[Mike C-137]

Hello.

Mount Everest is the highest point on Earth, standing at 8,850m above sea level. Suppose you make it to the peak of the mountain, and with you, a simple $50 ALDI Galilean telescope. Anybody who has used a cheap telescope can confirm images of the moon and other celestial bodies thousands of kilometres away can be seen, albeit in low quality.

Therefore, at the peak of Mount Everest, according to the Flat Earth model, logic follows that one should succeed in seeing the entire Earth using a telescope, and thus see the 'Antarctic walls'  keeping the oceans from draining.

Has anyone ever seen Australia from America?

Please respond.

[Tom Bishop]

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

[Mike C-137]

Sure. But we can see through the atmosphere perfectly fine without any noticeable impairment when looking into space.

[Parallax]

Aside from the atmosphere not being perfectly transparent, as has been said, remember that the further something gets the smaller it is.

[Scroogie]

Aside from the atmosphere not being perfectly transparent, as has been said, remember that the further something gets the smaller it is.

That's why he brought his telescope...

[stanlee]

 

[AATW]

Hate to admit it but I'm with Tom on this one.
It is pretty unlikely on a flat earth you'd be able to see thousands of miles.

[ElTrancy]

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

That doesn't explain anything. Please, give me a measurement of the diameter of this flat Earth, then do the math, with all the correct equations to figure out how far one could see, on this flat earth. Also, since on a flat Earth map Africa is pretty southern, so we could just use Mt Kilimanjaro instead, which would bring us even closer to the so called 'Ice Wall' So please, please explain why there is no factual proof of the wall?

[Dr David Thork]

It is mathematically proven that even in the cleanest atmosphere possible, the furthest you could see is 296km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visibility#Derivation

In reality you can never see more than 40km, and aviation weather forecasts top out at 10km with the phrase being "all the 9's" meaning visibility is written as 9999 and the number doesn't go any higher.

[ElTrancy]

It is mathematically proven that even in the cleanest atmosphere possible, the furthest you could see is 296km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visibility#Derivation

In reality you can never see more than 40km, and aviation weather forecasts top out at 10km with the phrase being "all the 9's" meaning visibility is written as 9999 and the number doesn't go any higher.

If you're going to prove something, please, use another website other than wikipedia, as literally anyone can edit a wikipedia page...sigh

[Dr David Thork]

To that end, anyone can make a website, anyone can write a book, anyone can make a youtube video, anyone can do an interview, anyone can claim that they were told by God. I provided a source. If you don't like it, find a conflicting and more authoritative source. Being as you have provided nothing, I'd have to say wikipedia trumps nothing at all.

Being as the maths is provided, feel free to tell me where the maths is wrong. If it isn't, then what is stated on wiki must be accepted as fact.

[ElTrancy]

To that end, anyone can make a website, anyone can write a book, anyone can make a youtube video, anyone can do an interview, anyone can claim that they were told by God. I provided a source. If you don't like it, find a conflicting and more authoritative source. Being as you have provided nothing, I'd have to say wikipedia trumps nothing at all.

Let's just say this: if there is a Great Ice Wall that surrounds the whole world, and nobody has ever seen it, how does that support any claims? Yes, you supported that there is a lack of visibility, but that still doesn't support any claims that there is a Great Ice Wall. I don't disagree with you on the visibility thing, but if you can see as far as 30 miles away (https://www.livescience.com/33895-human-eye.html) doesn't that mean that you could be 30 miles away from the patrol of "government officials" that surround the world, and take a picture of them?

[ElTrancy]

To that end, anyone can make a website, anyone can write a book, anyone can make a youtube video, anyone can do an interview, anyone can claim that they were told by God. I provided a source. If you don't like it, find a conflicting and more authoritative source. Being as you have provided nothing, I'd have to say wikipedia trumps nothing at all.

Being as the maths is provided, feel free to tell me where the maths is wrong. If it isn't, then what is stated on wiki must be accepted as fact.

And mainly, I'm just saying, it's as simple as using a different website like I did. Wikipedia isn't as accurate as these other sites, because unlike these other sites, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone in the world, not just the owners of the domain.

[Curious Squirrel]

To that end, anyone can make a website, anyone can write a book, anyone can make a youtube video, anyone can do an interview, anyone can claim that they were told by God. I provided a source. If you don't like it, find a conflicting and more authoritative source. Being as you have provided nothing, I'd have to say wikipedia trumps nothing at all.

Being as the maths is provided, feel free to tell me where the maths is wrong. If it isn't, then what is stated on wiki must be accepted as fact.

And mainly, I'm just saying, it's as simple as using a different website like I did. Wikipedia isn't as accurate as these other sites, because unlike these other sites, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone in the world, not just the owners of the domain.

Then you should feel free to check it against the sources always provided, or attempt to disprove it yourself. While not a primary source, information is frequently accurate. With the secondary or primary sources listed on the bottom, vetting a particular page is of little issue. We're well past the age of villifying it for no good reason.

[Macarios]

Sure. But we can see through the atmosphere perfectly fine without any noticeable impairment when looking into space.

Effective thickness of the atmosphere (where most of the dense air is) is about 50 km.
Karman line (official Space "edge") is at 100 km.
Even directly towards horizon, the layer of the air is some 800-1000 km thick along the tangent to the Earth's surface.

From USA to Australia is 12 000 km through the most dense air.
You already saw how distant mountains slowly fade into blue sky.
Rayleigh Scattering masks the view at distances.
And at night we would need very strong city lights in Australia to see them from USA.

On the other hand, in Flat model we see stars all the way along the horizontal line to the "Dome" on the other side of the Earth.
At night it would be behind Australia.
But if you look at the Flat map, New Guinea would block the view.

[Westprog]

Sure. But we can see through the atmosphere perfectly fine without any noticeable impairment when looking into space.

Effective thickness of the atmosphere (where most of the dense air is) is about 50 km.
Karman line (official Space "edge") is at 100 km.
Even directly towards horizon, the layer of the air is some 800-1000 km thick along the tangent to the Earth's surface.

From USA to Australia is 12 000 km through the most dense air.
You already saw how distant mountains slowly fade into blue sky.
Rayleigh Scattering masks the view at distances.
And at night we would need very strong city lights in Australia to see them from USA.

On the other hand, in Flat model we see stars all the way along the horizontal line to the "Dome" on the other side of the Earth.
At night it would be behind Australia.
But if you look at the Flat map, New Guinea would block the view.

That's an interesting argument I've never heard before. Presumably stars just above the horizon would be appearing through thousands of km of atmosphere on a flat Earth model - though that depends on how high the FE model claims that the atmosphere extends. Since it's possible to breathe on top  of Everest, it must extend at least that far. Any star visible just above the horizon must perforce be behind thousands of miles of air. Of course, stars are visible just above the horizon, because due to curvature of the Earth there isn't thousands of miles of air in the way. It's also the case that on a FE model, stars in one direction would be more obscured than another, because there'd be more air in the way. This is of course not the case.

The fact that we also see entirely different stars in the Southern Hemisphere is another point of importance. But it's funny how easily the FE model falls apart, even on areas where it appears not to be contradictory.