alfred1

Everest challenge
« on: July 17, 2018, 07:16:13 AM »
Here's a challenge for you.
Stand on the highest point in your area with a telescope. Aim in the general direction of Mt Everest. Everest is the highest  point on earth so if the earth is really flat then you should be able to see it's peak. If anyone can achieve this then I will accept that the earth is flat (no excuse about perspective please. The moon and other heavenly bodies can been seen using a telescope and they are further away.)

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2018, 07:44:11 AM »
Here's a challenge for you.
Stand on the highest point in your area with a telescope. Aim in the general direction of Mt Everest. Everest is the highest  point on earth so if the earth is really flat then you should be able to see it's peak. If anyone can achieve this then I will accept that the earth is flat (no excuse about perspective please. The moon and other heavenly bodies can been seen using a telescope and they are further away.)
From 20.000 km distance, Mount Everest would be 1/20th the apparent size of the sun/moon (0.025 degrees).
On RE, Mount Everest would disappear at about 350 km distance due to curvature (unless you are standing on another mountain).
At 350 km, Mount Everest would be approximately 3 times the apparent size of the sun/moon degrees (1.5 degrees).

So basically, if you can see Mount Everest from 500 km distance, standing at an altitude lower than 1 km, you would prove the RE wrong.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2018, 07:59:00 AM by SphericalEarther »

alfred1

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2018, 08:05:51 AM »
Here's a challenge for you.
Stand on the highest point in your area with a telescope. Aim in the general direction of Mt Everest. Everest is the highest  point on earth so if the earth is really flat then you should be able to see it's peak. If anyone can achieve this then I will accept that the earth is flat (no excuse about perspective please. The moon and other heavenly bodies can been seen using a telescope and they are further away.)
From 20.000 km distance, Mount Everest would be 1/20th the apparent size of the sun/moon (0.025 degrees).
On RE, Mount Everest would disappear at about 350 km distance due to curvature (unless you are standing on another mountain).
At 350 km, Mount Everest would be approximately 3 times the apparent size of the sun/moon degrees (1.5 degrees).

So basically, if you can see Mount Everest from 500 km distance, standing at an altitude lower than 1 km, you would prove the RE wrong.
Thanks for that. What if modify the challenge to reflect what you have just told me?  Would this be any use then? I would appreciate any suggestions you might have.

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2018, 08:26:34 AM »
Thanks for that. What if modify the challenge to reflect what you have just told me?  Would this be any use then? I would appreciate any suggestions you might have.
I don't think it matters...
FEers will defend their right to blame it on perspective, even though they haven't defined their perspective to any degree yet.

totallackey

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2018, 12:35:27 PM »
Here's a challenge for you.
Stand on the highest point in your area with a telescope. Aim in the general direction of Mt Everest. Everest is the highest  point on earth so if the earth is really flat then you should be able to see it's peak. If anyone can achieve this then I will accept that the earth is flat (no excuse about perspective please. The moon and other heavenly bodies can been seen using a telescope and they are further away.)
This is just plain, pure, unadulterated horse hockey.

First, the atmoplane is so dense for the most part at ground level as to preclude such a view it would impossible to achieve.

B, having personally stood on Wacker Drive in Chicago during some of the densest fog ever measured, unable to see my own hand in front of my face due to that fog; yet able to witness the brightly lit antennae atop the Willis Tower, your supposition concerning the ability to see the Moon and stars above (adding they are supposedly further away) is decidedly in error.

III, any human being is capable of only resolving so much, with distinct limits of visual acuity.

Your entire post is laughable.

*

Offline Appaullingly

  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • ¯\(◉◡◔)/¯
    • View Profile
Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2018, 01:57:00 PM »
Guys, you're forgetting about EA.
Pete Svarrior: "This is really quite simple. The moon doesn't rotate, the observer does."

Pete Svarrior on EA: "of course it causes a rotation... just not along the axis you're interested in right now."

alfred1

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2018, 02:15:13 PM »
Here's a challenge for you.
Stand on the highest point in your area with a telescope. Aim in the general direction of Mt Everest. Everest is the highest  point on earth so if the earth is really flat then you should be able to see it's peak. If anyone can achieve this then I will accept that the earth is flat (no excuse about perspective please. The moon and other heavenly bodies can been seen using a telescope and they are further away.)
This is just plain, pure, unadulterated horse hockey.

First, the atmoplane is so dense for the most part at ground level as to preclude such a view it would impossible to achieve.

B, having personally stood on Wacker Drive in Chicago during some of the densest fog ever measured, unable to see my own hand in front of my face due to that fog; yet able to witness the brightly lit antennae atop the Willis Tower, your supposition concerning the ability to see the Moon and stars above (adding they are supposedly further away) is decidedly in error.

III, any human being is capable of only resolving so much, with distinct limits of visual acuity.

Your entire post is laughable.
Then why are so sure that the earth is flat? I haven't said what side I'm on. I'm still trying to make up my mind.

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2018, 04:25:48 PM »
Here's a challenge for you.
Stand on the highest point in your area with a telescope. Aim in the general direction of Mt Everest. Everest is the highest  point on earth so if the earth is really flat then you should be able to see it's peak. If anyone can achieve this then I will accept that the earth is flat (no excuse about perspective please. The moon and other heavenly bodies can been seen using a telescope and they are further away.)
This is just plain, pure, unadulterated horse hockey.

First, the atmoplane is so dense for the most part at ground level as to preclude such a view it would impossible to achieve.

B, having personally stood on Wacker Drive in Chicago during some of the densest fog ever measured, unable to see my own hand in front of my face due to that fog; yet able to witness the brightly lit antennae atop the Willis Tower, your supposition concerning the ability to see the Moon and stars above (adding they are supposedly further away) is decidedly in error.

III, any human being is capable of only resolving so much, with distinct limits of visual acuity.

Your entire post is laughable.
The atmosphere is often hard to see through - particularly down here near the ground. A couple follow-up questions for you based on that:
1) Have you ever seen a clear horizon line with blue sky above a distinct horizon? Does it always blur out or just most of the time?
2) I have observed that I can often see clearly all the way up to the stars. From this I deduce that looking up/down the skies are often much clearer. Is there an altitude at which I should be able to look down and see a clear shot all the way to Everest? Can you tell me how high and how close I need to be to see Everest (or any distinct mountain peak)?

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2018, 05:08:14 PM »
As above. It is rare you can see further than 40km in good conditions. The air has moisture, dust, dirt and other particulates. The air also moves causing twinkling of stars or heat haze. There is no way you could see Mt Everest from Europe or the US for example, if the earth was flat. Things just get paler and paler until you can no longer tell them from the sky.



Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2018, 05:32:29 PM »
As above. It is rare you can see further than 40km in good conditions. The air has moisture, dust, dirt and other particulates. The air also moves causing twinkling of stars or heat haze. There is no way you could see Mt Everest from Europe or the US for example, if the earth was flat. Things just get paler and paler until you can no longer tell them from the sky.


But I can see stars at night. How far away are they? Can we never see stars near the horizon? Maybe the clouding effect down at the horizon would prevent me from seeing stars there, and if so, then can I get up high enough to see past the clouding effect?

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2018, 05:40:09 PM »
The air going upwards thins as it does so. At just 20,000ft (6km) air pressure has already halved. There is also less dust and bits as you go higher.

Looking straight across near the surface is the thickest dirtiest air to look through. Again, that's not to say that air doesn't distort your vision looking up, again that's why stars twinkle. But you aren't looking through 3000km of thick air full of dust when you look straight up.

Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2018, 05:47:46 PM »
The air going upwards thins as it does so. At just 20,000ft (6km) air pressure has already halved. There is also less dust and bits as you go higher.

Looking straight across near the surface is the thickest dirtiest air to look through. Again, that's not to say that air doesn't distort your vision looking up, again that's why stars twinkle. But you aren't looking through 3000km of thick air full of dust when you look straight up.
If I'm following you correctly, it would be impossible to see a star (or sun or moon) clearly within 0.5 degrees of the horizon. It would be blocked by dust and bits and air and junk. Right?

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2018, 06:11:55 PM »
Why don't you make another thread about that? You are just moving the goal posts.

This thread is why can't you see thousands of miles in a straight line to a mountain, and everyone would agree that visibility would prevent you doing so ... including meteorological offices that publish visibility figures each day.

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/new-york
Today in New York, visibility is 13km. Are you going to tell me that in New York there was no sun rise this morning, or that the sun is closer than 13km?

Stars aren't mountains. Learn what visibility is.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2018, 06:58:28 PM »
Why don't you make another thread about that? You are just moving the goal posts.

This thread is why can't you see thousands of miles in a straight line to a mountain, and everyone would agree that visibility would prevent you doing so ... including meteorological offices that publish visibility figures each day.

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/new-york
Today in New York, visibility is 13km. Are you going to tell me that in New York there was no sun rise this morning, or that the sun is closer than 13km?

Stars aren't mountains. Learn what visibility is.
Could you see the sun this morning? I don't mean to move goalposts or get off topic. The topic is about seeing a mountain in the distance. If we're discussing how far we can and cannot see into the distance, I think it's useful to use other objects seen in the same way to compare with.

It is my understanding that Everest is 7,500 miles from New York. And presumably the Sun at sunrise was where? I'm not sure if we have solid numbers on that, but something like 6000 miles away. That should be somewhat closer than Mt. Everest. Then the stars should be something like 8000+ miles away... an unknown distance farther than Mt. Everest.

So if we're wanting to see Mt. Everest, it should lie somewhere between the Sun and the stars as seen from New York - strictly in terms of distance. This seems pretty on-topic to me.

So I'm hypothesizing... if we can see the Sun clearly, and we can see the stars clearly, we would expect to see Mt. Everest* clearly.
* = It seems likely that something could block our view of it, so really we just want to see a distant mountain that we think we should have a clear view of, or else carefully choose a point from which we should be able to see Mt. Everest.

You with me here? If we cannot see the sun due to atmospheric haze, we do not expect to see Mt. Everest*. If we cannot see the stars due to atmospheric haze, we might not expect to see Mt. Everest*. So we should first establish if we can see both the Sun and the stars. Only if we can see both of those, should we even expect to see Mt. Everest*. Right?

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2018, 12:28:17 AM »
Yeah, I'm with you. You aren't with me.

Some days, you can see Calais from Dover. They are 22miles apart. Other days you cannot. The visibility is less than 22miles. On no day ever in the history of earth, has the visibility been 7500 miles. My understanding is 40km is very rare indeed. Aviators only go up to 10km (called all the 9s and reported as 9999) and that is a very clear day. The furthest recorded is around 80km to 100km and that was done in a desert somewhere with very dry air and no wind whatsoever to pick up dirt.

Until you learn what visibility is, how it is defined, what the human eye can see and why the sun and stars aren't applicable to a mountain, this debate goes no further.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2018, 03:04:29 AM »
Yeah, I'm with you. You aren't with me.

Some days, you can see Calais from Dover. They are 22miles apart. Other days you cannot. The visibility is less than 22miles. On no day ever in the history of earth, has the visibility been 7500 miles. My understanding is 40km is very rare indeed. Aviators only go up to 10km (called all the 9s and reported as 9999) and that is a very clear day. The furthest recorded is around 80km to 100km and that was done in a desert somewhere with very dry air and no wind whatsoever to pick up dirt.

Until you learn what visibility is, how it is defined, what the human eye can see and why the sun and stars aren't applicable to a mountain, this debate goes no further.
I wasn't debating you as far as I know. I was asking questions. I know usually around here questions are intended to make some kind of debate points, but as Bullwinkle said, I don't fit in here. I do things differently.

So back to the questions... I agree that it seems like visibility to about 100 miles is about the farthest I've ever seen a distant mountain. And yet, I know I've seen the sun very clearly on the horizon. That's really rare itself... mostly it's all cloudy. But once in a while, there's the sun right there plain as day.

So can you explain, "what the human eye can see and why the sun and stars aren't applicable to a mountain"? From your point of view, why are the sun and stars different from a mountain in terms of what you can and cannot see? Naturally I have an RE explanation, but what is the FE explanation for this?

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2018, 12:20:21 PM »
The RE and FE explanation are the same.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visibility
Definition

A commercial aircraft flying into the clouds over Los Angeles
ICAO Annex 3 Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation [1] contains the following definitions and note:

a) the greatest distance at which a black object of suitable dimensions, situated near the ground, can be seen and recognized when observed against a bright background;
b) the greatest distance at which lights of 1,000 candelas can be seen and identified against an unlit background.
Note.— The two distances have different values in air of a given extinction coefficient, and the latter b) varies with the background illumination. The former a) is represented by the meteorological optical range (MOR).

I asked you to learn what visibility was. Is the sun brighter than 1000 candles? Is a mountain brighter than 1000 candles? I'm not here to spoon feed you. You want to bring a debate, you have a responsibility to educate yourself on the topic. I'm not here to win you a debate that earth is round.


You can google this stuff.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/06/15/why-cant-we-see-stars-during-the-day/#253bef80d8dd

The sun is 10,000,000,000 candelas.
The moon is 25,000 times more candelas than Sirus
Some stars are more candelas than mountains.

Note if you look straight up at night, you can see more stars than at the horizon. At the horizon you can only see the brighter ones. This is because you are looking through thicker dirtier air.

Anyway ... not seeing Everest is not a proof of a round earth. Its retarted. Think of something better and make a new thread. The RE and FE reason is the same ... visibility.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 12:33:11 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2018, 03:18:58 PM »
Hate to say this but Thork is right here.
A counter argument to "visibility is generally less than..." is not "but you can see the sun, that's MILES away!
I mean, it is miles away but it is very VERY bright. That does make quite a big difference to how far you can see things from.
In brief, you wouldn't be able to see Everest from anywhere on a flat earth. BUT, the sinking ship effect does apply to mountains and tall buildings and any distant object, those things are demonstrations of the curve of the earth.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2018, 04:36:53 PM »
The RE and FE explanation are the same.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visibility
Definition

A commercial aircraft flying into the clouds over Los Angeles
ICAO Annex 3 Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation [1] contains the following definitions and note:

a) the greatest distance at which a black object of suitable dimensions, situated near the ground, can be seen and recognized when observed against a bright background;
b) the greatest distance at which lights of 1,000 candelas can be seen and identified against an unlit background.
Note.— The two distances have different values in air of a given extinction coefficient, and the latter b) varies with the background illumination. The former a) is represented by the meteorological optical range (MOR).

I asked you to learn what visibility was. Is the sun brighter than 1000 candles? Is a mountain brighter than 1000 candles? I'm not here to spoon feed you. You want to bring a debate, you have a responsibility to educate yourself on the topic. I'm not here to win you a debate that earth is round.


You can google this stuff.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/06/15/why-cant-we-see-stars-during-the-day/#253bef80d8dd

The sun is 10,000,000,000 candelas.
The moon is 25,000 times more candelas than Sirus
Some stars are more candelas than mountains.

Note if you look straight up at night, you can see more stars than at the horizon. At the horizon you can only see the brighter ones. This is because you are looking through thicker dirtier air.

Anyway ... not seeing Everest is not a proof of a round earth. Its retarted. Think of something better and make a new thread. The RE and FE reason is the same ... visibility.

Ok I'll admit it. I know how light works. Please stop telling me to look things up. I know exactly how this works under standard physics, and the things you've told me to look up don't work to help your argument.

The reason I'm asking is because I want to know what YOU think explains it. Let me narrow it down a little...

"Seeing" anything requires contrast in the light you receive from it vs the light of whatever is around it. Haze ruins that contrast by diffusing the light. A dark mountain against a black sky has no contrast either. OTOH, a bright star against a black sky has tremendous contrast, and if the sky is clear, you can see it sharply. Hopefully we can all agree here. This isn't supposed to be any sort of FE slam.

Another way to create a contrast is to put the mountain directly into the line of sight with the star.
a) If we agree the mountain is there (we just cannot see it because it blends with the background).
b) And we agree that the sky is clear of haze so that we can see the star.
c) Then how does the light from the star make it through the mountain allowing us to see it?

It's not supposed to be a debate. I'd prefer if you didn't get heated over it. These are honest questions. I know the answers from the RE perspective. I also know that you seem to have an answer for this from your own personal FE perspective. Could you tell me what you think is happening?

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Everest challenge
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2018, 04:48:51 PM »
c) is your problem.

With perspective, how high do you think Everest is at 7500 miles away?

It is the teeniest pimple on the horizon. Imperceptibly small. So how would a star shine through it? Its so small as to be barely visible. Its not blocking anything. Its teeeeeeny. The star would shine round both sides of it with no issue at all. Like putting your thumb over the sun, then moving your thumb away from you until you can see the sun again round both sides of your thumb. 

I'm not heated. I'm exasperated. This is very basic stuff.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1