telescopes, radar and LIDAR

Flat earthers love the six mile canal story, but ignore the day to day experience of the tens of thousands of individuals sailing the seas and flying the sky.

Why can I see Mars with a cheap telescope but not Mt. Everest?  Why isn't a ship's radar useful for hundreds, even thousands of miles?  Why can't a LIDAR beam from Mt. Rainier hit Mt Fuji?  On a flat earth I should be able to see Hawaii from San Fransisco.  But I can't.  On the other hand, I can count the rings on Saturn, even with a cheap Walmart device.

 I can count the rings on Saturn, even with a cheap Walmart device.

How many rings did you count?

Speaking as someone who has seen Saturns rings regularly through my own telescopes, I can confirm that astronomers can see a few divisions in the rings (e.g. the Cassini division) and so we talk about the A ring, B ring and C ring etc.

We know the rings are in fact distributed as a very large number of very thin 'ringlets' which simply appear merged together when seen from Earth. The rings themselves are made up of debris from a satellite that never formed.  The particles making up the debris are covered in a layer of frozen methane which makes them highly reflective.

The question is, why don't any of our technologies known to operate primarily line of sight over thousands of miles allow us to  see beyond the horizon?  Obviously there is the issue of refraction, diffusion and power limits, but all of these obstacles can be overcome.  But not the horizon.  Why?

.., but all of these obstacles can be overcome

Citation?

Flat earthers love the six mile canal story, but ignore the day to day experience of the tens of thousands of individuals sailing the seas and flying the sky.

Why can I see Mars with a cheap telescope but not Mt. Everest?  Why isn't a ship's radar useful for hundreds, even thousands of miles?  Why can't a LIDAR beam from Mt. Rainier hit Mt Fuji?  On a flat earth I should be able to see Hawaii from San Fransisco.  But I can't.  On the other hand, I can count the rings on Saturn, even with a cheap Walmart device.

Have you viewed Mars or counted Saturn's rings when Mars or Saturn were a few arc minutes above the horizon?

What would you expect to see in your telescope when attempting to view Hawaii from San Francisco viewing through over 2000 miles of sea-level atmosphere laden with ocean moisture? Describe what you would expect to see. You see Mars and Saturn through only a few miles of air.

Where are you trying to view Mt. Everest from? If there are any local terrain variations in height, that might disqualify your entire premise. And how do you know in what direction to point your telescope? In your theoretical experiment Mt. Everest would only be a few arcminutes in extent, and as part of the Himalayas just a tiny ripple among the imperceptibly jagged mountain range. How would you know if you were seeing it, but didn't recognize it? Heck, in the mountains where I live, I can barely see, let alone recognize a mountain in the back range 100-150 miles away.

Seems like a poorly thought out argument.

Quote from: ronbegon on December 28, 2019, 03:57:58 AM

Flat earthers love the six mile canal story, but ignore the day to day experience of the tens of thousands of individuals sailing the seas and flying the sky.

Why can I see Mars with a cheap telescope but not Mt. Everest?  Why isn't a ship's radar useful for hundreds, even thousands of miles?  Why can't a LIDAR beam from Mt. Rainier hit Mt Fuji?  On a flat earth I should be able to see Hawaii from San Fransisco.  But I can't.  On the other hand, I can count the rings on Saturn, even with a cheap Walmart device.

Have you viewed Mars or counted Saturn's rings when Mars or Saturn were a few arc minutes above the horizon?

What would you expect to see in your telescope when attempting to view Hawaii from San Francisco viewing through over 2000 miles of sea-level atmosphere laden with ocean moisture? Describe what you would expect to see. You see Mars and Saturn through only a few miles of air.

Where are you trying to view Mt. Everest from? If there are any local terrain variations in height, that might disqualify your entire premise. And how do you know in what direction to point your telescope? In your theoretical experiment Mt. Everest would only be a few arcminutes in extent, and as part of the Himalayas just a tiny ripple among the imperceptibly jagged mountain range. How would you know if you were seeing it, but didn't recognize it? Heck, in the mountains where I live, I can barely see, let alone recognize a mountain in the back range 100-150 miles away.

Seems like a poorly thought out argument.

I think a few things here need to be clarified. When looking at stars or planets you are not actually looking through a few miles or kilometres of atmosphere but, 480 kilometres or there about. Try looking for an object 400 kilometres from your current position and see how you get on.
You of course ignore marine radar and how it’s unable to see effectively over the horizon. Marine xband radar with an output of let’s say 4KW has an effective range of no more than 50km while radar can ping signals off the moon. Why do you think that is?
Looks like your response was poorly thought out!

You do realize there is a lot less "stuff" in the way to scatter light as altitude increases, right?



Your 480km argument really doesn't hold a lot of water.

You do realize there is a lot less "stuff" in the way to scatter light as altitude increases, right?



Your 480km argument really doesn't hold a lot of water.

While the atmosphere does indeed thin as one goes higher. Radar is not affected by such things, hence it’s usefulness in foggy conditions or in the dark. Explain if you dare how radar is however limited by the curve of the earth being unable to see over the horizon yet can reach out to distant objects such as the moon or even Venus? This is no conspiracy by NASA but a day to day mater of fact experienced by all who sail on the sea. So how much water does your argument hold, or has it sprung yet another leak?

Your 480km argument really doesn't hold a lot of water.

Bah-dum tsh!

Wait.  Was that a pun?  It sounded like a pun.

It’s a fair point.  However, we can clearly make out surface details on the moon on a clear night when it’s just above horizon.  How much atmosphere is that light supposed to be going through according to flat earthers?  I guess that depends on whatever bendy light/weird perspective reasons they subscribe to.

You do realize there is a lot less "stuff" in the way to scatter light as altitude increases, right?



Your 480km argument really doesn't hold a lot of water.

Secondary or supplementary question. What was the source of your graph? Was it from a mainstream scientific source or  flat earth derived data?

Quote from: boydster on January 04, 2020, 09:42:15 AM

You do realize there is a lot less "stuff" in the way to scatter light as altitude increases, right?



Your 480km argument really doesn't hold a lot of water.

Secondary or supplementary question. What was the source of your graph? Was it from a mainstream scientific source or flat earth derived data?

There are numerous sources of that information but that particular graph seems to originate from:
       Mide Technology, ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS: Air Pressure at Altitude Calculator.
Similar information is to be found in:
       Sable Systems International: Altitude & Barometric Pressure
And this might as authoritative as any:
       Public Domain Aeronautical Software: Definition of the 1976 Standard Atmosphere to 86 km
And this has atmospheric properties up to extreme altitudes:
       Robert A. Braeunig: ATMOSPHERE PROPERTIES

But it's all essentially the same information.

Astronomers are very interested in the effect of the atmosphere on "seeing" (as they call it) and you'll find numerous references to it such as here and many other places:
    SKY and TELESCOPE: Transparency and Atmospheric Extinction.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 04, 2020, 04:10:26 PM

Quote from: boydster on January 04, 2020, 09:42:15 AM

You do realize there is a lot less "stuff" in the way to scatter light as altitude increases, right?



Your 480km argument really doesn't hold a lot of water.

Secondary or supplementary question. What was the source of your graph? Was it from a mainstream scientific source or flat earth derived data?

There are numerous sources of that information but that particular graph seems to originate from:
       Mide Technology, ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS: Air Pressure at Altitude Calculator.
Similar information is to be found in:
       Sable Systems International: Altitude & Barometric Pressure
And this might as authoritative as any:
       Public Domain Aeronautical Software: Definition of the 1976 Standard Atmosphere to 86 km
And this has atmospheric properties up to extreme altitudes:
       Robert A. Braeunig: ATMOSPHERE PROPERTIES

But it's all essentially the same information.

Astronomers are very interested in the effect of the atmosphere on "seeing" (as they call it) and you'll find numerous references to it such as here and many other places:
    SKY and TELESCOPE: Transparency and Atmospheric Extinction.

Is it not a bit odd that Flat earth believers will happily use conventional science as part their argument against conventional science? In this case they appear to reject the well established behaviour of radio waves but are willing on this occasion to accept that atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude. It difficult at times to know what they will believe on any particular occasion.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 04, 2020, 06:31:07 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And this has atmospheric properties up to extreme altitudes:
       Robert A. Braeunig: ATMOSPHERE PROPERTIES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Astronomers are very interested in the effect of the atmosphere on "seeing" (as they call it) and you'll find numerous references to it such as here and many other places:
    SKY and TELESCOPE: Transparency and Atmospheric Extinction.

Is it not a bit odd that Flat earth believers will happily use conventional science as part their argument against conventional science? In this case they appear to reject the well established behaviour of radio waves but are willing on this occasion to accept that atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude. It difficult at times to know what they will believe on any particular occasion.

• Boydster might be a moderator but he's not a flat-Earther and I posted those links to show that the graph he posted was correct and very relevant.
  
  
• Traces of the atmosphere might extend to 480 km and beyond but its pressure and density fall of so rapidly that the effective thickness is roughly equivalent to 8 km of sea-level air.
  Astronomers refer to that effective thickness as one "airmass" and they compare the brightness of stars etc in magnitudes where one magnitude is a reduction in brightness by a factor of 100^1/5 - weird but it's for historical reasons.
  
  That second link above has:
  Quote

  Rayleigh scattering reduces the star's brightness by 0.145 magnitude at this wavelength. (Other sources yield values closer to 0.140 magnitude.) Ozone absorption removes another 0.016 magnitude, so the total extinction at sea level is roughly 0.16 magnitude for a star directly overhead if the air contains no impurities whatsoever.

  And that 0.16 magnitude is a ratio of about 0.87.
  Then:
  Quote

  For a star 30° above the horizon, you're looking through two airmasses. At 10°, 5.6 airmasses, and for an object on the horizon, 40 airmasses. The number of airmasses is approximately 1/sin(alt), though this needs modification near the horizon because of Earth's curvature. See Green's article for a more accurate formula.

  So through the clearest air the Sun, Moon or a star would have its brightness reduced by a factor of about 0.0048 or ¹/₂₀₉.
  The Sun, Moon or very bright planets might be seen through that but scenery etc would usually be reduced to a blue haze long before.

Note that the above applies only to a completely unpolluted atmosphere. Haze and pollution can drastically reduce the extinction distance.

Maybe you should rethink this:

I think a few things here need to be clarified. When looking at stars or planets you are not actually looking through a few miles or kilometres of atmosphere but, 480 kilometres or there about. Try looking for an object 400 kilometres from your current position and see how you get on.
You of course ignore marine radar and how it’s unable to see effectively over the horizon. Marine xband radar with an output of let’s say 4KW has an effective range of no more than 50km while radar can ping signals off the moon. Why do you think that is?
Looks like your response was poorly thought out!

I've no problems with the graph as it appears fairly reasonable. As for the moderator he is free to believe in whatever he wishes, but I do think he should be left to speak for himself. I think your interjecting on his behalf is not required. What I do have problems with is people being inconsistent and prone to cherry-picking.

Gravity explains the variation in air pressure with distance from the surface of the Earth quite nicely. UA, not so much.

I've no problems with the graph as it appears fairly reasonable. As for the moderator he is free to believe in whatever he wishes, but I do think he should be left to speak for himself. I think your interjecting on his behalf is not required. What I do have problems with is people being inconsistent and prone to cherry-picking.

The real problem you have is being needlessly presumptive about those you are interacting with, and in doing so, also failing to realize when you've made a terrible argument. The graph is more than "fairly reasonable." It's very accurate. And as far as cherry-picking data points goes, that is exactly what your "480 kilometers" was. 

Quote from: Timeisup on January 05, 2020, 09:10:19 AM

I've no problems with the graph as it appears fairly reasonable. As for the moderator he is free to believe in whatever he wishes, but I do think he should be left to speak for himself. I think your interjecting on his behalf is not required. What I do have problems with is people being inconsistent and prone to cherry-picking.

The real problem you have is being needlessly presumptive about those you are interacting with, and in doing so, also failing to realize when you've made a terrible argument. The graph is more than "fairly reasonable." It's very accurate. And as far as cherry-picking data points goes, that is exactly what your "480 kilometers" was.

No, the atmosphere is thought to be 480 km thick, so I stand by that. The graph you posted I have no problems with, but the way you and others like to cherry pick when it suits is rather disconcerting. However back to the radar problem which you have chosen to sidestep as this is quite fundamental. Can you provide an answer to why the range of earth bound radar is limited to around 50km, yet, as I have previously stated, radar signals can be happily pinged off anything in line of sight, like the moon for example, where the signal will be returned in around 2.5 seconds. Try this on the open sea with a ship 100 miles away and you will be out of luck. Why? I along with the whole maritime community would say, it’s due to the curvature of the planet. More importantly what would you and your flat earth scientists say?

Quote from: boydster on January 05, 2020, 10:27:28 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on January 05, 2020, 09:10:19 AM

I've no problems with the graph as it appears fairly reasonable. As for the moderator he is free to believe in whatever he wishes, but I do think he should be left to speak for himself. I think your interjecting on his behalf is not required. What I do have problems with is people being inconsistent and prone to cherry-picking.

The real problem you have is being needlessly presumptive about those you are interacting with, and in doing so, also failing to realize when you've made a terrible argument. The graph is more than "fairly reasonable." It's very accurate. And as far as cherry-picking data points goes, that is exactly what your "480 kilometers" was.

No, the atmosphere is thought to be 480 km thick, so I stand by that.

Yep, there's that dishonesty again. Maybe it was originally ignorance, which is fine, but here you are doubling down. You initially used that number as though looking through 480km of atmosphere at sea level and looking through 480km of atmosphere straight up into the sky are the same thing. Do you or do you not understand the flaw there? If you don't, take a few and think about it. If you do, then you probably shouldn't double down on that.

The graph you posted I have no problems with, but the way you and others like to cherry pick when it suits is rather disconcerting.

What exactly did I cherry pick? Again, you cherry picked the 480km number thinking it helped you illustrate a point, and all I did was use actual data to show that there was a flaw in your logic.

Can you provide an answer to why the range of earth bound radar is limited to around 50km, yet, as I have previously stated, radar signals can be happily pinged off anything in line of sight, like the moon for example, where the signal will be returned in around 2.5 seconds. Try this on the open sea with a ship 100 miles away and you will be out of luck. Why? I along with the whole maritime community would say, it’s due to the curvature of the planet. More importantly what would you and your flat earth scientists say?

Here, again, your willful ignorance and seemingly constant presumption is on display. Why won't you stop that?

No, the atmosphere is thought to be 480 km thick, so I stand by that.

Really? How far is to the Moon again? More than 480 km ?

Read this Space.com: Surprise! Earth's Atmosphere Extends Far Beyond the Moon By Mike Wall.

How do you define the "thickness" of something with no clearly defined upper boundary?

You could work out an effective height of an air column of the same density as at sea-level that would cause the same pressure as at sea-level.

Standard atmospheric pressure is 101.325 kPa,
"The ISA or International Standard Atmosphere states the density of air is 1.225 kg/m³ at sea level and 15 degrees C" and
"standard gravity, usually denoted by ɡ₀ or ɡ_n, is the nominal gravitational acceleration of an object in a vacuum near the surface of the Earth. It is defined by standard as 9.80665 m/s² ".

So the effective height of the atmosphere,  h_eff, would be (pressure)/(ɡ_n x density) = 8435 m or say 8.4 km.

You might note that I said earlier that "Traces of the atmosphere might extend to 480 km and beyond but its pressure and density fall of so rapidly that the effective thickness is roughly equivalent to 8 km of sea-level air."

Read what the astronomers say about "air-mass" and "extinction distance".

No, the atmosphere is thought to be 480 km thick, so I stand by that. The graph you posted I have no problems with, but the way you and others like to cherry pick when it suits is rather disconcerting. However back to the radar problem which you have chosen to sidestep as this is quite fundamental. Can you provide an answer to why the range of earth bound radar is limited to around 50km, yet, as I have previously stated, radar signals can be happily pinged off anything in line of sight, like the moon for example, where the signal will be returned in around 2.5 seconds. Try this on the open sea with a ship 100 miles away and you will be out of luck. Why? I along with the whole maritime community would say, it’s due to the curvature of the planet. More importantly what would you and your flat earth scientists say?

The issue isn't just how thick the atmosphere is (in terms of length), but also the density of it.
If the atmosphere is going to be a problem, it will be based upon the amount that you have passed through.
You can pass through the same amount by passing through a long section which isn't very dense, or by passing through a much shorter section which is much denser.
The path to the moon when it is almost overhead has the atmosphere get very thin very quick.

What you need to do is integrate along the path.

One simple way to do this, assume you are going directly out of the atmosphere.
That means for a path that is 1 m square, you would go through roughly 10 000 kg of atmosphere.
At ground level, with a density of roughly 1.2 kg/m^3, that equates to a path length of roughly 8 km.

That means if the atmosphere is going to be a problem, seeing the moon when it is directly overhead is equivalent to seeing an object 8 km away.

A good example which shows that the atmosphere isn't the problem are aircraft, and in general how radar range changes with height.
To see an object close to the ground (or sea) the range is only a few km.

The air at ~3500 ft is roughly 0.3 times the density at sea level, and at 45 000 ft it is roughly 0.2 times that of sea level.

If we ignore the fact that the light path still starts at roughly sea level, and instead pretend it is entirely in the thinner air at 45 000 ft, then the path then that means we should have roughly 5 times the range, so a few 10s of km. However in reality we can see aircraft hundreds of km away with radar.

This difference in range, which clearly isn't based upon air density shows that it isn't the air being the problem.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 05, 2020, 03:48:32 PM

Quote from: boydster on January 05, 2020, 10:27:28 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on January 05, 2020, 09:10:19 AM

I've no problems with the graph as it appears fairly reasonable. As for the moderator he is free to believe in whatever he wishes, but I do think he should be left to speak for himself. I think your interjecting on his behalf is not required. What I do have problems with is people being inconsistent and prone to cherry-picking.

The real problem you have is being needlessly presumptive about those you are interacting with, and in doing so, also failing to realize when you've made a terrible argument. The graph is more than "fairly reasonable." It's very accurate. And as far as cherry-picking data points goes, that is exactly what your "480 kilometers" was.

No, the atmosphere is thought to be 480 km thick, so I stand by that.

Yep, there's that dishonesty again. Maybe it was originally ignorance, which is fine, but here you are doubling down. You initially used that number as though looking through 480km of atmosphere at sea level and looking through 480km of atmosphere straight up into the sky are the same thing. Do you or do you not understand the flaw there? If you don't, take a few and think about it. If you do, then you probably shouldn't double down on that.

Quote

The graph you posted I have no problems with, but the way you and others like to cherry pick when it suits is rather disconcerting.

What exactly did I cherry pick? Again, you cherry picked the 480km number thinking it helped you illustrate a point, and all I did was use actual data to show that there was a flaw in your logic.

Quote

Can you provide an answer to why the range of earth bound radar is limited to around 50km, yet, as I have previously stated, radar signals can be happily pinged off anything in line of sight, like the moon for example, where the signal will be returned in around 2.5 seconds. Try this on the open sea with a ship 100 miles away and you will be out of luck. Why? I along with the whole maritime community would say, it’s due to the curvature of the planet. More importantly what would you and your flat earth scientists say?

Here, again, your willful ignorance and seemingly constant presumption is on display. Why won't you stop that?

I see you have been taking lessons from Tom Bishop on how to avoid answering a question.
Firstly let's stick to the facts.
One of the previous posters said this:-

Describe what you would expect to see. You see Mars and Saturn through only a few miles of air.

Why did you not take issue with that statement as it was clearly inaccurate?

I responded with this:-
When looking at stars or planets you are not actually looking through a few miles or kilometers of atmosphere but, 480 kilometers or there about.

I was pointing out that the atmosphere was more than a 'few miles',  or would you disagree? No one is arguing that the visibility 400km straight up is equal to the visibility at sea level, or so I'm led to believe.
I have no problems with the graph you posted nor do I dispute that the atmosphere thins as one goes up. Though how you know this is a question in itself which we can leave to the side for one moment. The real issue, the one concerning the range of earthbound radar, the one that yourself and another flat earth scientists run away from answering, is the main question here. The reality of radar proves the curvature of the earth ask any mariner who uses radar on a daily basis. I realize that due to the simple reality of radar blowing apart flat earth ideas, flat earthers will seek to avoid dealing with such an issue at all costs as they have no answer. Flat earthers from my experience here avoid answering direct questions. I asked Tom Bishop a direct question regarding his methodology of measuring the distance to the moon and its size, he declined to answer, and that was after him issuing a challenge. John Davis did not answer a direct question regarding a statement he made about flat earth astronomers. I asked him for links to their research and the locations of the facilities they use......nothing.
Rather than dealing with straight answers to straight questions, flat earthers avoid answering the difficult questions preferring instead to get caught up in side issues, as you have clearly demonstrated in our current exchange.

As the original question was on LIDAR, Radar and telescopes, Your question is, why does marine radar have a limited range in the real world and why does the height of the ship and the radar dish affect the range?

One of the previous posters said this:-

Describe what you would expect to see. You see Mars and Saturn through only a few miles of air.

Why did you not take issue with that statement as it was clearly inaccurate?

Possibly because that statement . . . was not inaccurate. The effective thickness of the atmosphere, when looking straight up is only about 8.4 km and it is the effective thickness that matters.

The effect of the atmosphere when looking at the Moon when directly overhead is similar to looking horizontally through 8.4 km of sea-level air.

I responded with this:-
When looking at stars or planets you are not actually looking through a few miles or kilometers of atmosphere but, 480 kilometers or there about.

I was pointing out that the atmosphere was more than a 'few miles',  or would you disagree?

But as has been pointed out numerous times, the effective thickness of the atmosphere is not "more than a "few miles". It's only about 5.2 miles.

So your "pointing out that the atmosphere was more than a 'few miles'" is not really correct and does not help your case.

Just forget that and make your case for "telescopes, radar and LIDAR" which, of course, can provide evidence of the curved surface of the Earth.

So many words

I'm really not sure what your deal is. When met with facts, you grow hostile and that's just... well, strange. I don't believe I've argued against how telescopes, radar, and lidar work, and your attempt to get me to do so is pretty weird. Why would I do that? Even if I suspected they work differently than advertised, clearly interacting with you is not a fruitful use of one's time, because you've already decided on your own assumptions about who you are talking with and what their position is, regardless of reality.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 06, 2020, 02:22:09 AM

So many words

I'm really not sure what your deal is. When met with facts, you grow hostile and that's just... well, strange. I don't believe I've argued against how telescopes, radar, and lidar work, and your attempt to get me to do so is pretty weird. Why would I do that? Even if I suspected they work differently than advertised, clearly interacting with you is not a fruitful use of one's time, because you've already decided on your own assumptions about who you are talking with and what their position is, regardless of reality.

So, in other words, you are not going to answer the question.
Is this forum not for dealing with the questioning of the belief that the earth is flat. I fielded a very relevant question on that very issue that yourself or anyone else could answer that has a direct bearing on that very matter. If its the case that radar has a limited earthbound range, which everyday experience would agree with, what is the cause? I along with any mariner you could care to ask would answer, the curvature of the earth is responsible. If that is indeed the case it pretty well wraps it up for the flat earth. Or do you have another answer?

Quote from: boydster on January 06, 2020, 04:37:30 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on January 06, 2020, 02:22:09 AM

So many words

I'm really not sure what your deal is. When met with facts, you grow hostile and that's just... well, strange. I don't believe I've argued against how telescopes, radar, and lidar work, and your attempt to get me to do so is pretty weird. Why would I do that? Even if I suspected they work differently than advertised, clearly interacting with you is not a fruitful use of one's time, because you've already decided on your own assumptions about who you are talking with and what their position is, regardless of reality.

So, in other words, you are not going to answer the question.
Is this forum not for dealing with the questioning of the belief that the earth is flat. I fielded a very relevant question on that very issue that yourself or anyone else could answer that has a direct bearing on that very matter. If its the case that radar has a limited earthbound range, which everyday experience would agree with, what is the cause? I along with any mariner you could care to ask would answer, the curvature of the earth is responsible. If that is indeed the case it pretty well wraps it up for the flat earth. Or do you have another answer?

What is exactly the problem with radar having a limited effective range?

How is it you believe this to be an effective argument against FET?

So, in other words, you are not going to answer the question.

]
I don't believe I've argued against how telescopes, radar, and lidar work, and your attempt to get me to do so is pretty weird.

Are you done yelling at clouds yet? Please show me where I have claimed the counterposition to telescopes, lidar, and radar that you want me to argue. Alternatively, please show me where I volunteered to make that case even if it wasn't my own? Alternatively, give the petulance a rest.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 06, 2020, 05:10:23 AM

Quote from: boydster on January 06, 2020, 04:37:30 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on January 06, 2020, 02:22:09 AM

So many words

I'm really not sure what your deal is. When met with facts, you grow hostile and that's just... well, strange. I don't believe I've argued against how telescopes, radar, and lidar work, and your attempt to get me to do so is pretty weird. Why would I do that? Even if I suspected they work differently than advertised, clearly interacting with you is not a fruitful use of one's time, because you've already decided on your own assumptions about who you are talking with and what their position is, regardless of reality.

So, in other words, you are not going to answer the question.
Is this forum not for dealing with the questioning of the belief that the earth is flat. I fielded a very relevant question on that very issue that yourself or anyone else could answer that has a direct bearing on that very matter. If its the case that radar has a limited earthbound range, which everyday experience would agree with, what is the cause? I along with any mariner you could care to ask would answer, the curvature of the earth is responsible. If that is indeed the case it pretty well wraps it up for the flat earth. Or do you have another answer?

What is exactly the problem with radar having a limited effective range?

How is it you believe this to be an effective argument against FET?

Regarding the limited effective range of radar at sea level is something I hope you would possibly explain what with you being a flat earth scientist. What work have you done researching this particular problem?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 06, 2020, 05:10:23 AM

So, in other words, you are not going to answer the question.

Quote from: boydster on January 06, 2020, 04:37:30 AM

]
I don't believe I've argued against how telescopes, radar, and lidar work, and your attempt to get me to do so is pretty weird.

Are you done yelling at clouds yet? Please show me where I have claimed the counterposition to telescopes, lidar, and radar that you want me to argue. Alternatively, please show me where I volunteered to make that case even if it wasn't my own? Alternatively, give the petulance a rest.

If you don’t want to answer the question that’s fine, no one is forcing you, perhaps you don’t know! after all while it may not be a flat world it’s certainly a free one. Though to be honest I know the answer anyhow.

Please show me where I have claimed the counterposition to telescopes, lidar, and radar that you want me to argue. Alternatively, please show me where I volunteered to make that case even if it wasn't my own? Alternatively, give the petulance a rest.

So, you are still attacking phantoms? Neat.