21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 02, 2019, 05:24:37 PM »

I have no idea.  But pollen and humidity don't make buildings shorter, as they clearly are in image 2.  And pollen and humidity cannot explain why there is a clear demarcation between the tops and bottoms of the buildings as in image 1.  If the 19th floor (or whatever it is) in image 1 is completely obscured and the 20th is crystal clear, that cannot be explained by air quality.

I notice that you have this habit of saying things and the providing no evidence to back them up. Have you taken precise measurements with high pollen and humidity and then, all other factors staying the same taken the EXACT same measurements with low pollen and 0% humidity? If so can we please see them? If not can you please do that to provide evidence to support your claims?

No, I have not and I will not, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is if I or someone else were to do that, you would just come up with another cockamamie explanation and demand that one be disproved also.  Also, I know that atmospheric optics do not work the way you claim.  Atmospheric conditions, particulate count, humidity, whatever, cannot make buildings shorter.  The gradient from ground up cannot be so steep so as to totally obscure one floor while the one above is perfectly clear.  To say that it can is a ridiculous argument and you know it.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 02, 2019, 04:47:36 PM »

That image is a wonderful demonstration of predicted observations in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in one. How would that look over a mile at sea level, with a a high barometric pressure, 80 degreess, medium pollen count, low air quality, in Florida in September?

I have no idea.  But pollen and humidity don't make buildings shorter, as they clearly are in image 2.  And pollen and humidity cannot explain why there is a clear demarcation between the tops and bottoms of the buildings as in image 1.  If the 19th floor (or whatever it is) in image 1 is completely obscured and the 20th is crystal clear, that cannot be explained by air quality.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?

« on: August 02, 2019, 02:15:37 PM »

The problem is that you don't believe any of the hundreds of people who travelled across antarctica

How do you get that from my post?  I never said nor implied that.    Of course people have travelled across the continent.  That is beyond dispute.  People are living at the South Pole right now. 

Some FEs use the fact that thee are no scheduled south polar flight route as evidence (well, they don't like the word evidence.  they like the word proof) that the South Pole doesn't exist.  There are posts in this thread to that effect.  My post was to debunk that silly notion and give sound, logical reasons why there are none.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 02, 2019, 02:08:06 PM »

Not one of us disagrees that air is more dense and has a higher level of suspended particulates near ground level.

Not nearly enough to matter, not at those height differences.  In that first picture in post 19, you can see about 75% of the tallest buildings clear as a bell, and then absolutely nothing below.  You want to explain that away with suspended particulates?  The 20th floor is perfectly clear but the 19th is completely occluded?  That explanation makes sense to you?

While I'm on the subject, compare the first 2 pictures in #19.  In the second one, the buildings are about 50% shorter, and most are below the water level.  Not obscured by suspended particulates, physically shorter, as in the tops of the visible ones are closer to the water than in the first picture.  That's not suspended particulates.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 11:54:38 PM »

Only the first 3, which are pretty much the same thing, precipitation, would PREVENT you from seeing it, and light rain or snow wouldn't do the trick.  Smoke too I suppose, but how often is Lake Michigan on fire?

How do you know? Did you ever go up there when the pollen count was over 1000 PPM?

Did you ever go up there when the pollen count was over 800 PPM and the humidity was over 70%

If so do you have any pictures to show us? How did the images change between <50 PPM pollen count and 0% humidity?


Without any evidence or sources how can we really know if you're not just making things up?

Um, aren't you the one who said "don't trust what you can see because you could be fooled? 

Why yes, yes it was:

In addition, as demonstrated in my previous post, it's dangerous to make up your mind so solidly based on what you see alone when your eyes can be easily fooled

So, make up your mind.  Is what you can see with your eyes evidence, or is it not evidence.  Because you can't have it both ways. 

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?

« on: August 01, 2019, 09:59:27 PM »

If you don't trust any of the many documented expedition across antarctica, you can do the flight yourself, going by the straigthest line;
- go to the Falkland Islands
- rent a plane at Port Stanley airport
- head south
- fly over Antarctica
- according to the spheric model, after 10 000 km, you will be over the south-west of Australia. Land at either Perth or Esperance airport.

It is extremely unlikely that there is an airplane for rent in the Falklands with that kind of range.

These discussions about overflying the South Pole always crack me up.   There are 2 very good reasons why there are no scheduled trans-Antarctic  passenger flights:

1: There is no market for a city pair who's great circle route would take them over the continent. 
2: Even if there were, the flight route would be unlikely to be approved for safety reasons.  While airliners typically fly at or above 30,000 feet, if they lose cabin pressure, they would have to descend to 10,000 feet.  in that event:

a:  depending on how far along their route they were, the airplane might not have the range to get to a suitable emergency airfield at that lower altitude and
b:  Antarctica has terrain at or above 10,000 feet, and there is no detailed topographical map of the entire continent, so terrain avoidance would be dicey.

None of that applies to trans Arctic flights, because there are plenty of marketable city pairs, there is no high terrain, and there are plenty of suitable divert fields at higher latitudes.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 09:40:18 PM »

you will see Chicago every time except under a very narrow band of conditions.  Those are not equivalent.

That really depends on your definition of "very narrow"

-Fog
-Snow
-Rain
-smoke
-emissions
-blowing dust
-hygroscopic particles
-high dew point
-temperature
-humidity
-pollen

Just off the top of my head I have listed many conditions which will have a significant impact on observations like this. In Chicago it rains/snows quite frequently. I would hardly consider rain a "narrow band of conditions" It rains quite frequently over a vast majority of the world.

Only the first 3, which are pretty much the same thing, precipitation, would PREVENT you from seeing it, and light rain or snow wouldn't do the trick.  Smoke too I suppose, but how often is Lake Michigan on fire?

Point being, it is very rare to see an image from the ground, while it is very common to see it from a few thousand feet up.  Those 2 situations  are not equivalent.  Every time you see it from the ground, you will also see it from the air.  most of the time your don't see it from the ground, you will still see it from the air.  Air quality or clarity does not explain that.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 08:04:32 PM »

And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage.  That is what scientific evidence is.  predictable, repeatable, verifiable. 

And the evidence has been shown, over and over and over again, that observations are heavily affected by chaotic atmospheric conditions. It's repeatable. It's verifiable.

The mirage over the lake is not a one time thing it happens over and over again.

You are conflating 2 very different principles and assigning them an equivalency which is not warranted.  You will see the Chicago mirage only under a very narrow band of conditions.  Go up in altitude merely 5,000 feet, and you will see Chicago every time except under a very narrow band of conditions.  Those are not equivalent.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 07:59:55 PM »

One last one and then I think my point is made.  Lake Titicaca sits at an altitude of 12,500 feet in the Andes.  The lake is 50 miles wide at its widest.  If you stand on one shore, you will not be able to see a powerful light source on the other.  Now go to St. Joseph, MI where that photo from Chicago was taken.  You won't be able to see Chicago from the ground, but go up to 12,500 feet in a helicopter, and you will have a beautiful view, even though the light is traveling at a much lower average altitude than the first example.  "Atmospheric interference blocks the light at lower altitudes" cannot explain this.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 07:23:17 PM »

IOW, atmospheric conditions cannot explain why one cannot see a light source while standing on the ground at 5,000 feet from 50 miles away, while one can see the light source from 400 miles away at altitude, even though the light spent the first 50 miles of its journey at an average altitude of 2,500 feet.  That's not how optics works.

And again, that is what one observes every single time, barring cloud cover, not a one time fluke like the Lake Michigan mirage.  That is what scientific evidence is.  predictable, repeatable, verifiable.  "Am I over Omaha looking south?"  "yes". "Am I at 45,000 feet?"  "Yes"  "is there cloud cover?"  "No". Do I see the lights of Oklahoma City?"  "Yes.  Every time"

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 07:15:05 PM »

I missed this from before.

Quote from: Zonk on Today at 03:00:12 PM
False.  I have seen Oklahoma City from 40,000 feet above Omaha.  That's about 400 miles.  40,000 feet is about 8 miles.  So a triangle with a height of 8 miles and a base of 400 miles will describe an angle of a little over 1 degree.  using a little trig, from my vantage point, the last 50 miles to OKC is through air that is 5,000 feet and below.  Denver is at 5,000 feet.  Standing on the ground at Denver looking east, one cannot see a light source 50 miles away.  Air clarity has very little to do with this.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim that atmospheric conditions have very little to do with that?

What if it's foggy? What if it's misting? What if the pollen count is much higher than normal? Based on my own personal observations things like that have a very significant impact on what you can, and can't see. I'm not even considering things like atmospheric pressure, humidity, temperature, wind speed etc.

Based on context, what I clearly meant by "Air clarity has very little to do with this" was it has very little to do with the general principle that one will never see the light source 50 miles away from the ground, but barring adverse atmospheric interference, one will always see it from a high enough altitude, even though the light is traveling through the same average altitude.  Which is to say, most of the time.   

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 06:57:12 PM »

They are still different. In one situation the light is reflecting off of it's distant object and spending it's entire time traveling beginning to end in the thick dense low altitude air.

In the other situation the light is originating in the dense low altitude atmosphere and going through different layers of atmosphere and refracting much differently thus leading to a different observation.

They are not exactly the same, bit they are close enough for the principle to hold.  First of all, why did you introduce the irrelevancy of one being a reflected light source when I clearly stated it to a generated light source?  Second,  if the 5,000 foot air is dense enough to block one light source, how come it can't block another?  Optics doesn't work that way.  "I can't see it 50 miles away, but I can see it if I'm farther." doesn't make sense.  50 miles is 50 miles, whether that is the end of the journey or merely the first part.  If it's blocked for one it is blocked for all.   And third, in my example, the light  doesn't reach 5,000 feet until 50 miles.  Everything before that is actually lower.  And last, if you have a light source at sea level, and look at it from 50 miles away in an airplane at 5,000 feet, I guarantee you will be able to see it.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 06:29:24 PM »

At 45,000 feet at night, one can see cities hundreds of miles away. Can you see cities hundreds of miles away from the ground?

NO. The FE explanation that is most plausible is that at sea level the atmosphere is much more dense than at 45,000 feet above sea level.

In the thinner, much less dense high altitude atmosphere, light is less hindered by refraction and other chaotic atmospheric conditions and can travel further. 

I addressed that in the same post.  Because of the extremely shallow angle, 50 of those 400 miles the light was traveling were at 5,000 feet or below.  If I were to ask you how come you cannot see a light source 50 miles east of Denver from the ground, the answer would surely be "because of the atmosphere.", yet one can clearly see a light source from hundreds of miles away if one is high enough, despite that light traveling for the first 50 miles at 5,000 feet and below.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 06:05:34 PM »

I have no way of knowing if you did or not.

And yet your default response was that I am lying and making it all up.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 06:04:22 PM »

So, again, what field of view did you personally have when you observed the earth's curvature on the horizon (at night...), and at what altitude?

Not at night.  Again, the night example was to provide two pieces of information, only one of which is relevant here.  It was to establish how far the line of sight was at a particular altitude,  in this case, about 400 miles (about 350 NM).  As to the question, about 300 degrees, give or take, and altitudes up to 45,000 feet.  Here is what a T-38 looks like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_T-38_Talon

From the front cockpit, the only blind spot is directly behind, about  60 degrees or so.  One can see the horizon from about 7 O'clock around to 5 O'clock.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 05:36:19 PM »

I provided that information as a baseline for how far on can see at that altitude.  If the horizon is that far away at night, that means it is that far away during the day.

So you didn't actually see curvature on the horizon, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

I would suggest you address issues you have with things people say with the people who said those things, instead of deflecting to strawmen when your made up stories fall apart.

Why the insult?  You are free to not believe me, but you are not free to insult me and call me a liar.   The link provided by totallackey  clearly states that one can discern curvature at 35,000 feet.  Do you doubt I flew military jets at 35,000 and above?

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 05:19:29 PM »

Please keep your strawmen arguments out of the upper fora, as all it does is derail the topic and makes it look like you are avoiding the discussion. If you can't can't answer, just say so. Trying to deflect by arguing against a claim no one is making gets us nowhere.

Right here in this thread:

" I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles."

Seems to be a perfectly accepted argument.  But an "I have seen X which shows or implies curvature" is summarily dismissed.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 05:14:30 PM »

How is that remotely relevant to personally seeing the curvature of earth's horizon at 45K feet. That is what I am asking about, not what cities you claim to have seen while flying. I am also very interested in understanding how you saw curvature on the horizon while flying at night.

I provided that information as a baseline for how far on can see at that altitude.  If the horizon is that far away at night, that means it is that far away during the day. 

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 04:57:18 PM »

At 45,000 feet, according to RE math, you would not be able to see any curvature.

False.  As I said above, I could see a city 400 miles away.  That implies I can see an 800 mile horizon at 45,000 feet.  The circumference of the earth is about 24,000 miles.  Thus, 800 miles has 12 degrees of arc (800/24,000 X 360 = 12), which is easily discernible by the naked eye.

It absolutely is not easily discernible unless you have a rather large field of view, according to RE maths. You would have to provide more information than just saying you were at 45,000 feet (like where you were and what you were looking out of) What is more likely, is that your bias let you perceive that you saw something that you did not. Or, you are just making things up. As an engineer, you should be more thoughtful about these things. So far, it seems you are just posting arbitrary math problems that you think support your position, when in fact you likely did not take any time to validate any of the maths or measurements.

First of all, why is "I saw such and such" a perfectly acceptable piece of information from your side, while "I saw such and such" is not from the other?  Rather convenient, wouldn't you say.  Secondly, I did provide detail.  I have seen the lights of Oklahoma City from Omaha while flying in a USAF T-38 at night.  That is just one example of many.  Check the distance between those 2 cities.  If one can see that far straight ahead, it stands to reason that one can see twice that distance from left to right.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries

« on: August 01, 2019, 04:44:54 PM »

At 45,000 feet, according to RE math, you would not be able to see any curvature.

False.  As I said above, I could see a city 400 miles away.  That implies I can see an 800 mile horizon at 45,000 feet.  The circumference of the earth is about 24,000 miles.  Thus, 800 miles has 12 degrees of arc (800/24,000 X 360 = 12), which is easily discernible by the naked eye.

You cannot perceive any curvature at 45,000 feet, period, end of sentence.

"Earth's surface disk visible from FL350 is about 1446 nautical miles. To claim you can see "the curvature of the earth" from low altitude, like a hundred thousand feet or so, is like putting your eye a couple of thousandths of an inch from a large beachball and believing that you can see its curvature."
https://www.quora.com/At-what-altitude-do-you-see-the-curvature-of-the-Earth

Which means at FL 450 is should be even more, which means I underestimated by a factor of nearly 2.  Which means the amount of curvature visible is about 22.5 degrees.

From the link you so kindly provided:

"The threshold elevation for detecting curvature would seem to be somewhat less than 35,000 ft (10.6 km) but not as low as 14,000 ft (4.2 km). Photographically, curvature may be measurable as low as 20,000 ft (6 km)."