The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: thatsnice on April 12, 2016, 09:55:16 PM
-
This may seem to be a fairly simple question, and I'm just wondering because I haven't seen anything about it yet: What is the hypothetical depth of this Flat Earth?
-
This may seem to be a fairly simple question, and I'm just wondering because I haven't seen anything about it yet: What is the hypothetical depth of this Flat Earth?
The depth is unkown. The deepest hole drilled is about 7miles.
-
What is the hypothetical distance to the horizon on this flat earth ?
-
What is the hypothetical distance to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Have you ever seen a triangle?
-
What is the hypothetical distance to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Have you ever seen a triangle?
Yes, of course I have seen a triangle ! But let me explain. I'm the one asking the question.LOL
Let me make it simple. Let's say I am about 6 feet or 2 meters tall. I am standing on the beach looking out to sea. How many miles, or kilometers can I see to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Or, let's say I am the lookout in the crow's nest on a ship at sea. The crow's nest is about 100 feet or 30 meters above sea level. How many miles, or kilometers, can I see to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Just a general, simple question. How many miles or kilometers for the answer, please.
-
Yes, of course I have seen a triangle ! But let me explain. I'm the one asking the question.LOL
Let me make it simple. Let's say I am about 6 feet or 2 meters tall. I am standing on the beach looking out to sea. How many miles, or kilometers can I see to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Or, let's say I am the lookout in the crow's nest on a ship at sea. The crow's nest is about 100 feet or 30 meters above sea level. How many miles, or kilometers, can I see to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Just a general, simple question. How many miles or kilometers for the answer, please.
Hey man, I think I get what you're saying. On this hypothetical FE, you would theoretically be able to see forever, considering it's flat. If I'm not mistaken, that's what you were trying to get at. However, that's simply not the case, in actuality, you cannot see for extremely prolonged distances due to the curvature of the earth. (which, mind all of the FE'ers on this site, is not modeled by the equation "8 inches * miles2") So I get you, bud.
-
What is the hypothetical distance to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Have you ever seen a triangle?
Yes, of course I have seen a triangle ! But let me explain. I'm the one asking the question.LOL
Let me make it simple. Let's say I am about 6 feet or 2 meters tall. I am standing on the beach looking out to sea. How many miles, or kilometers can I see to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Or, let's say I am the lookout in the crow's nest on a ship at sea. The crow's nest is about 100 feet or 30 meters above sea level. How many miles, or kilometers, can I see to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Just a general, simple question. How many miles or kilometers for the answer, please.
How strong are you eyes? Are you disputing the fact that you could see further with a telescope than with the naked eye? You can see further the higher you go obviously, as per the Pythagorean theorem (link to google's right angle calculator) (https://www.google.com/search?q=triangle+calculator&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=right+triangle+calculator)
But please don't stop derailing threads with things that have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
This may seem to be a fairly simple question, and I'm just wondering because I haven't seen anything about it yet: What is the hypothetical depth of this Flat Earth?
The question of how deep you must drill to reach the center of the Earth is still a mystery. We can only postulate, based on the assumption of the Earth being a sphere, that it must be approximately 4000 miles to the center. There isn't really any established method to prove that however, so it remains hypothetical.
-
We can only postulate, based on the assumption of the Earth being a sphere, that it must be approximately 4000 miles to the center. There isn't really any established method to prove that however, so it remains hypothetical.
But, given the scientific method, how can you postulate a hypothetical based on a theory you are trying to disprove WITH the hypothetical? That would be admission (albeit small) to some correctness in the Round Earth theory, demonstrating petitio principii.
-
What is the hypothetical distance to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Have you ever seen a triangle?
Yes, of course I have seen a triangle ! But let me explain. I'm the one asking the question.LOL
Let me make it simple. Let's say I am about 6 feet or 2 meters tall. I am standing on the beach looking out to sea. How many miles, or kilometers can I see to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Or, let's say I am the lookout in the crow's nest on a ship at sea. The crow's nest is about 100 feet or 30 meters above sea level. How many miles, or kilometers, can I see to the horizon on this flat earth ?
Just a general, simple question. How many miles or kilometers for the answer, please.
How strong are you eyes? Are you disputing the fact that you could see further with a telescope than with the naked eye? You can see further the higher you go obviously, as per the Pythagorean theorem (link to google's right angle calculator) (https://www.google.com/search?q=triangle+calculator&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=right+triangle+calculator)
But please don't stop derailing threads with things that have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
This may seem to be a fairly simple question, and I'm just wondering because I haven't seen anything about it yet: What is the hypothetical depth of this Flat Earth?
The question of how deep you must drill to reach the center of the Earth is still a mystery. We can only postulate, based on the assumption of the Earth being a sphere, that it must be approximately 4000 miles to the center. There isn't really any established method to prove that however, so it remains hypothetical.
It's very simple. The earth isn't a flat disc.
-
But, given the scientific method, how can you postulate a hypothetical based on a theory you are trying to disprove WITH the hypothetical?
Flat Earth specifically and intentionally rejects the scientific method. Read all about it on the Wiki. (http://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism)
-
But, given the scientific method, how can you postulate a hypothetical based on a theory you are trying to disprove WITH the hypothetical?
Flat Earth specifically and intentionally rejects the scientific method. Read all about it on the Wiki. (http://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism)
Or read "Earth Not A Globe" or "The Sacred Texts" .
-
Hey man, I think I get what you're saying. On this hypothetical FE, you would theoretically be able to see forever, considering it's flat. If I'm not mistaken, that's what you were trying to get at. However, that's simply not the case, in actuality, you cannot see for extremely prolonged distances due to the curvature of the earth. (which, mind all of the FE'ers on this site, is not modeled by the equation "8 inches * miles2") So I get you, bud.
Absolutely no one ever said that you would be able to see forever on a flat earth. The shape of the Earth doesn't somehow endow you with superhuman vision, or the ability to exclude yourself from the effect perspective has on what you can perceive.
Also, some people think a flat earth means one big giant plane, devoid of mountains and hills. That's not the case. Aside from being in the open sea, most places have great variances in altitude. There are also objects obstructing your view, whether it's trees, buildings etc.
So even on a flat world you wouldn't be able to "see forever."
We can only postulate, based on the assumption of the Earth being a sphere, that it must be approximately 4000 miles to the center. There isn't really any established method to prove that however, so it remains hypothetical.
But, given the scientific method, how can you postulate a hypothetical based on a theory you are trying to disprove WITH the hypothetical? That would be admission (albeit small) to some correctness in the Round Earth theory, demonstrating petitio principii.
I really don't follow what you're trying to do here. You basically asked, "What is the depth of this Earth?" And my response was "No one really knows." I don't know how or why you're trying to twist that into some latin named philosophic principle I'm not even familiar with.
-
It's very simple. The earth isn't a flat disc.
The equivalent of saying "Nuh-uh!"
Gecko, you continue to astound me by how much of a geek you are not. You might be an outcast, socially awkward, or even a loser in general, but you by no means possess the level of intelligence required to be, what most people consider, a "geek."
We can only postulate, based on the assumption of the Earth being a sphere, that it must be approximately 4000 miles to the center. There isn't really any established method to prove that however, so it remains hypothetical.
But, given the scientific method, how can you postulate a hypothetical based on a theory you are trying to disprove WITH the hypothetical? That would be admission (albeit small) to some correctness in the Round Earth theory, demonstrating petitio principii.
Oh I see now, you are interpreting my statement that the distance to center of a flat earth would be 4000 miles... No not at all.
I'm saying that even modern science can't tell you, with any amount of certainty, how deep the Earth is. We can only assume it would be roughly the radius of the Earth. We can't drill deep enough to prove it.
-
I'm not claiming to be a genius with 13 degrees as some flat earthers. I'm just here for the fun !
-
Absolutely no one ever said that you would be able to see forever on a flat earth....Aside from being in the open sea, most places have great variances in altitude. There are also objects obstructing your view, whether it's trees, buildings etc.
So even on a flat world you wouldn't be able to "see forever."
Sure, that's true. However, you should be able to see more than a few miles. Take those little bright lights in the sky, the ones we call 'stars'. Without getting into the discussion of what they might be we can at least say that they must be farther away than 3000 miles, since the moon passes in front of them, and the Wiki tells us that the moon is 3000 miles away. We can see stars right down to the horizon. This means that even down at the horizon, where the air is thick and refraction effects and bendy light are at their worst, one can still see things that are equal to or greater than 3000 miles away. Los Angeles is only 2500 miles from Hawaii and puts out plenty of light. However, even a few miles out to sea, it disappears from view.
-
Absolutely no one ever said that you would be able to see forever on a flat earth. The shape of the Earth doesn't somehow endow you with superhuman vision, or the ability to exclude yourself from the effect perspective has on what you can perceive.
Also, some people think a flat earth means one big giant plane, devoid of mountains and hills. That's not the case. Aside from being in the open sea, most places have great variances in altitude. There are also objects obstructing your view, whether it's trees, buildings etc.
So even on a flat world you wouldn't be able to "see forever."
That's what the term "theoretically" means, much like what the FET is. I understand that atmospheric imperfections such as haze will impede one's vision, but only over obscenely long distance. However, there are certain technologies that allow for longer distance surveillance. So, on a flat earth, one should theoretically, on the clearest of days and with the strongest of magnifiers, be able to see Bimini from the top of the tallest building on Miami Beach, right? Trigonometry allows for no buildings, waves, or other opaque items to impede in the LOS. Do you believe that to be true, and not have the 385 feet of curvature that I've calculated?
-
This may seem to be a fairly simple question, and I'm just wondering because I haven't seen anything about it yet: What is the hypothetical depth of this Flat Earth?
The depth is unkown. The deepest hole drilled is about 7miles.
This TFES seems pretty ignorant on some things. In the "other place" (The Flat Earth Society (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)) there is John Davis a "Flat Earth Scientist" and "Administrator, Secretary Of The Flat Earth Society" who seems to "know everything about everything" to do with "The Flat Earth" and he writes:
Using the infinite earth, we have good reason to believe it is at least 9000km. I believe I derived this back in 2009(? or earlier ?) using Gauss' Law.[nb]Gauss' Law (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeKMkTZUAAAGSyU.png)[/nb]
Using a relativistic earth, 6,371 kilometers.[1]
Someone was kind enough to redo my math and apply it instead to the finite case of the Earth. If it is finite it is 4241 km[2]
[1] Structure of the Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth)
[2] An exercise on Gauss’ law for gravitation: The Flat Earth model by A C Tort (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.0393.pdf)
So who are us mere amateurs to spectulate! Now please don't quiz me on that stuff, they aren't my words!
-
Gauss' law of gravitation is a "law" based on the hypothesis that mass is proportional to gravitation; it is not.
We have at our disposal plenty of experiments which do prove that not only mass is not proportional to gravitation, but also that terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure.
Here are the correct FE universe images:
(http://www.oneism.org/images/INCA_TREE_OF_LIFE.jpg)
(http://www.oneism.org/images/createzoom.jpg)
(http://www.freewebs.com/raacoz/enclosure3[1]4.jpg)
(last image not drawn to scale)
-
Hey man, I think I get what you're saying. On this hypothetical FE, you would theoretically be able to see forever, considering it's flat. If I'm not mistaken, that's what you were trying to get at. However, that's simply not the case, in actuality, you cannot see for extremely prolonged distances due to the curvature of the earth. (which, mind all of the FE'ers on this site, is not modeled by the equation "8 inches * miles2") So I get you, bud.
Absolutely no one ever said that you would be able to see forever on a flat earth. The shape of the Earth doesn't somehow endow you with superhuman vision, or the ability to exclude yourself from the effect perspective has on what you can perceive.
Also, some people think a flat earth means one big giant plane, devoid of mountains and hills. That's not the case. Aside from being in the open sea, most places have great variances in altitude. There are also objects obstructing your view, whether it's trees, buildings etc.
So even on a flat world you wouldn't be able to "see forever."
We can only postulate, based on the assumption of the Earth being a sphere, that it must be approximately 4000 miles to the center. There isn't really any established method to prove that however, so it remains hypothetical.
But, given the scientific method, how can you postulate a hypothetical based on a theory you are trying to disprove WITH the hypothetical? That would be admission (albeit small) to some correctness in the Round Earth theory, demonstrating petitio principii.
I really don't follow what you're trying to do here. You basically asked, "What is the depth of this Earth?" And my response was "No one really knows." I don't know how or why you're trying to twist that into some latin named philosophic principle I'm not even familiar with.
You disappoint me here. What does super human vision have to do with anything? What you see is the result of light entering your eyes, nothing more, nothing less. The human eye doesn't limit the distance we're able to see at all, only the level of details.
If the earth was flat, given the proper conditions, you should be able to see the so called ice wall from places like Australia, the Ivory Coast, even from the entire North American west coast, looking across nothing but ocean. Add 100 meters of altitude to the observer, and you have ruled out waves obscuring your view.
Yet again, sandokhan plastered a thread with lengthy, century old nonsense. What he defines as a victory in any debate is really just people losing interest in re-reading 18th and 19th century bollocks that in the end answers nothing.
-
And I honestly didn't realise until now that sandokhan is attacking this from a religious perspective.
It really explains a lot.
-
You disappoint me here. What does super human vision have to do with anything? What you see is the result of light entering your eyes, nothing more, nothing less. The human eye doesn't limit the distance we're able to see at all, only the level of details.
If the earth was flat, given the proper conditions, you should be able to see the so called ice wall from places like Australia, the Ivory Coast, even from the entire North American west coast, looking across nothing but ocean. Add 100 meters of altitude to the observer, and you have ruled out waves obscuring your view.
What don't you realize about perspective? Go inside of a tunnel, you will see the ceiling come down, the road come up, and a small amount of light coming through the exit. This is a very clear example of a vanishing point over a relatively small distance.
Why wouldn't you expect the same thing to happen when looking south from a beach in Australia?
-
Realism: the quality of a person who understands what is real and possible in a particular situation and is able to deal with problems in an effective and practical way
The answers to the following three questions will enable the reader to understand everything he/she wanted to know about the Universe.
Where is our Universe located?
What is the scale of our Universe?
Where is the only place a Universe could have been created?
clue: these questions are equivalent, an answer to any of them, means having an answer for the other two questions posed.
-
You disappoint me here. What does super human vision have to do with anything? What you see is the result of light entering your eyes, nothing more, nothing less. The human eye doesn't limit the distance we're able to see at all, only the level of details.
If the earth was flat, given the proper conditions, you should be able to see the so called ice wall from places like Australia, the Ivory Coast, even from the entire North American west coast, looking across nothing but ocean. Add 100 meters of altitude to the observer, and you have ruled out waves obscuring your view.
What don't you realize about perspective? Go inside of a tunnel, you will see the ceiling come down, the road come up, and a small amount of light coming through the exit. This is a very clear example of a vanishing point over a relatively small distance.
Why wouldn't you expect the same thing to happen when looking south from a beach in Australia?
The key here though is that you still see the light. Compared to a continent, the end of the tunnel is very small. The key here is also that no matter how small the tunnel opening is and how long the tunnel is, if the plane is flat and the source of light is powerful enough, you'll still be able to see light.
Again, what you see is the result of light entering your eyes. If the path is clear, it'll enter your eyes regardless.
-
Gauss' law of gravitation is a "law" based on the hypothesis that mass is proportional to gravitation; it is not.
We have at our disposal plenty of experiments which do prove that not only mass is not proportional to gravitation, but also that terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure.
Would you please enlighten me to these supposed experiments?
-
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3418.msg79189#msg79189 (four experiments)
We also have the Allais effect:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3342.msg82841#msg82841
The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400
-
Where is our Universe located?
Nowhere, since "the Universe" pretty much covers everything.
What is the scale of our Universe?
The Universe is finite at any one point but is infinitely expanding.
Where is the only place a Universe could have been created?
Since, again, "the Universe" means literally "everything", it cannot have been created in any specific place, since that place would by definition have been part of "the Universe" at that point. Though since the empirical universe ultimately only exist in everyone's heads, you could say that it is created in our consciousness.
-
You disappoint me here. What does super human vision have to do with anything? What you see is the result of light entering your eyes, nothing more, nothing less. The human eye doesn't limit the distance we're able to see at all, only the level of details.
If the earth was flat, given the proper conditions, you should be able to see the so called ice wall from places like Australia, the Ivory Coast, even from the entire North American west coast, looking across nothing but ocean. Add 100 meters of altitude to the observer, and you have ruled out waves obscuring your view.
What don't you realize about perspective? Go inside of a tunnel, you will see the ceiling come down, the road come up, and a small amount of light coming through the exit. This is a very clear example of a vanishing point over a relatively small distance.
Why wouldn't you expect the same thing to happen when looking south from a beach in Australia?
The key here though is that you still see the light. Compared to a continent, the end of the tunnel is very small. The key here is also that no matter how small the tunnel opening is and how long the tunnel is, if the plane is flat and the source of light is powerful enough, you'll still be able to see light.
Again, what you see is the result of light entering your eyes. If the path is clear, it'll enter your eyes regardless.
What source of light is powerful enough in Antarctica to see from Southern Australia? What source of light aside from high powered lasers are strong enough to see for long distances? Even the most advanced, most powerful laser's light depreciates and spreads to the point of invisibility over long enough distance. It is due to our atmosphere "scattering" the light, even on the clearest, most haze free days.
The atmosphere will always hinder your view even from the top of a mountain, I repeat, no one ever has said you should be able to see forever on a flat earth.
Side Note: There seems to be a huge influx of users with 0 post coming in to start seemingly friendly topics, only to reveal obvious bias. I'd be interested in seeing if some of these are just alternate accounts made to further cloud the debate. IP address checks anyone? Or maybe a limit on being able to start a topic without at least 10 posts or something.
-
ecthelion, there was no big bang.
The universe is not expanding anywhere.
Our universe is much, much smaller than you might think.
Helium flash/triple alpha process paradox:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55861.0
Though since the empirical universe ultimately only exist in everyone's heads, you could say that it is created in our consciousness.
Now you are getting somewhere.
Our Universe is located in a very specific place, in fact, the only location it could have been created.
What if you could have a conscious dream?
Where do dreams take place?
-
ecthelion, there was no big bang.[\quote]
How do you know that?
The universe is not expanding anywhere.
I suppose it isn't this "everywhere" is all inside the universe, so there is quite literally nothing the universe could expand into.
But I was more referring to the fact that human observation of the universe is expanding.
Our universe is much, much smaller than you might think.
What does "small" or "big" mean when we are talking about the universe? It cannot have a boundary (for what could be on the other side?), so size is a meaningless attribute.
Now you are getting somewhere.
Our Universe is located in a very specific place, in fact, the only location it could have been created.
What if you could have a conscious dream?
Where do dreams take place?
I can have conscious dreams. There is a technique called lucid dreaming and I did experiment with it for a while.
Whether or not this universe is a dream of god, or the Matrix, or just simply exactly what it appears to be, is of little consequence. We cannot know what or where the universe is created or how it looks. All we do know is ourselves and the world as it appears around us.
-
I can have conscious dreams. There is a technique called lucid dreaming and I did experiment with it for a while.
No, you cannot; not because you wouldn't want to, but because it is not possible yet for a human being to have a true conscious dream (do not confuse a conscious dream with a lucid dream).
A conscious dream = the power to create minerals, plants, animals, human beings, angels in A DREAM.
At the present time, however, the mind is not focused in a way that enables it to give a clear and true picture of what the spirit imagines. It is not one-pointed. It gives misty and clouded pictures. Hence the necessity of experiment to show the inadequacies of the first conception, and bring about new imaginings and ideas until the image produced by the spirit in mental substance has been reproduced in physical substance.
At the best, we are able to shape through the mind only such images as have to do with Form, and therefore is now in its form, or "mineral" stage, hence in our operations we are confined to forms, to minerals. We can imagine ways and means of working with the mineral forms of the three lower kingdoms, but can do little or nothing with the living bodies. We may indeed graft living branch to living tree, or living part of animal or man to other living part, but it is not life with which we are working; it is form only. We are making different conditions, but the life which already inhabited the form continues to do so still. To create life is beyond man's power until his mind has become alive.
The mind will be vivified to some extent and man can then imagine forms which will live and grow, like plants.
When his mind has acquired "Feeling," he can create living, growing, and feeling things.
When he reaches perfection, he will be able to "imagine" into existence creatures that will live, grown, feel, and think.
-
I can have conscious dreams. There is a technique called lucid dreaming and I did experiment with it for a while.
No, you cannot; not because you wouldn't want to, but because it is not possible yet for a human being to have a true conscious dream (do not confuse a conscious dream with a lucid dream).
A conscious dream = the power to create minerals, plants, animals, human beings, angels in A DREAM.
At the present time, however, the mind is not focused in a way that enables it to give a clear and true picture of what the spirit imagines. It is not one-pointed. It gives misty and clouded pictures. Hence the necessity of experiment to show the inadequacies of the first conception, and bring about new imaginings and ideas until the image produced by the spirit in mental substance has been reproduced in physical substance.
At the best, we are able to shape through the mind only such images as have to do with Form, and therefore is now in its form, or "mineral" stage, hence in our operations we are confined to forms, to minerals. We can imagine ways and means of working with the mineral forms of the three lower kingdoms, but can do little or nothing with the living bodies. We may indeed graft living branch to living tree, or living part of animal or man to other living part, but it is not life with which we are working; it is form only. We are making different conditions, but the life which already inhabited the form continues to do so still. To create life is beyond man's power until his mind has become alive.
The mind will be vivified to some extent and man can then imagine forms which will live and grow, like plants.
When his mind has acquired "Feeling," he can create living, growing, and feeling things.
When he reaches perfection, he will be able to "imagine" into existence creatures that will live, grown, feel, and think.
This is one of the most irrelevant tangents I have seen on this thread, and, in fact, this site. This jas absolutely nothing to do with any FE/RE belief system and only solidifies that you are arguing your beliefs based on a religious view point: an effective Appeal to Religion, thus making your point here moot in a psuedoscientific debate topic.
-
You disappoint me here. What does super human vision have to do with anything? What you see is the result of light entering your eyes, nothing more, nothing less. The human eye doesn't limit the distance we're able to see at all, only the level of details.
If the earth was flat, given the proper conditions, you should be able to see the so called ice wall from places like Australia, the Ivory Coast, even from the entire North American west coast, looking across nothing but ocean. Add 100 meters of altitude to the observer, and you have ruled out waves obscuring your view.
What don't you realize about perspective? Go inside of a tunnel, you will see the ceiling come down, the road come up, and a small amount of light coming through the exit. This is a very clear example of a vanishing point over a relatively small distance.
Why wouldn't you expect the same thing to happen when looking south from a beach in Australia?
The key here though is that you still see the light. Compared to a continent, the end of the tunnel is very small. The key here is also that no matter how small the tunnel opening is and how long the tunnel is, if the plane is flat and the source of light is powerful enough, you'll still be able to see light.
Again, what you see is the result of light entering your eyes. If the path is clear, it'll enter your eyes regardless.
What source of light is powerful enough in Antarctica to see from Southern Australia? What source of light aside from high powered lasers are strong enough to see for long distances? Even the most advanced, most powerful laser's light depreciates and spreads to the point of invisibility over long enough distance. It is due to our atmosphere "scattering" the light, even on the clearest, most haze free days.
The atmosphere will always hinder your view even from the top of a mountain, I repeat, no one ever has said you should be able to see forever on a flat earth.
Side Note: There seems to be a huge influx of users with 0 post coming in to start seemingly friendly topics, only to reveal obvious bias. I'd be interested in seeing if some of these are just alternate accounts made to further cloud the debate. IP address checks anyone? Or maybe a limit on being able to start a topic without at least 10 posts or something.
Water/Ice reflecting sunlight.
Again, what you see is the result of light entering your eyes, no matter where that light comes from, is emitted from, or how it is scattered. Thought experiment: Experiencing how far you can see depending on the atmospheric condition on a given day compared to any other given time is still just a result of light entering your eyes, only now, the atmospheric condition makes the light reflected by a boat far away isn't entering your eyes like it did two days earlier, despite it being at the exact same position. Do you agree that refraction is the cause of this particular phenomena? If yes, it's it reasonable to conclude that said refraction can explain why you're able to see further if the earth is a globe under certain conditions? If yes, can we then also conclude that calculating the visible distance to the curvature only using the likes of Pythagoras only applies if the celestial body is without an atmosphere? If not, what is the mechanic behind a fatamorgana?
The limitations of the human eye lies within the narrow spectrum of light we're able to translate into images. Imagine how bright the night sky appears to a cat, or an owl.
-
The atmosphere will always hinder your view even from the top of a mountain, I repeat, no one ever has said you should be able to see forever on a flat earth.
The math and geometry clearly prove that one should be able to see, aided or unaided the light of the sun 24/7 on FE.
The math has been posted on these sites dozens of times and you STILL don't get it.
So once more into the breach;
1. The math of prospective proves the sun can only appear to rest on the horizon, NOT sink below it. And that includes any part of the sun.
2. Geometry proves that the sun is AWAYS a MINIMUM of 26.57 degrees ABOVE the plain of a FE.
3. Math proves the sun is producing 6.89X1033 lumens. 50% of the earth's population can see a candle, 90 lumens, on a hill at 10 miles away. 90 lumens is a percentage of the sun's proven lumens so small, it comes up as 0% on ALL my calculators.
4. Refraction, the go to explanation for FET of the "setting" sun. Go back to point 2 above. Refraction has its math too. And that math says that on a standard day (Sea Level temp of 59f/15c and a pressure of 29.92 inches /1000 mb of Hg) the refraction would make the sun appear 0.0673 degrees closer to the ground. 26.57-0.0673=26.50 degrees ABOVE the FE. There is no known recorded temperature/pressure combination that would refract sun light enough to make appear to set in an FE world.