air at the remaining 4 miles
between the horizon and the observer?
The light from the mountain somehow circumvents it? :)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2019, 07:05:18 AM »
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.

So, when you have your horizon at 4 miles away the rest is obscured by air.
And then, suddenly, the upper half of that mountain 20 miles farther than that horizon is not obscured by the same air?
I've never seen a mountain "dip" below the horizon. It has always faded in in my experience. That said, the upper half clearly would pass through less dense air.

Quote
The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.

Those street lamps are just glare in the foggy and/or smoky air.
The Sun has the surface features clearly visible through proper filter all the way until sunset.
The size of the Sun itself doesn't get complemented with some glare around it.
I'm confused as to what you are referring to.

I'm not really sure what this poster is referring to about distant objects 'fading away', all I can say is he is talking total nonsense as it's not born out by any kind of scientific or engineering activity that makes use of either the naked eye or specialized optics to look at distant objects. I'll be honest and say I'm not a scientist in the strictess sense but have spent a career looking through one kind of optic or other in my job as a surveyor. The atmosphere and its clarity or transparency is of course not constant and is indeed very variable according to local conditions. When looking at distant objects particularly if you are in an area with very clear air such as northwest Tasmania, you do indeed observe distant objects quite clearly dipping below the horizon and certainly not "fading away". Perhaps in an area where there is a very high level of atmospheric pollution such as Mumbai you may well notice distant objects being obscured by the particulates suspended in the atmosphere. Under normal conditions, however, you are most likely to observe distant objects dipping out of sight below the horizon as they move farther away. To imagine otherwise is simply distorting the truth which anyone is at liberty to check.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2019, 07:07:48 AM by Timeisup »

Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #39 on: December 09, 2019, 12:18:48 PM »
Tom has performed the exact experiment you mention.
Link please.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Distances are irrelevant on a flat Earth
« Reply #40 on: December 09, 2019, 11:53:09 PM »
Tom has performed the exact experiment you mention.
Link please.

Good luck with that  ;)

It is on the wiki on the 'other' site

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence

Have a read, and just take his word for it. As ever they have to take their measurements from a globe model, as you cant measure distances, other than straight lines from the pole, on a flat earth map.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2019, 12:14:30 AM by mak3m »
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.