debate

if the earth is flat why can't I go on the top of a tall mountain with a telescope and see the Himalayas

if the earth is flat why can't I go on the top of a tall mountain with a telescope and see the Himalayas

The air is not 100% clear. Pollution fog, particulates all build up over the long distance.

That's just one reason to kick-start the conversation

Per FE talking points, the air becomes too opaque for long distances.  See above.  Vanishing point.  Bendy light( semi-intelligent, specialized, time-sensitive, personalized refraction ).   

Quote from: fogbog on May 10, 2021, 06:40:22 AM

if the earth is flat why can't I go on the top of a tall mountain with a telescope and see the Himalayas

The air is not 100% clear. Pollution fog, particulates all build up over the long distance.

That's just one reason to kick-start the conversation

Then why do we have a nice clear horizon, including being able to see things on the horizon, like the sun and stars?
Why don't we instead get a blur like on a foggy day?

Because they are really bright

Because they are really bright

If one lives, say, on the east coast of the U.S., in the middle of a dark night shouldn't the top of Everest be really bright? Covered in snow and in direct mid-day sun approximately a milliradian above the horizon? And an extended source, not a point source. Far brighter than faint little stars.

Because they are really bright

Then why can't the sun be seen at night?
After all, it is really bright.

Because they are really bright

The moon rising or setting over the horizon is not "really bright", and you can clearly see it, even though it is a lot further away than the Himalayas. How could that be if the earth were flat?

The moon rising or setting over the horizon is not "really bright"...

The moon is the second brightest object in the daytime sky.  Far brighter than any mountain range.

Quote from: Shifter on May 10, 2021, 07:50:02 AM

Quote from: fogbog on May 10, 2021, 06:40:22 AM

if the earth is flat why can't I go on the top of a tall mountain with a telescope and see the Himalayas

The air is not 100% clear. Pollution fog, particulates all build up over the long distance.

That's just one reason to kick-start the conversation

Then why do we have a nice clear horizon, including being able to see things on the horizon, like the sun and stars?
Why don't we instead get a blur like on a foggy day?

exactly like go on a really tall mountain above the clouds and bring a telescope why couldn't you see them?

Quote from: Shifter on May 10, 2021, 07:50:02 AM

Quote from: fogbog on May 10, 2021, 06:40:22 AM

if the earth is flat why can't I go on the top of a tall mountain with a telescope and see the Himalayas

The air is not 100% clear. Pollution fog, particulates all build up over the long distance.

That's just one reason to kick-start the conversation

exactly like go on a really tall mountain above the clouds and bring a telescope why couldn't you see them?

Why don't you:  A) Go try to see them,  B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas

Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.

Quote from: fogbog on May 12, 2021, 06:44:18 AM

Quote from: Shifter on May 10, 2021, 07:50:02 AM

Quote from: fogbog on May 10, 2021, 06:40:22 AM

if the earth is flat why can't I go on the top of a tall mountain with a telescope and see the Himalayas

The air is not 100% clear. Pollution fog, particulates all build up over the long distance.

That's just one reason to kick-start the conversation

exactly like go on a really tall mountain above the clouds and bring a telescope why couldn't you see them?

Why don't you:  A) Go try to see them,  B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas

Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.

How about you show us your work first before anyone goes through the trouble.

How exactly have you determined the angular resolution of an 'eye or a telescope' is insufficient to resolve the Himalayas at a distance?

Lets keep it simple, how far away will the Himalayas become invisible to the human eye? Please show your math.

He asked, "Why can't I..."

How should I know that he can or cannot? How about he makes an attempt before making an assertion as fact?

He asked, "Why can't I..."

How should I know that he can or cannot? How about he makes an attempt before making an assertion as fact?

Reading comprehension is hard.  Instead of cherry picking the middle of the sentence, perhaps we should read and understand the entire thing.  He said if the Earth is flat, why can't he...  The sentence structure implies that the action of the WHY CANT I portion should be true if the IF portion is true.  He is clearly setting up a logical test, that says if the Earth is flat then you can test it by taking a picture of the Himalayas from anywhere on Earth.  It is if A then B logic, which doesn't have to be if NOT B then NOT A but it can be.  It is not the best of logical arguments but it can be a valid statement.  But hey, cherry pick away, strawman till ya die right.

He said if the Earth is flat, why can't he...

Great, so he can as I suggested go on to demonstrate that A) he can/cannot see the Himalayas from such a site, and then we can address why he can/cannot see them.

He is clearly setting up a logical test,

There are several reasons why he could or could not see them. The vast majority have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. He's made no attempt at anything resembling coherence. He's done nothing to demonstrate a simple If/Then argument would be coherent. He's left to ponder C, D, E, F, ...
Except he didn't even seem to comprehend that C, D, E, and F might exist, so I'm a little underwhelmed with the strength of your "logical test" which ignores all context to reduce the "then" to a "the earth cannot be flat" -- especially when he's done nothing to demonstrate the "If" even exists. 
It's a cheap sophomoric word game to try to score a point, or most probably worse. Shame on both of you for pretending it's anything like a "logical test".

Quote

He said if the Earth is flat, why can't he...

Great, so he can as I suggested go on to demonstrate that A) he can/cannot see the Himalayas from such a site, and then we can address why he can/cannot see them.

Quote

He is clearly setting up a logical test,

There are several reasons why he could or could not see them. The vast majority have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. He's made no attempt at anything resembling coherence. He's done nothing to demonstrate a simple If/Then argument would be coherent. He's left to ponder C, D, E, F, ...
Except he didn't even seem to comprehend that C, D, E, and F might exist, so I'm a little underwhelmed with the strength of your "logical test" which ignores all context to reduce the "then" to a "the earth cannot be flat" -- especially when he's done nothing to demonstrate the "If" even exists. 
It's a cheap sophomoric word game to try to score a point, or most probably worse. Shame on both of you for pretending it's anything like a "logical test".

So, you don't get basic logic tests then.  Or again with reading comprehension.  I clearly stated it did not have to mean what he was inferring but it could. 

If this "test" does not give any meaningful result, of what value is this "test"?  Apparently, about as much value as your "logic".

If this "test" does not give any meaningful result, of what value is this "test"?  Apparently, about as much value as your "logic".

Seriously, you cannot comprehend words huh.  The whole thing was more about your lack of understanding that he was talking about a, well not all inclusive, logical test for FE.  You cherry picked a small portion of said statement, completely missed the point and proceeded to use that cherry picked part to try the same tired garbage as all FE clones say.  Now, just like every other FE automaton, you cannot even fathom being called out for it so you instead,  like all other FE trolls continue to miss the point and go apeshit strawman topics.  Good luck with that.

I do know what the words "logical" and "test" mean, and when to not use them if I want to be taken seriously...

I do know what the words "logical" and "test" mean, and when to not use them if I want to be taken seriously...

Sure you do

Quote from: Ski on May 16, 2021, 03:08:06 PM

Why don't you:  A) Go try to see them,  B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas

Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.

How about you show us your work first before anyone goes through the trouble.

How exactly have you determined the angular resolution of an 'eye or a telescope' is insufficient to resolve the Himalayas at a distance?

Lets keep it simple, how far away will the Himalayas become invisible to the human eye? Please show your math.

I guess you aren't willing to show your work as to why you think you somehow can't see the Himalayas due to angular distance.

Ok, I'll bite for your B challenge and do your work for you.

Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance. (Source)

The Himalayas are 8,800 meters high.

Using basic geometry we can determine that with a 0.0003 radian resolution, an object 8,800 meters high will vanish at 58,666,666 meters away.  (36,000 miles)

You asked to show the math, here it is: 8,800 / sin(0.0003/2) = 58,666,666

That destroys your 'angular resolution' argument, which you would have known yourself if you had done the math as you asked.

Because they are really bright

If those objects are really bright, how bright would they need to be to overcome the obfuscation present in the atmosphere?  Could an experiment be done where an artificial light of sufficient strength is used instead? 

Quote from: Shifter on May 10, 2021, 01:39:22 PM

Because they are really bright

If those objects are really bright, how bright would they need to be to overcome the obfuscation present in the atmosphere?  Could an experiment be done where an artificial light of sufficient strength is used instead?

Well there was that time the Russians detonated an atomic bomb that was seen from 1000km away and the cloud could be seen from 160km away.

So much for a globe earths 5km horizon limit

Well there was that time the Russians detonated an atomic bomb that was seen from 1000km away and the cloud could be seen from 160km away.

So much for a globe earths 5km horizon limit

You might want to take a remedial course in basic geometry.  Hint: That mushroom cloud was 65km tall, and you can see taller things from further away. Try drawing a tall stick figure and a short stick figure on a circle and see which one can be spotted from further away.

Also some basic lessons in light propagation. Hint: You can see a flash of light even when not having line of sight to the source. Try setting off a camera flash while facing away from you and note how you can still see it.
 

Well there was that time the Russians detonated an atomic bomb that was seen from 1000km away and the cloud could be seen from 160km away.

So much for a globe earths 5km horizon limit

JJA hit it on the head. 

It might also be worth mentioning that Tsar Bomba, the weapon that I believe you were speaking of, was detonated at 13,000ft and is still the highest yield thermonuclear weapon ever deployed within the Earth's atmosphere.  I'm admittedly not good at math but I would imagine that setting off the biggest nuclear weapon the world has ever seen at an altitude approaching class A airspace would be visible from a substantial distance.

JJA hit it on the head. 

Ow! My head! So violent. So extreme!

That's tough but fair 

Quote from: Gumwars on May 24, 2021, 11:30:05 AM

Quote from: Shifter on May 10, 2021, 01:39:22 PM

Because they are really bright

If those objects are really bright, how bright would they need to be to overcome the obfuscation present in the atmosphere?  Could an experiment be done where an artificial light of sufficient strength is used instead?

Well there was that time the Russians detonated an atomic bomb that was seen from 1000km away and the cloud could be seen from 160km away.

So much for a globe earths 5km horizon limit

That may have just been one of your more lucid dream unless you can provide verifiable evidence. Though I imagine a mushroom cloud of several thousand meters tall must be able to be seen from a long way off.

But why bother with all that tripe when you could just place a call to one of the people in the ISS and ask them. Why people still debate about horizons and what they can and can't see when images of the planet in all ints magical roundness are freely available on live streams.

Quote from: JJA on May 16, 2021, 04:55:32 PM

Quote from: Ski on May 16, 2021, 03:08:06 PM

Why don't you:  A) Go try to see them,  B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas

Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.

How about you show us your work first before anyone goes through the trouble.

How exactly have you determined the angular resolution of an 'eye or a telescope' is insufficient to resolve the Himalayas at a distance?

Lets keep it simple, how far away will the Himalayas become invisible to the human eye? Please show your math.

I guess you aren't willing to show your work as to why you think you somehow can't see the Himalayas due to angular distance.

I actually made no claim. I asked him to demonstrate why I should could consider his claim. I'm sorry this distinction taxed you.

Ok, I'll bite for your B challenge and do your work for you.

Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance. (Source)

The Himalayas are 8,800 meters high.

Using basic geometry we can determine that with a 0.0003 radian resolution, an object 8,800 meters high will vanish at 58,666,666 meters away.  (36,000 miles)

You asked to show the math, here it is: 8,800 / sin(0.0003/2) = 58,666,666

That destroys your 'angular resolution' argument, which you would have known yourself if you had done the math as you asked.

Might want to check that...

Even just using your source's truism that requires a .3 m minimum size at 1 km, you can do easy math to show 50,000 km requires an object larger than 15km in size...

Spot your problem yet?

Quote from: JJA on May 20, 2021, 04:58:55 AM

Quote from: JJA on May 16, 2021, 04:55:32 PM

Quote from: Ski on May 16, 2021, 03:08:06 PM

Why don't you:  A) Go try to see them,  B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas

Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.

How about you show us your work first before anyone goes through the trouble.

How exactly have you determined the angular resolution of an 'eye or a telescope' is insufficient to resolve the Himalayas at a distance?

Lets keep it simple, how far away will the Himalayas become invisible to the human eye? Please show your math.

I guess you aren't willing to show your work as to why you think you somehow can't see the Himalayas due to angular distance.

I actually made no claim. I asked him to demonstrate why I should could consider his claim. I'm sorry this distinction taxed you.

Lets clear this up right now since you're playing games. Simple question.

Do you think people see the Himalayas vanish from sight due to their angular distance becoming too small for the human eye to see?

Yes, no, or you don't know.

Quote

Ok, I'll bite for your B challenge and do your work for you.

Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance. (Source)

The Himalayas are 8,800 meters high.

Using basic geometry we can determine that with a 0.0003 radian resolution, an object 8,800 meters high will vanish at 58,666,666 meters away.  (36,000 miles)

You asked to show the math, here it is: 8,800 / sin(0.0003/2) = 58,666,666

That destroys your 'angular resolution' argument, which you would have known yourself if you had done the math as you asked.

Might want to check that...

Even just using your source's truism that requires a .3 m minimum size at 1 km, you can do easy math to show 50,000 km requires an object larger than 15km in size...

Spot your problem yet?

It would have been nice if you actually showed your math, but yes I do see my problem! My answer is twice what it should be, which when corrected still shows the Himalayas to be far larger than needed to see from anywhere on the Earth, so it doesn't change my argument one bit.

(8,800/2) / sin(0.0003/2) = 29,333,333 meters = 18,000 miles.

So we should be able to see the Himalayas from 18 thousand miles away. More than enough to show that angular resolution can't be the cause.

Lets look at this another way so we can avoid using sources which you seem to distrust. What would the resolution of the human eye be if an object 8,800 meters high were to become invisible at say 200,000 meters due to angular resolution?

atan(8800/2/200000)*2 = 2.5 degrees.  So the human eye would have to have a resolution equal to or lower than that to not see a mountain at 200km.

So how large of an object could you see at 10 meters if your eyes angular resolution was limited to only 2.5 degrees?

10*tan(2.5/2)*2 = 0.44 meters, or 44 centimeters.

I'm pretty sure I can see a 44 centimeter object 10 meters away.

No matter how you do the math, there is no way that an eight thousand meter tall mountain is going to get too tiny for our eyes to resolve at the distance where it vanishes from sight. It's not even close.

Angular resolution limits are not why objects vanish over the horizon and is not too difficult to disprove.

Quote from: Ski on May 27, 2021, 11:00:34 PM

Quote from: JJA on May 20, 2021, 04:58:55 AM

Quote from: JJA on May 16, 2021, 04:55:32 PM

Quote from: Ski on May 16, 2021, 03:08:06 PM

Why don't you:  A) Go try to see them,  B) Show me the math that allows the angular resolution of your eye or a telescope would be sufficient to discern the Himalayas

Then we can discuss the opacity of the air between you.

How about you show us your work first before anyone goes through the trouble.

How exactly have you determined the angular resolution of an 'eye or a telescope' is insufficient to resolve the Himalayas at a distance?

Lets keep it simple, how far away will the Himalayas become invisible to the human eye? Please show your math.

I guess you aren't willing to show your work as to why you think you somehow can't see the Himalayas due to angular distance.

I actually made no claim. I asked him to demonstrate why I should could consider his claim. I'm sorry this distinction taxed you.

Lets clear this up right now since you're playing games. Simple question.

Do you think people see the Himalayas vanish from sight due to their angular distance becoming too small for the human eye to see?

Yes, no, or you don't know.

Quote from: Ski on May 27, 2021, 11:00:34 PM

Quote

Ok, I'll bite for your B challenge and do your work for you.

Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance. (Source)

The Himalayas are 8,800 meters high.

Using basic geometry we can determine that with a 0.0003 radian resolution, an object 8,800 meters high will vanish at 58,666,666 meters away.  (36,000 miles)

You asked to show the math, here it is: 8,800 / sin(0.0003/2) = 58,666,666

That destroys your 'angular resolution' argument, which you would have known yourself if you had done the math as you asked.

Might want to check that...

Spot your problem yet?

It would have been nice if you actually showed your math, but yes I do see my problem! My answer is twice what it should be,

Oh, your answer was only off by 100%, don't be too hard on your self. You were only trying to ... show how much smarter you were than everyone else...

No matter how you do the math, there is no way that an eight thousand meter tall mountain is going to get too tiny for our eyes to resolve at the distance where it vanishes from sight. It's not even close.

Now you've reframed the discussion around where it disappears from sight? Okay, please demonstrate when the Himalayas disappear from sight.
Why do you all present extravagant claims as truths with out evidence?