[Braggars]

Good afternoon all,
I'm not sure if this topic has been addressed but, if the earth was flat, the clouds would never touch ground....we would theoretically be able to see a gap on the horizon between the ground and the sky....,
Ste,
Liverpool.

[Curious Squirrel]

While this topic hasn't been addressed in precisely this manner before, the FE answer would follow from the response to the sun setting. i.e. that it's due to perspective. If it can make the sun set, there's no reason the clouds wouldn't do the same thing. As for the actual validity of this, see the numerous threads in the debate section that have come up recently. It's a bit of a hot topic right now.

[douglips]

You could measure this over a distance of about 100 miles, if you had observers often enough to record the height of the cloud layers, and an observer at the sunset (or sunrise) end of the cloud layers to see that the sun is shining between the layers, and an observer at the opposite end who is unable to see the sky but can see the undersides of the farthest clouds illuminated.

It would be difficult to get the exact weather conditions necessary, but possible. I suppose I don't know why a flat earth theorist would accept this any more readily than, say, the pictures of the shadow of Mt. Rainier on clouds.

[devils advocate]

To Add to Squirrel's reply I guess the fact that we often get "ground mist/fog" etc would be used to show that "clouds" are not always "up in the sky" and that would give a get out clause, which is all that is required no matter how tenuous.

[GiantTurtle]

Perspective doesn't answer the question of the clouds not touching the ground.
As you look at the clouds you can see the underside of them as they lower to the horizon. If one were to accept the FE view of perspective, then that would explain the clouds being lower, not your ability to see the cloud from a different angle.

[Curious Squirrel]

Perspective doesn't answer the question of the clouds not touching the ground.
As you look at the clouds you can see the underside of them as they lower to the horizon. If one were to accept the FE view of perspective, then that would explain the clouds being lower, not your ability to see the cloud from a different angle.

Sorry, try again? FE perspective does catch clouds in the explanation for how they dip to the horizon. (Small bit of math later) On average the clouds don't even have to be all that far away (compared to the sun) to be reduced below the angular limit of our eyes. However your second point is a curiosity, but FE would chalk it up to the whole 'math breaks down at long distances' that allows sunset and such to work. Just in reverse allowing us to see different sides of the clouds since they aren't up nearly as high.

[GiantTurtle]

Sorry, try again? FE perspective does catch clouds in the explanation for how they dip to the horizon. (Small bit of math later) On average the clouds don't even have to be all that far away (compared to the sun) to be reduced below the angular limit of our eyes. However your second point is a curiosity, but FE would chalk it up to the whole 'math breaks down at long distances' that allows sunset and such to work. Just in reverse allowing us to see different sides of the clouds since they aren't up nearly as high.

Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the right words for this.

As the clouds are further away you see a larger amount of the underside of the cloud.

With the example of a pair of railway lines appearing to get closer together as they become further away, the inner side of each rail will take up less of your vision the further away it is. With a cloud the edge that should be facing you takes up less space as it moves away but the underside will at first take up less space but then as the far edge of the cloud falls towards the horizon the underside of the cloud will take up more space.

[terreplate]

hello,

Since industrial activity and air traffic have considerably slowed down due to the so-called “coronavirus”, the sky has suddenly turned blue again. The whole thing raises a number of issues about the formation of clouds, doesn’t it?

[Tumeni]

hello,

Since industrial activity and air traffic have considerably slowed down due to the so-called “coronavirus”, the sky has suddenly turned blue again. The whole thing raises a number of issues about the formation of clouds, doesn’t it?

Depends on where you are in relation to the industrialised areas, doesn't it?

[terreplate]

I live in an area that is not highly industrialised and where for the past ten years there have been 25 or so days of actual sunshine (that doesn't mean it was hot) a year. In any case, the sky, according to reports, is blue over China as it had not been for years, perhaps decades.