The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Maverick on February 23, 2017, 07:53:59 PM
-
If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.
But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/antwalkingonanorange2-300x110.png?itok=D6QoRJtp)
Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.
If you are caught up on your Navigation history, old ship capitals used to navigate the seas by the stars. They relied on different constellations depending on where they were around the world. This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/fieldofview12.jpg?itok=YyjIm0I6)
After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and…Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface. Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/fieldofview32.jpg?itok=oNKfwBPB)
-
Thanks for the doodles, but most people here know that optics is governed by an infinitely more complex model than you guy chart in Microsoft Paint
-
Thanks for the doodles, but most people here know that optics is governed by an infinitely more complex model than you guy chart in Microsoft Paint
He is talking about basic line-of-sight. Please do explain these complexities to us humble laypeople.
-
Thanks for the doodles, but most people here know that optics is governed by an infinitely more complex model than you guy chart in Microsoft Paint
As TotesNotReptilian said, I'm talking about basic line of sight and elementary school level logic that disproves the Flat Earth Theory. It's not always complex Einstine level physics and math.
-
Thanks for the doodles, but most people here know that optics is governed by an infinitely more complex model than you guy chart in Microsoft Paint
He is talking about basic line-of-sight. Please do explain these complexities to us humble laypeople.
Perspective, refraction, atmospheric distortion, optical resolution, angle of viewing, what exactly you're looking at, where it actually is.
There is no such thing as "basic" line-of-sight
-
Thanks for the doodles, but most people here know that optics is governed by an infinitely more complex model than you guy chart in Microsoft Paint
He is talking about basic line-of-sight. Please do explain these complexities to us humble laypeople.
Perspective, refraction, atmospheric distortion, optical resolution, angle of viewing, what exactly you're looking at, where it actually is.
There is no such thing as "basic" line-of-sight
A word of friendy advice to TheTruthIsOnHere :
Don't ever say "There is no such thing as 'basic line of sight'" to anyone who has ever been in the navy, or worked on certain radar, radio, microwave relay systems and at least a few dozen other subjects et cetrera, et cetera, and so forth dealing with "basic line of sight." Just look up the definition of "line of sight." LOL.
You would also be doing us poor laymen a favor if you would explain what the horizon looks like on a flat earth and how you can estimate the distance to the horizon if the earth was flat.
-
Geeko, I swear to God you've already asked me that exact same question, and went on the exact same Navy spiel a dozen times. I'm sure I've exhausted myself trying to explain what a horizon looks like to wannabe nuclear physicists like you. Not gonna take the bait this time. Explain how none of those things I listed affect your line of sight.
-
Geeko, I swear to God you've already asked me that exact same question, and went on the exact same Navy spiel a dozen times. I'm sure I've exhausted myself trying to explain what a horizon looks like to wannabe nuclear physicists like you. Not gonna take the bait this time. Explain how none of those things I listed affect your line of sight.
OK, truthy...... I apologize for being a nuisance by my repetitions.
Just post yours and I'll post mine.
Maybe there are some newcomers to the forum who haven't seen them ?
As to the "navy spiel" , are you going to say that everyone who has ever been in the navy is a liar because of what they say what they have seen of the old "recovering to view a ship which has passed over the horizon" and "the horizon and estimating the distance to the horizon" subjects ?
Also, have you ever worked on anything in which the line of sight is involved ?
-
Here's something to continue our line of sight exercises:
The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.
This phenomenon is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/flatroundvision12.jpg?itok=dbCqT0qu)
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/flatroundvision22.jpg?itok=FL0KyekI)
-
Geeko, I swear to God you've already asked me that exact same question, and went on the exact same Navy spiel a dozen times. I'm sure I've exhausted myself trying to explain what a horizon looks like to wannabe nuclear physicists like you. Not gonna take the bait this time. Explain how none of those things I listed affect your line of sight.
I've searched and can't find that explanation. Maybe you can just post a link to where you "exhausted yourself trying to explain what a horizon looks like"?
-
It was on the post where I explained how you still see further with increased altitude on a flat or imperceptibly round earth. All you have to do to know that would be to stand on a ladder but that's not scientific enough for some people.
-
Geeko, I swear to God you've already asked me that exact same question, and went on the exact same Navy spiel a dozen times. I'm sure I've exhausted myself trying to explain what a horizon looks like to wannabe nuclear physicists like you. Not gonna take the bait this time. Explain how none of those things I listed affect your line of sight.
I've searched and can't find that explanation. Maybe you can just post a link to where you "exhausted yourself trying to explain what a horizon looks like"?
I don't claim to have exhausted myself.
You can look up "horizon" in any source of reference any way.
But I haven't seen if flat earthers even believe there is a horizon ?
The best I have seen is this "......An indistinct blur which fades away at an indefinite distance....."
Does this mean there is or is not a horizon on a flat earth ?
So if it's not too much of a trouble, would you just post the flat earth explanation again ?
Where IS the horizon on your flat earth ? And what IS the DISTANCE to it ?
......For those of us who might have missed it in the first place or time ?
I wouln't mind in the least posting the round earth explanation again if you would like it .Absolutely ! No problem. No trouble.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/tWMwH7y.png)
You completely missed the point with your illustration
-
OK.
Simple question.
First question
What is the HORIZON on a flat earth ? Description please.
Second will follow after (if ?) I get an answer.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/tWMwH7y.png)
You completely missed the point with your illustration
Sorry, I accidentally replicated the latter image. I fixed it
-
(http://i.imgur.com/tWMwH7y.png)
You completely missed the point with your illustration
Sorry, I accidentally replicated the latter image. I fixed it
You're still not addressing the increased line of sight you still achieve with increased altitude on the flat earth.
Also you're neglecting the fact that when looking towards the horizon the ground appears to come up and meet the sky. Trying to illustrate how light is actually perceived by the human eye with 2 dimensional stick figures is not at all an appropriate reflection of reality.
-
I keep asking.
Where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
How can you estimate the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
The answers are simple on a round earth.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/tWMwH7y.png)
You completely missed the point with your illustration
Sorry, I accidentally replicated the latter image. I fixed it
You're still not addressing the increased line of sight you still achieve with increased altitude on the flat earth.
Also you're neglecting the fact that when looking towards the horizon the ground appears to come up and meet the sky. Trying to illustrate how light is actually perceived by the human eye with 2 dimensional stick figures is not at all an appropriate reflection of reality.
There is no increased line of sight in the flat earth, it impossible without the curvature of the earth, and the stick figures are just an example. I'm doing these exercises that don't need long hours of math and calculations so that you yourselves can do these at home. All these are impossible without a round earth and yet we see echoes of the results every day. In fact, the Burden of Proof is on TFES to showcase evidence disproving decades of scientific research that can't just be explained away as a "conspiracy". Tell me, how much does NASA have to gain from releasing fake photos to "lie" to us that the earth is round when the average American spends more money on pizza every year than their yearly budget (27 billion dollars worth of pizza). NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion represented about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion United States federal budget during that year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. These numbers are minuscule.
-
Here's something to continue our line of sight exercises:
The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.
This phenomenon is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/flatroundvision12.jpg?itok=dbCqT0qu)
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/flatroundvision22.jpg?itok=FL0KyekI)
Here's something you could do if you were in the Navy. (If the Officer Of The Deck would give you permission to do this).
Take a telescope with you and and go down to see how far you can see to the horizon when you're standing up in the Liberty Boat.
Go back up on board and see how far you can see from the Main Deck.
Go up on the Bridge and do this.
Go up in the Crow's Nest and do it again. (I don't know if ships still have Crow's Nests. If not, climb to the top of the highest mast) This exercise is not suggested for acrophobics !
See if it makes any difference how far you can see to the horizon from these different places.
Admittedly this would be a problem for flat earthers. I've never heard of a flat earth Navy. They all go "round" the earth.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/tWMwH7y.png)
You completely missed the point with your illustration
Sorry, I accidentally replicated the latter image. I fixed it
You're still not addressing the increased line of sight you still achieve with increased altitude on the flat earth.
Also you're neglecting the fact that when looking towards the horizon the ground appears to come up and meet the sky. Trying to illustrate how light is actually perceived by the human eye with 2 dimensional stick figures is not at all an appropriate reflection of reality.
There is no increased line of sight in the flat earth, it impossible without the curvature of the earth, and the stick figures are just an example. I'm doing these exercises that don't need long hours of math and calculations so that you yourselves can do these at home. All these are impossible without a round earth and yet we see echoes of the results every day. In fact, the Burden of Proof is on TFES to showcase evidence disproving decades of scientific research that can't just be explained away as a "conspiracy". Tell me, how much does NASA have to gain from releasing fake photos to "lie" to us that the earth is round when the average American spends more money on pizza every year than their yearly budget (27 billion dollars worth of pizza). NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion represented about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion United States federal budget during that year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. These numbers are minuscule.
You say there is no increased line of sight on a flat earth... when I literally used your own illustration to show you that there is. That brown line is the line of sight. You can technically see objects that are further away than you could from the ground.
You didn't offer any mathematical or scientific accompaniment with your illustrations because you don't have any. You show us MS Paint sketches without any evidence that you have even a rudimentary knowledge how light or optics work.
-
I keep asking.:
What does the horizon look like on a flat earth ?
Where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
How can you estimate the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
The answers are simple on a round earth.
Will keep trying until I get answer.
The round earth answer is best seen on the round earth on a normal clear day , at sea , on a ship , or on the shore, looking out to sea.
The horizon is a distinct line where the sea and sky appear to meet.
The distance to the horizon may be determined by the height of the observer above the sea or land.
The higher the observer is, the farther they can see to the horizon.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/tWMwH7y.png)
You completely missed the point with your illustration
Sorry, I accidentally replicated the latter image. I fixed it
You're still not addressing the increased line of sight you still achieve with increased altitude on the flat earth.
Also you're neglecting the fact that when looking towards the horizon the ground appears to come up and meet the sky. Trying to illustrate how light is actually perceived by the human eye with 2 dimensional stick figures is not at all an appropriate reflection of reality.
There is no increased line of sight in the flat earth, it impossible without the curvature of the earth, and the stick figures are just an example. I'm doing these exercises that don't need long hours of math and calculations so that you yourselves can do these at home. All these are impossible without a round earth and yet we see echoes of the results every day. In fact, the Burden of Proof is on TFES to showcase evidence disproving decades of scientific research that can't just be explained away as a "conspiracy". Tell me, how much does NASA have to gain from releasing fake photos to "lie" to us that the earth is round when the average American spends more money on pizza every year than their yearly budget (27 billion dollars worth of pizza). NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion represented about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion United States federal budget during that year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. These numbers are minuscule.
You say there is no increased line of sight on a flat earth... when I literally used your own illustration to show you that there is. That brown line is the line of sight. You can technically see objects that are further away than you could from the ground.
You didn't offer any mathematical or scientific accompaniment with your illustrations because you don't have any. You show us MS Paint sketches without any evidence that you have even a rudimentary knowledge how light or optics work.
1. The brown lines are exactly the same length.
2. When you are standing on the ground, you are in air at roughly one atmosphere of pressure; so are the points on the earth that you see on the horizon; and so is the whole path of the light from the horizon to you. In this case there is no significant boundary where the refractive index (RI) changes, nor is there an appreciable deviation in RI over the path of the light you are seeing. Therefore there will be no bending of the light rays, and no effect on the perceived curvature of the horizon. That's why the world seems flat at a glance.
When you are at significant altitude, you are in air at significantly lower pressure than the air at the surface of the earth. Therefore the light from the horizon moves through a region with a pronounced gradient in RI. This causes the light rays to curve, making the radius of the horizon appear larger (and thus the curvature smaller) than it otherwise would. The Earth curves at the rate of 157mrad per km travelled. The refractive index of dry air at sea level is 1.00029, but at a height of 1km, the air pressure is 12% less and (neglecting temperature density and humidity), the refractive index would be 1 + 0.00029 * 88%. The difference, 0.000035 means that light at 1km altitude travels 35mm further for every km, curving the path of light by 35mrad per km travelled, about 20% of the Earth's curvature.. allowing us to see past the theoretical horizon a bit .. an extra 20% distance at an altitude of 10km. On a flat earth this would be impossible, as light would not curve and you would see the same distance no matter where you were.
-
Let's make it simple.
On a flat earth :
Where is the horizon, or by the definition, where does the sky appear to meet the earth or sea on a flat earth ?
How far can you see to the horizon as defined above on a flat earth ?
How can you estimate the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
Just post the answer . A direct quote from the wiki would be sufficient.
-
Let's make it simple.
On a flat earth :
Where is the horizon, or by the definition, where does the sky appear to meet the earth or sea on a flat earth ?
How far can you see to the horizon as defined above on a flat earth ?
How can you estimate the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
Just post the answer . A direct quote from the wiki would be sufficient.
Is this directed at me or TheTruthIsOnHere?
-
Let's make it simple.
On a flat earth :
Where is the horizon, or by the definition, where does the sky appear to meet the earth or sea on a flat earth ?
How far can you see to the horizon as defined above on a flat earth ?
How can you estimate the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
Just post the answer . A direct quote from the wiki would be sufficient.
Is this directed at me or TheTruthIsOnHere?
Whoever wants to take a stab at it ! LOL.
-
Ok, I'll bite...
Take this picture for example:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkPVaOs0J-4n2u1YGsn2Z5gTADDHt24o8i7p671xgOxtRME7zRHA)
You can see that the water stretches all the way out to the horizon. If the Earth were flat, and the water's surface was flat as well, shouldn't you be able to see the land on the other side? In fact, why is there even a horizon at all if the Earth is flat? Flat Earth theory can't explain it, but round Earth theory can. A horizon is caused by the curvature of the Earth. The reason that you can't see the shoreline in the picture is because it is being blocked by the water, due to the curvature of the Earth. Now to those who insist that the surface of the water is flat, you probably believe that the Bedford Level Expiriment is fake. This is a lie. Before I go into detail about how they lied, I will first explain the experiment. The experiment's purpose was to determine if the surface of the water was curved or flat. Three buoys with long vertical sticks attached to them were placed in a river with negligible water flow velocity and were separated by 5 miles. A telescope was set up perpendicular to the river a mile away from the center post. If the water, and consequently the Earth, was flat, the posts should all appear to be the same height. However, the telescope showed that the center post was five feet higher than the other two posts, thus proving that the water's surface was in fact curved, and giving strong evidence of a round Earth. However, the FES makes a bald-faced lie and says that the experiment was faked and that the poles were actually at the same height. They give no evidence that the experiment was faked, and they give no evidence that a court determined that it was faked. In fact, on their Bedford Level Experiment page (http://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment (http://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment)) there are no outside links at all, putting the page's credibility in question, especially since other reports by reliable sources conflict with it.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/tWMwH7y.png)
You completely missed the point with your illustration
Sorry, I accidentally replicated the latter image. I fixed it
You're still not addressing the increased line of sight you still achieve with increased altitude on the flat earth.
Also you're neglecting the fact that when looking towards the horizon the ground appears to come up and meet the sky. Trying to illustrate how light is actually perceived by the human eye with 2 dimensional stick figures is not at all an appropriate reflection of reality.
There is no increased line of sight in the flat earth, it impossible without the curvature of the earth, and the stick figures are just an example. I'm doing these exercises that don't need long hours of math and calculations so that you yourselves can do these at home. All these are impossible without a round earth and yet we see echoes of the results every day. In fact, the Burden of Proof is on TFES to showcase evidence disproving decades of scientific research that can't just be explained away as a "conspiracy". Tell me, how much does NASA have to gain from releasing fake photos to "lie" to us that the earth is round when the average American spends more money on pizza every year than their yearly budget (27 billion dollars worth of pizza). NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion represented about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion United States federal budget during that year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. These numbers are minuscule.
You say there is no increased line of sight on a flat earth... when I literally used your own illustration to show you that there is. That brown line is the line of sight. You can technically see objects that are further away than you could from the ground.
You didn't offer any mathematical or scientific accompaniment with your illustrations because you don't have any. You show us MS Paint sketches without any evidence that you have even a rudimentary knowledge how light or optics work.
1. The brown lines are exactly the same length.
2. When you are standing on the ground, you are in air at roughly one atmosphere of pressure; so are the points on the earth that you see on the horizon; and so is the whole path of the light from the horizon to you. In this case there is no significant boundary where the refractive index (RI) changes, nor is there an appreciable deviation in RI over the path of the light you are seeing. Therefore there will be no bending of the light rays, and no effect on the perceived curvature of the horizon. That's why the world seems flat at a glance.
When you are at significant altitude, you are in air at significantly lower pressure than the air at the surface of the earth. Therefore the light from the horizon moves through a region with a pronounced gradient in RI. This causes the light rays to curve, making the radius of the horizon appear larger (and thus the curvature smaller) than it otherwise would. The Earth curves at the rate of 157mrad per km travelled. The refractive index of dry air at sea level is 1.00029, but at a height of 1km, the air pressure is 12% less and (neglecting temperature density and humidity), the refractive index would be 1 + 0.00029 * 88%. The difference, 0.000035 means that light at 1km altitude travels 35mm further for every km, curving the path of light by 35mrad per km travelled, about 20% of the Earth's curvature.. allowing us to see past the theoretical horizon a bit .. an extra 20% distance at an altitude of 10km. On a flat earth this would be impossible, as light would not curve and you would see the same distance no matter where you were.
1. Those brown lines are not at all the same length. Not sure what you're looking at.
2. An awful lot of mental gymnastics and meteorology to explain why the Earth looks flat, and is flat, for 99% of intents and purposes.
-
1. Those brown lines are not at all the same length. Not sure what you're looking at.
2. An awful lot of mental gymnastics and meteorology to explain why the Earth looks flat, and is flat, for 99% of intents and purposes.
1. I intended for them to be the same size
2. So I give you the scientific accompaniment that you asked for behind optics and light creating the illusion of a flat earth and you call it too complex and just throw it out? What exactly are you trying to achieve here other than to pander the hugely discredited empirical evidence of "I see flat so it is" because you don't actually have an argument? Correct me if I'm wrong but I seems like that.
-
1. Those brown lines are not at all the same length. Not sure what you're looking at.
2. An awful lot of mental gymnastics and meteorology to explain why the Earth looks flat, and is flat, for 99% of intents and purposes.
1. I intended for them to be the same size
2. So I give you the scientific accompaniment that you asked for behind optics and light creating the illusion of a flat earth and you call it too complex and just throw it out? What exactly are you trying to achieve here other than to pander the hugely discredited empirical evidence of "I see flat so it is" because you don't actually have an argument? Correct me if I'm wrong but I seems like that.
1. The illustration in my post is one that I made, based on yours, to show how you can have a perceived increased line of sight. Not sure if you noticed that I changed your sketch. Even then you completely ignore the fact that in real life, your field of view shrinks to the vanishing point, so the ground or the ocean appears to come up and meet the sky. Your illustration doesn't account for that. If you're looking straight forward, toward the horizon, the ground wouldn't appear parallel to your line of sight.
(http://i.imgur.com/pvRdMbZ.jpg)
2. I fail to see how the mathematics behind atmospheric refraction have anything to do with making a round earth look flat. Also, your assertion that bending light is the reason you can see further with altitude is entirely dependent on the assumption of a round earth.
You can see that the water stretches all the way out to the horizon. If the Earth were flat, and the water's surface was flat as well, shouldn't you be able to see the land on the other side? In fact, why is there even a horizon at all if the Earth is flat? Flat Earth theory can't explain it, but round Earth theory can
I'm not totally sure if that is your response to geeko, because the formatting problems. But if you think you should be able to look from New York all the way to the UK then you obviously do not understand flat earth theory enough at all to be making declarative statements about what it can or can not explain.
-
1. I can't see the image, sorry
2. Yes it does affect the horizon because refraction influences the apparent distance to the horizon, it also has an effect on the curvature. To visualize this, it might help to think in extreme cases, for example in the case where due to refraction the horizon is at an apparent distance of only 1 meter. In this case, the curvature of the horizon would be extreme (it would be a circle of radius 1 meter around you). In reality the curvature effect is much smaller than this example of course.
3. If I don't understand the FE theory well enough then educate me, I answered geeko's question now it's your turn. How is there a horizon on a flat earth? I explained how it would work on a round earth so now tell us how it would work on a flat one.
-
My problem is that I can not visualize where the horizon would be if the earth was flat ?
Would it be where the ice dome meets the ice ring ?
Would there even be any such thing as a "horizon" if the earth was flat ?
-
1. Those brown lines are not at all the same length. Not sure what you're looking at.
2. An awful lot of mental gymnastics and meteorology to explain why the Earth looks flat, and is flat, for 99% of intents and purposes.
1. I intended for them to be the same size
2. So I give you the scientific accompaniment that you asked for behind optics and light creating the illusion of a flat earth and you call it too complex and just throw it out? What exactly are you trying to achieve here other than to pander the hugely discredited empirical evidence of "I see flat so it is" because you don't actually have an argument? Correct me if I'm wrong but I seems like that.
1. The illustration in my post is one that I made, based on yours, to show how you can have a perceived increased line of sight. Not sure if you noticed that I changed your sketch. Even then you completely ignore the fact that in real life, your field of view shrinks to the vanishing point, so the ground or the ocean appears to come up and meet the sky. Your illustration doesn't account for that. If you're looking straight forward, toward the horizon, the ground wouldn't appear parallel to your line of sight.
(http://i.imgur.com/pvRdMbZ.jpg)
2. I fail to see how the mathematics behind atmospheric refraction have anything to do with making a round earth look flat. Also, your assertion that bending light is the reason you can see further with altitude is entirely dependent on the assumption of a round earth.
You can see that the water stretches all the way out to the horizon. If the Earth were flat, and the water's surface was flat as well, shouldn't you be able to see the land on the other side? In fact, why is there even a horizon at all if the Earth is flat? Flat Earth theory can't explain it, but round Earth theory can
I'm not totally sure if that is your response to geeko, because the formatting problems. But if you think you should be able to look from New York all the way to the UK then you obviously do not understand flat earth theory enough at all to be making declarative statements about what it can or can not explain.
I think you should be able to see from New York to the UK if it wasn't for the "atmoplanic" effects...if the earth was flat.
There are photographic films and filters that eliminated atmospherics and theoretically if you had the right films and filters and a powerful enough telescope you should be able to take pictures of the UK from New York....if the earth was flat. But why , even with all those things, you can't. Why not ? Because the earth IS NOT FLAT !
I have had some experiences with my old 35 mm. Canon AL-1 SLR, Ektachrome Infra Red Film and the proper filters. It could be done....if the earth was flat.
Do a little research on means to eleminate atmosperic effects....or in your case, "atmoplanic" effects. LOL
TruthIsOnHere...
You are going to have a hard time explaining why you think the earth is flat to anyone who has ever been in the Navy.....for just one example. You do know that the earth is a globe ? It's just not an assumption. It's a fact ! LOL !
-
I think you should be able to see from New York to the UK if it wasn't for the "atmoplanic" effects...if the earth was flat.
There are photographic films and filters that eliminated atmospherics and theoretically if you had the right films and filters and a powerful enough telescope you should be able to take pictures of the UK from New York....if the earth was flat. But why , even with all those things, you can't. Why not ? Because the earth IS NOT FLAT !
I have had some experiences with my old 35 mm. Canon AL-1 SLR, Ektachrome Infra Red Film and the proper filters. It could be done....if the earth was flat.
This has got to be one of the dumbest, most assanine things I have ever read on this forum... which, keep in mind, is a FLAT EARTH forum.
Why can't you see every single star in the entire universe when you look into the sky at night?
-
You're right.This is the flat earth website forum . It has to be one of the dumbest things on the Internet. LOL.
I was just giving some tips on how you should be able to take pictures of the UK from New York if the earth was flat.
What was dumb about that ?
It depends on whether you are in the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere. You can only see half of the universe depending on which side of the earth on which you are located. You can see Polaris but you can't see the Southern Cross from the Northern Hemisphere. You can see the Southern Cross but you can't see Polaris from the Southern Hemisphere.
-
You're right.This is the flat earth website forum . It has to be one of the dumbest things on the Internet. LOL.
I was just giving some tips on how you should be able to take pictures of the UK from New York if the earth was flat.
What was dumb about that ?
It depends on whether you are in the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere. You can only see half of the universe depending on which side of the earth on which you are located.
So you are saying that you can see every star in the universe, as long as your facing it?
-
You're right.This is the flat earth website forum . It has to be one of the dumbest things on the Internet. LOL.
I was just giving some tips on how you should be able to take pictures of the UK from New York if the earth was flat.
What was dumb about that ?
It depends on whether you are in the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere. You can only see half of the universe depending on which side of the earth on which you are located.
So you are saying that you can see every star in the universe, as long as your facing it?
I would have to check that out with an astronomical observatory to be absolutely certain if you could. I will admit I'm not sure about "ever star in the universe." As far as "every star in the universe" I don't know if we are ever going to be able to do that, even with the Hubble Telescope and the other advances in astronomy.(?)
One last try.
Is there a horizon on a flat earth ?
If so, where is it ?
-
Another suggestion. Why don't you just e-mail, phone, or just visit an astronomical observatory ? I am sure they would be happy to help you. Or don't you trust anyone but yourself ?
-
You're right.This is the flat earth website forum . It has to be one of the dumbest things on the Internet. LOL.
I was just giving some tips on how you should be able to take pictures of the UK from New York if the earth was flat.
What was dumb about that ?
It depends on whether you are in the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere. You can only see half of the universe depending on which side of the earth on which you are located.
So you are saying that you can see every star in the universe, as long as your facing it?
I would have to check that out with an astronomical observatory to be absolutely certain if you could. I will admit I'm not sure about "ever star in the universe." As far as "every star in the universe" I don't know if we are ever going to be able to do that, even with the Hubble Telescope and the other advances in astronomy.(?)
One last try.
Is there a horizon on a flat earth ?
If so, where is it ?
Why can't you see every star in the universe, assuming you are facing it? Please follow me on this line of questioning so we can relate it to the horizon and what would or wouldn't be visible beyond it.
-
You're right.This is the flat earth website forum . It has to be one of the dumbest things on the Internet. LOL.
I was just giving some tips on how you should be able to take pictures of the UK from New York if the earth was flat.
What was dumb about that ?
It depends on whether you are in the Northern or the Southern Hemisphere. You can only see half of the universe depending on which side of the earth on which you are located.
So you are saying that you can see every star in the universe, as long as your facing it?
I would have to check that out with an astronomical observatory to be absolutely certain if you could. I will admit I'm not sure about "ever star in the universe." As far as "every star in the universe" I don't know if we are ever going to be able to do that, even with the Hubble Telescope and the other advances in astronomy.(?)
One last try.
Is there a horizon on a flat earth ?
If so, where is it ?
Why can't you see every star in the universe, assuming you are facing it? Please follow me on this line of questioning so we can relate it to the horizon and what would or wouldn't be visible beyond it.
By "see every star in the universe", are you refering to what a normal person with good eyesight can see with the naked eye, or how many you can see with the most powerful telescopes ? I would really have to ask an observatory for the answer to how much of the universe you can see. I think it would depend on how far you can see to the horizon, which would depend on your height. On a flat earth I don't think it would make any difference. But on the round earth you would only be able too see maybe a little less than half of the universe, depending on which hemisphere and which part of that hemisphere you were looking from.
See the lower illustration on Reply #8 on Page 1.
-
I have yet to see a flat earth explanation of the horizon.
I'm not an expert by any means on flat earth, but this is the way it seems to me.:
If the earth was flat, there would be no curvature of the earth.
If there was no curvature of the earth, there would be no horizon.
If there was no horizon there would be no limit to the distance you would be able to see.
If there was no limit to the distance you could see, and if you were high enough above the mountains, buildings or other objects, and with a telescope of high enough power, you should be able to see the ice wall from any place on a flat earth.
But the thickness of the "atmoplane" , haze, and other effects, would prevent you from seeing the ice wall.
Therefore, you would not see a horizon, but (Quote I have seen from the flat earth) "You would see an indistinct blur, which fades away at an indefinite distance."
Correct me, flat earthers, if you have a better explanation .
-
You say you should be able to see the ice wall from any mountain on Earth, but you can't figure out why I'm asking you if can see every star in the universe at night.
Only an idiot ignores the obvious fact that the atmosphere or "haze" is a big factor in limiting visibility. You really are taking the fun out of this. You have been told a dozen times what the horizon is, but you keep bringing up your Navy days from 1964 and a list of other ways to misdirect and feign ignorance.
You are going on the ignore list soon
-
You say you should be able to see the ice wall from any mountain on Earth, but you can't figure out why I'm asking you if can see every star in the universe at night.
Only an idiot ignores the obvious fact that the atmosphere or "haze" is a big factor in limiting visibility. You really are taking the fun out of this. You have been told a dozen times what the horizon is, but you keep bringing up your Navy days from 1964 and a list of other ways to misdirect and feign ignorance.
You are going on the ignore list soon
One final attempt before I abandon this nonsense.
Is there really a horizon on your flat earth ?
If so, just tell us about it in your own words.
It has already been covered in detail for the round, or globular earth.
-
The nonsense is the fact that you are either wholly ignorant or being purposefully deceitful about how vision works. You can't even grasp the basic fundamentals of sight but want to progress the conversation beyond that.
If you believe that you should be able to see the icewall from a mountain than you don't understand enough about the theory for me to even entertain conversation with you.
-
Well, it's been fun for a while, so I will leave it to you. Useless to debate with you any way.
If you want to pretend that the earth is a flat disc with an ice ring at the edge, go right ahead and play your silly imaginary games and nonsence.
But the rest of us will go right ahead with our work in the real world.
My only regret is that I never did find out that if the earth was flat whether there would or would not be a horizon, where it was, and how far away it would be if there was one. LOL
Just a suggestion in closing.
I think this website would be a lot more fun if this statement was made.:
"We all know that the shape of the earth is spheroid, or globular. But this website is for ideas on how the earth would have to be if it was flat. This should be a good place to present your ideas and thoughts."
-
I think this website would be a lot more fun if this statement was made.:
"We all know that the shape of the earth is spheroid, or globular. But this website is for ideas on how the earth would have to be if it was flat. This should be a good place to present your ideas and thoughts."
Yes, we know. You've stated this about 800 times now.
-
I think this website would be a lot more fun if this statement was made.:
"We all know that the shape of the earth is spheroid, or globular. But this website is for ideas on how the earth would have to be if it was flat. This should be a good place to present your ideas and thoughts."
I'd be all for it if that would help you open your mind enough to actually consider the legitimacy of some of the questions raised by the Flat Earth Theory.
The horizon is the place the ocean meets the sky. Now either you realize that this is an optical illusion, because anyone with a brain knows that the ocean never actually meets the sky, or you believe that it is an actual place, where your vision is obstructed by a bulge in the ocean.
-
I think this website would be a lot more fun if this statement was made.:
"We all know that the shape of the earth is spheroid, or globular. But this website is for ideas on how the earth would have to be if it was flat. This should be a good place to present your ideas and thoughts."
The horizon is the place the ocean meets the sky. Now either you realize that this is an optical illusion, because anyone with a brain knows that the ocean never actually meets the sky, or you believe that it is an actual place, where your vision is obstructed by a bulge in the ocean.
I'm back. LOL.
With my apology. My error . I should have said : "The horizon is the line where sea and sky APPEAR to meet."
We know what the horizon is, where it is , and how to estimate the distance to it. But we also know that the earth is a globe and not some flat disc. As Colonel Pickering would say : "Common knowledge." (Also what a sailor on lookout duty would say. LOL.)
But the questions are : "If the earth was flat ?, Is there a horizon ? And if so, what is the horizon ? Where is it ? And how do we estimate the distance to it ? " I am not a flat earther. I don't know the answers. That's why I asking the questions.
-
My apology. My error . I should have said : "The horizon is the line where sea and sky APPEAR to meet."
We know what the horizon is, where it is , and how to estimate the distance to it. But we also know that the earth is a globe and not some flat disc. As Colonel Pickering would say : "Common knowledge." (Also what a sailor on lookout duty would say. LOL.)
But the question is : "If the earth was flat, What is the horizon, where is it, and how do we estimate the distance to it ? "
You just admitted that what you perceive to be the horizon is actually an optical illusion. You must realize that it is not a real thing, or a place that you can actually get to. Measuring the distance to it is absurd.
What you are actually measuring is the distance to the point where the laws of perspective condense objects until they are imperceivable. Your assertion that it is a place where the Earth curves away is built wholly and purely on your "knowing" the Earth is a globe.
-
My apology. My error . I should have said : "The horizon is the line where sea and sky APPEAR to meet."
We know what the horizon is, where it is , and how to estimate the distance to it. But we also know that the earth is a globe and not some flat disc. As Colonel Pickering would say : "Common knowledge." (Also what a sailor on lookout duty would say. LOL.)
But the question is : "If the earth was flat, What is the horizon, where is it, and how do we estimate the distance to it ? "
You just admitted that what you perceive to be the horizon is actually an optical illusion. You must realize that it is not a real thing, or a place that you can actually get to. Measuring the distance to it is absurd.
What you are actually measuring is the distance to the point where the laws of perspective condense objects until they are imperceivable. Your assertion that it is a place where the Earth curves away is built wholly and purely on your "knowing" the Earth is a globe.
What would be your answer be to the United States Navy ? They know what the horizon is, where it is, and how to estimate the distance to it. Lookouts have been doing this for years. The USN also knows the earth is a globe. Are you saying they have been wrong all these years ?
Still waiting for the flat earth answers to my question. Two can play this game. LOL
Just for review, I'll do it one more time.:
The horizon is the distinct line (on a clear, calm day at sea) where sea and sky appear to meet.
The distance the observer can see to the horizon depends on the height of the observer.
The higher the observer is, the farther they can see to the horizon.
One formula for estimating this distance is : d=1.22 x (square root of) h (I don't have a square root symbol on my Nook)
Where d is the distance to the horizon in miles
Where 1.22 is a constant
Where h is the height above the level of the sea in feet
Some examples:
For a 6 feet tall person standing up in a rowboat at sea, the distance to the horizon is aproximately 2.9883774 miles
(OK. Figures off my pocket calculator, so let's just say.... about 3 miles. ) LOL.
For a person in the crow's nest , 100 feet above the sea, the distance to the horizon is aproximately 12.2 miles
These are just quotes and figures from the USN Training Manual For Lookouts. Lookouts are trained to do these estimates and check their results with ranges and bearings with the ship's radars.
Flat earth answers, please ? I can give you my guess if you would like to see it ?
-
I think this website would be a lot more fun if this statement was made.:
"We all know that the shape of the earth is spheroid, or globular. But this website is for ideas on how the earth would have to be if it was flat. This should be a good place to present your ideas and thoughts."
Yes, we know. You've stated this about 800 times now.
Yes, I know. But IMHO it's true. Just repetition for the sake of emphasis. LOL.
-
I think this website would be a lot more fun if this statement was made.:
"We all know that the shape of the earth is spheroid, or globular. But this website is for ideas on how the earth would have to be if it was flat. This should be a good place to present your ideas and thoughts."
Yes, we know. You've stated this about 800 times now.
Yes, I know. But IMHO it's true. Just repetition for the sake of emphasis. LOL.
Does it work to try to emphasize something by repeating it over and over?
-
I think this website would be a lot more fun if this statement was made.:
"We all know that the shape of the earth is spheroid, or globular. But this website is for ideas on how the earth would have to be if it was flat. This should be a good place to present your ideas and thoughts."
Yes, we know. You've stated this about 800 times now.
Yes, I know. But IMHO it's true. Just repetition for the sake of emphasis. LOL.
Does it work to try to emphasize something by repeating it over and over?
No.
Not for flat earthers....LOL
But it sure did work in school and university...And I know that from experience !
But I still keep trying against all odds. :-(
-
I think this website would be a lot more fun if this statement was made.:
"We all know that the shape of the earth is spheroid, or globular. But this website is for ideas on how the earth would have to be if it was flat. This should be a good place to present your ideas and thoughts."
I'd be all for it if that would help you open your mind enough to actually consider the legitimacy of some of the questions raised by the Flat Earth Theory.
The horizon is the place the ocean meets the sky. Now either you realize that this is an optical illusion, because anyoe with a brain knows that the ocean never actually meets the sky, or you believe that it is an actual place, where your vision is obstructed by a bulge in the ocean.
I would consider any thing of any degree of legitimacy from the flat earth if there was any.
It would help if there was a legitimate "flat earth map"of the world for a start.
-
My apology. My error . I should have said : "The horizon is the line where sea and sky APPEAR to meet."
We know what the horizon is, where it is , and how to estimate the distance to it. But we also know that the earth is a globe and not some flat disc. As Colonel Pickering would say : "Common knowledge." (Also what a sailor on lookout duty would say. LOL.)
But the question is : "If the earth was flat, What is the horizon, where is it, and how do we estimate the distance to it ? "
You just admitted that what you perceive to be the horizon is actually an optical illusion. You must realize that it is not a real thing, or a place that you can actually get to. Measuring the distance to it is absurd.
What you are actually measuring is the distance to the point where the laws of perspective condense objects until they are imperceivable. Your assertion that it is a place where the Earth curves away is built wholly and purely on your "knowing" the Earth is a globe.
What I have repeatedly posted is that the horizon is the line where sea and sky appear to meet and the distance may be estimated by a simple equation (or you might call it a formula.
It is not "A point where the laws of perspective condense objects until they are imperceivable." This does not seem to make sense, A ship which has just reached the horizon is certainly visible. After it passes beyond the horizon, the lower parts of the ship , such as the hull, will begin to disappear. The tips of the highest masts will be the last parts of the ship to be seen. This is due to the curvature of the earth.
Technically speaking, you might not be able to physically measure the distance to the horizon, but you can certainly estimate it to a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The subject of "horizon" seems to be one of the greatest of the flat earth fallacies. And stil no flat earth response for a description of how the horizon would have to be if the earth was flat ?.......Or even if there could be a horizon if the earth was flat ?
-
I think this website would be a lot more fun if this statement was made.:
"We all know that the shape of the earth is spheroid, or globular. But this website is for ideas on how the earth would have to be if it was flat. This should be a good place to present your ideas and thoughts."
Yes, we know. You've stated this about 800 times now.
Yes, I know. But IMHO it's true. Just repetition for the sake of emphasis. LOL.
Does it work to try to emphasize something by repeating it over and over?
No.
Not for flat earthers....LOL
But it sure did work in school and university...And I know that from experience !
But I still keep trying against all odds. :-(
Oh wow. Finally admitting that the "knowledge" you possess is really just the result of a long arduous, repetitive indoctrination (like the one you're trying to give us poor uneducated, non sailor plebes). I can see why it is so hard for you to envision what a flat earth would look like. Literally all you have to do is open your eyes.
You keep asking how the horizon would "be" on a flat earth, but obviously the assertion from a true FE perspective would be "Just as it looks like." There is no mental gymnastics or equations, everything is simply as it is. It took science over a century to concoct the heliocentric theory and another to extrapolate and erroneously compound upon it. To a flat earther, there is no mystery about why the horizon is there, it is understood to be a result of perspective and it doesn't need excessive formulae and thought experiments to explain. The laws of physics and an understanding of the way light travels are enough to explain it.
PS, you do realize you can edit your posts instead of making three of them in a row, right?
-
I think this website would be a lot more fun if this statement was made.:
"We all know that the shape of the earth is spheroid, or globular. But this website is for ideas on how the earth would have to be if it was flat. This should be a good place to present your ideas and thoughts."
Yes, we know. You've stated this about 800 times now.
Yes, I know. But IMHO it's true. Just repetition for the sake of emphasis. LOL.
Does it work to try to emphasize something by repeating it over and over?
No.
Not for flat earthers....LOL
But it sure did work in school and university...And I know that from experience !
But I still keep trying against all odds. :-(
Oh wow. Finally admitting that the "knowledge" you possess is really just the result of a long arduous, repetitive indoctrination (like the one you're trying to give us poor uneducated, non sailor plebes). I can see why it is so hard for you to envision what a flat earth would look like. Literally all you have to do is open your eyes.
You keep asking how the horizon would "be" on a flat earth, but obviously the assertion from a true FE perspective would be "Just as it looks like." There is no mental gymnastics or equations, everything is simply as it is. It took science over a century to concoct the heliocentric theory and another to extrapolate and erroneously compound upon it. To a flat earther, there is no mystery about why the horizon is there, it is understood to be a result of perspective and it doesn't need excessive formulae and thought experiments to explain. The laws of physics and an understanding of the way light travels are enough to explain it.
PS, you do realize you can edit your posts instead of making three of them in a row, right?
Yeah. I guess it's just a bad habit that I can't break. :(
This is just my guess for the horizon on a flat earth.:
It is the line where the bottom of the ice dome and the top of the ice wall appear to meet.
But I read somewhere that you can't see it because of the thickness of the atmoplane, which is an indistinct blur which fades away at an indefinite distance. ???
You stick to your flat earth horizon and I'll stick to my round earth horizon and we'll all be happy.
Paraphrasing Will Rogers again, "All I know is what I read in my Navy Training Manual For Lookouts, and that's my excuse for ignorance about the horizon."
As for the distance to the horizon, what's your opinion of those Navy manuals for lookouts ?
It's not just the USN, but all the Navies in the world that use similar manuals for estimating distances.
I am rather dense. I haven't yet figured out how you would do this if the earth was flat ?
Yeah. My work was in military and civilian electronics. And my knowledge was due to a lot of "long, arduous, repetitive indoctrination" in subjects related to my job. It was just part of my job. The people who designed, computers, the Internet and websites like this one probably did likewise. You have them to thank for this website.
-
TheTruthIsOnHere, I think it's easy to say that you need no formulas because you don't have to directly deal with the shape of the earth or the horizon to solve any real problems. For those who have to communicate, take measurements, or estimate distances of things on or beyond the horizon then solution formulas are needed. It has nothing to do with indoctrination. It has to do with real world scenarios where decisions need to be made, money will be spent, and solutions need to exist. The value of a model is based it's ability to explain, predict, and solve problems.
-
TheTruthIsOnHere, I think it's easy to say that you need no formulas because you don't have to directly deal with the shape of the earth or the horizon to solve any real problems. For those who have to communicate, take measurements, or estimate distances of things on or beyond the horizon then solution formulas are needed. It has nothing to do with indoctrination. It has to do with real world scenarios where decisions need to be made, money will be spent, and solutions need to exist. The value of a model is based it's ability to explain, predict, and solve problems.
TruthIsOnHere,That's the difference between the fictional, imaginary, made up and unreal world of the so-called "flat earth" and the real world of the "round earth."
I will admit to being repetitive again.....But I will ask one more time....But how would you estimate the distance to the horizon if the earth was flat ? As, once again, as I have said so many times, that it is one of the basic things that lookouts in the Navy have to learn how to do.
For example, if you were in the Navy. Suppose an Officer asked you, "Sailor, do you see that ship on the horizon over there ? Now we're standing here on this deck about 36 feet above the water line. I want you to figure out how far away that ship is and give me your estimate. Then we'll take a look on the radar and see how close you are." This might be similar to an actual scenario of a training exercise for a lookout aboard a ship. What would your answer be ? I know what my answer would be.
OK , TruthIsOnHere.
I'll edit this one instead of doing another post.
So I ask you, again , point blank, this question : "If the earth was flat , how would you estimate the distance to the horizon ?"
Actually, I did this several times, but in a different way .I would go out on deck and spot a ship in the distance. Then I would go into C.I.C. and look at the radar to see how far away it was. I was not a lookout but a radar technician. I didn't know about that formula for estimating the distance visually at that time. That is one of the things I have learned on this website, which can be both educational and informative. If I had known how to do the visual estimate at that time, I might have learned something. :-)
Another edit.
And another thing I have learned.
You never stop learning.
A few of the things I have learned fairly recently ..... and just on this website alone.:
How to make a visual estimate of the distance to the horizon.
How astronomical observatories make accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon by using laser beams aimed at reflectors on the moon placed there by astronauts on their moon landings.
How amateur radio amateur operators make the same measurements by bouncing radio signals off the moon in their "Moon Bounce" Operations...Admittedly not as precise as those of the astronomical observatories.
-
How amateur radio amateur operators make the same measurements by bouncing radio signals off the moon in their "Moon Bounce" Operations...Admittedly not as precise as those of the astronomical observatories.
But accurate enough to reject the "about three thousand miles away" figure. Lots of materials exist on the web (http://ve2zaz.net/Presentations/Downloads/VE2ZAZ_EME_Presentation.pdf) to help amateur radio operators achieve the coveted EME (earth - moon - earth) transmission. Private folks have been doing it since the 50's
-
How amateur radio amateur operators make the same measurements by bouncing radio signals off the moon in their "Moon Bounce" Operations...Admittedly not as precise as those of the astronomical observatories.
But accurate enough to reject the "about three thousand miles away" figure. Lots of materials exist on the web (http://ve2zaz.net/Presentations/Downloads/VE2ZAZ_EME_Presentation.pdf) to help amateur radio operators achieve the coveted EME (earth - moon - earth) transmission. Private folks have been doing it since the 50's
I meant "accurate" compared to the laser beam measurements. I have read that they have been accurate to 1 centimeter.
Flat earthers blame NASA for all these "Round Earth Lies." Why not give some credit to the ham radio operators and the astronomical observatories ? They have been at it long before NASA ?
-
TheTruthIsOnHere, I think it's easy to say that you need no formulas because you don't have to directly deal with the shape of the earth or the horizon to solve any real problems. For those who have to communicate, take measurements, or estimate distances of things on or beyond the horizon then solution formulas are needed. It has nothing to do with indoctrination. It has to do with real world scenarios where decisions need to be made, money will be spent, and solutions need to exist. The value of a model is based it's ability to explain, predict, and solve problems.
But here's the thing... 99% of problems in the world are solved without regard for the curvature of the Earth. Engineers don't have to account for it. And when they do it is some kind of micro-measurement that wouldn't cause a bridge to fail if the Earth was flat. For all intents and purposes, things are generally designed with the simplification of a flat Earth.
I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.
Estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth. Understanding where the vanishing point is and your approximate altitude you could easily use Pythagorean theorem to determine. On the flat earth, the ground and your height create a right triangle, even though it is perceived as an equilateral triangle. Please explain to me what kind of real world application requires a rough estimate of the distance to the horizon anyway. I know that technology has come a long way since Geeko was a pirate, but I'm pretty sure they aren't using that guide he always references for anything important.
-
I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.
(http://graphicdesignjunction.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/water-drop-photos-28.jpg)
(http://inspired.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/62.jpg)
(https://www.billtrack50.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/wpid-Photography-Water-Drop-Wallpaper-95.jpg)
Estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth. Understanding where the vanishing point is and your approximate altitude you could easily use Pythagorean theorem to determine. On the flat earth, the ground and your height create a right triangle, even though it is perceived as an equilateral triangle.
Where is the vanishing point, exactly? Could you give an example of how to work this out?
-
I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.
(http://graphicdesignjunction.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/water-drop-photos-28.jpg)
(http://inspired.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/62.jpg)
(https://www.billtrack50.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/wpid-Photography-Water-Drop-Wallpaper-95.jpg)
Estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth. Understanding where the vanishing point is and your approximate altitude you could easily use Pythagorean theorem to determine. On the flat earth, the ground and your height create a right triangle, even though it is perceived as an equilateral triangle.
Where is the vanishing point, exactly? Could you give an example of how to work this out?
A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level. You can supposedly "see" the water curving away from you at the horizon, but if you ventured towards the horizon you would never find anywhere where the water is a hill. It is an optical illusion.
The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.
Since the horizon is a fluid thing it isn't easy to estimate, I'm pretty sure that the method used is based on someone literally testing how far they can see objects with a known distance from higher altitudes, and recording that, and so on and so forth. No one knew the "circumference of the earth" when Sailors were guessing the distance to an object on the horizon or the horizon itself, so any formula deduced from that is contemporary patch work.
-
A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level.
The water droplets show that the shape is determined by the forces acting on it. For a small drop of water, surface tension causes it to form into a small sphere. On the large scale, water is pulled towards the spherical surface of the earth due to gravity. There is no "finds its own level law" that would prevent water from naturally forming into a spherical shape.
The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.
Equations please. You just said that "estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth". An example would be nice, with actual numbers and equations.
-
A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level.
The water droplets show that the shape is determined by the forces acting on it. For a small drop of water, surface tension causes it to form into a small sphere. On the large scale, water is pulled towards the spherical surface of the earth due to gravity. There is no "finds its own level law" that would prevent water from naturally forming into a spherical shape.
Water is pulled toward the spherical surface towards what? The center of the Earth? Does most of the mass on Earth exist in the exact diametric center of it?
Is it just the perfect amount of mass to counter the centripetal force of our spinning planet to keep the water and atmosphere from flying into outer space?
If you're only explanation is Gravity, which is not without its detractors in main stream science, then it's not enough. It's convenient, but can not be measured, for many of the same reasons the movement of the Earth can't be measured. This is the high burden of proof I was talking about before.
The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.
Equations please. You just said that "estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth". An example would be nice, with actual numbers and equations.
[/quote]
You could use the same equation they use now, except instead of explaining the coefficients with curvature, it could easily be attributed to the perceived rise of the ground to meet the sky due to the laws of perspective.
-
A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level.
The water droplets show that the shape is determined by the forces acting on it. For a small drop of water, surface tension causes it to form into a small sphere. On the large scale, water is pulled towards the spherical surface of the earth due to gravity. There is no "finds its own level law" that would prevent water from naturally forming into a spherical shape.
Water is pulled toward the spherical surface towards what? The center of the Earth?
Approximately, yes.
Does most of the mass on Earth exist in the exact diametric center of it?
No. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/sphshell.html#wtls (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/sphshell.html#wtls)
Edit: Or from wikipedia, if you prefer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem)
Is it just the perfect amount of mass to counter the centripetal force of our spinning planet to keep the water and atmosphere from flying into outer space?
No. Gravity is much stronger than centripetal acceleration. It isn't balanced at all. This is why we fall down towards the earth, and aren't thrown off.
If you're only explanation is Gravity, which is not without its detractors in main stream science, then it's not enough. It's convenient, but can not be measured, for many of the same reasons the movement of the Earth can't be measured. This is the high burden of proof I was talking about before.
You have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.
Equations please. You just said that "estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth". An example would be nice, with actual numbers and equations.
You could use the same equation they use now, except instead of explaining the coefficients with curvature, it could easily be attributed to the perceived rise of the ground to meet the sky due to the laws of perspective.
Please show how those equations correspond with your theory about the vanishing point. Those equations were derived directly from the geometry of a spherical earth. They are not general purpose, best-fit equations. I have derived them from scratch myself on this very forum.
-
I have derived them from scratch myself on this very forum.
Please show me your peer reviewed paper and accompanying experimentation proving the validity of your "from scratch" equation.
As far as special relativity proving gravity, you are just citing an even more obscure, harder to prove theory to try to prove the other unproven theory. Good job lol.
We don't know what the core of the Earth is, or why it should attract objects to it.
-
I have derived them from scratch myself on this very forum.
Please show me your peer reviewed paper and accompanying experimentation proving the validity of your "from scratch" equation.
It's simple highschool level math. No one is going to peer review it. Since when do you require peer reviewed sources anyway? If you actually want to see it, I'll search for it. If you are just being intentionally obtuse, I won't bother.
As far as special relativity proving gravity, you are just citing an even more obscure, harder to prove theory to try to prove the other unproven theory. Good job lol.
I did not even mention special relativity. Again, you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. You claim flatearthers require a higher burden of proof. Perhaps you should at the very least require a vague knowledge of the topic you are talking about before drawing sweeping conclusions about the validity of all scientific knowledge of said topic.
We don't know what the core of the Earth is, or why it should attract objects to it.
I think you are confusing "we" with "I". Go do some research for yourself. Here is a fun worksheet to direct your research:
1. What do scientists *think* the center of the earth is made out of?
2. Why do they think this?
3. How certain of this conclusion are they?
4. Do you agree with their conclusion, and their certainty? If not, why? What did they do wrong in their calculations/experiment that led them to the wrong conclusions? (Be specific)
-
If you're only explanation is Gravity, which is not without its detractors in main stream science, then it's not enough. It's convenient, but can not be measured, for many of the same reasons the movement of the Earth can't be measured. This is the high burden of proof I was talking about before.
There are measurements that show the movement of the earth.
1) Michelson, from the famously flat earth touted Michelson-Morley experiment, predicted and proved that the earth rotated using a Sagnac interferometer in 1925. Michelson never could measure any movement of the aether. He most certainly did measure the rotation of the earth. Laser Ring Gyros do it today.
2) The gyrocompass works because the rotational of the earth causes the gyro to process and point north. The earths movement is what makes them work.
3) We can measure the annual parallax of stars. While it could be supposed that the stars are moving, the parallax measurements fit with what we know about our orbital circumference.
4) We measure red shift and blue shift when we look with and in opposition to our motion in orbit.
Here is a link for all the ongoing measurements that the IERS publishes on the rotation of the earth and its effects.
https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/DataProducts/EarthOrientationData/eop.html
-
If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.
But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/antwalkingonanorange2-300x110.png?itok=D6QoRJtp)
Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.
If you are caught up on your Navigation history, old ship capitals used to navigate the seas by the stars. They relied on different constellations depending on where they were around the world. This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/fieldofview12.jpg?itok=YyjIm0I6)
After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and…Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface. Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/fieldofview32.jpg?itok=oNKfwBPB)
One of my biggest problems about flat earth is the horizon. I have trouble envisioning it.
Disclaimer:
I am assuming that we all ("round earthers", that is) know that earth is a globe, what the horizon is, and how far from us it appears, according to our height.
But what would the horizon look like if the earth was flat ?
My guess (and I'm just guessing) is that since there would be no curvature if the earth was flat, there would be no horizon as we know it ?
My guess is that if the earth was flat, the horizon would be the line where the bottom of the ice dome meets the top of the ice wall ?
My guess is that the distance to the horizon, if the earth was flat, would be the distance from the observer to the point, or line, where the bottom of the ice dome appears to meet the top of the ice wall ?
It could be several thousand miles or maybe just 150 feet ?
I did read something about a "An indistinct blur which fades away at an indefinite distance" ?
Hopefully, someone from the FES has a better explanation. We "round earthers" are a bit short on flat earth theory.
I suppose it is a little too early to expect an answer ?
I have asked this before, but never got a satisfactory answer. Don't say "just look it up in the flat earth wiki."
Just give us a detailed description in your own words. I checked the flat earth wiki but couldn't find much information.
I have done the same for the "round earth" horizon description several times on this forum.Of course you could just look up "horizon" on the Internet wiki. I can post the "round earth" description again for comparison with the "flat earth" version if anyone is interested. No problem.
I won't make any claims as to being a genius like sceptimatic or intikam. Nor even an expert. But I have had quite a bit of experience where the horizon is involved. I can attest to the fact that what I have posted is true, both from "round earth" theory and practice.
-
TruthIsOne
Just do it one more time.
If the earth was flat , tell us what the horizon would be, where the horizon would be, and how you could estimate the distance to the horizon ?
The horizon is not "the vanishing point" . Ships can be seen on the horizon and parts of them after they have passed beyond the horizon.
Is it too early to expect an answer ?
This subject of the "horizon" and "recovering the ship" are just two of the most obvious of the flat earth fallacies.
But I just wanted to see how they would try to explain weasel word their way out of it.
Maybe just the usual way of ignoring the question ?
-
I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.
(http://graphicdesignjunction.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/water-drop-photos-28.jpg)
(http://inspired.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/62.jpg)
(https://www.billtrack50.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/wpid-Photography-Water-Drop-Wallpaper-95.jpg)
Estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth. Understanding where the vanishing point is and your approximate altitude you could easily use Pythagorean theorem to determine. On the flat earth, the ground and your height create a right triangle, even though it is perceived as an equilateral triangle.
Where is the vanishing point, exactly? Could you give an example of how to work this out?
A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level. You can supposedly "see" the water curving away from you at the horizon, but if you ventured towards the horizon you would never find anywhere where the water is a hill. It is an optical illusion.
The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.
Since the horizon is a fluid thing it isn't easy to estimate, I'm pretty sure that the method used is based on someone literally testing how far they can see objects with a known distance from higher altitudes, and recording that, and so on and so forth. No one knew the "circumference of the earth" when Sailors were guessing the distance to an object on the horizon or the horizon itself, so any formula deduced from that is contemporary patch work.
Estimating the distance to the horizon is one of the easiest things to. The United States Navy has a Training Manual for Lookouts with a chart for estimating the distance you can see to the horizon, depending on high you are above the earth. No guess work.
Simple formula: d=1.22 x square root of h. Where d is the distance (in miles) to horizon ; 1.22 is a constant ; h is the height (in feet) above sea level of the observer.
That "constant" of "1.22" isn't just some number picked up out of the air. It was probably derived by some complicated mathematics which involved the curvature of the earth.
Pi=3.14159.......ad infinitum....is just another "constant". (I don't have the Greek Letter alphabet for "Pi" on my keyboard.)
Examples:
At sea level, for a 6 feet tall person standing up in a rowboat, the distance to the horizon is about 3 miles.
For a person in the crow's nest , 100 feet above the sea, the distance is about 12.2 miles.
The lookouts use this to check their estimates with the distances on the ship's radar.
Estimating the distance to the horizon is needed in many other applications in the real world.
If the earth was flat, this wouldn't be needed.
But the earth isn't flat.
It's curved.
It's a globe.
Examples:
Just 2 examples are.:
The maximum range of some (not all, of course) shipboard surface search radars is limited by the distance to the horizon (there are many other factors of design and operation, of course).
The spacing between some ( most, but not all ) types of microwave repeater stations.
But don't let that discourage you. "Flat Earth Ideas" always make for interesting reading ! :-)
-
TruthIsOne
Just do it one more time.
If the earth was flat , tell us what the horizon would be, where the horizon would be, and how you could estimate the distance to the horizon ?
The horizon is not "the vanishing point" . Ships can be seen on the horizon and parts of them after they have passed beyond the horizon.
Is it too early to expect an answer ?
This subject of the "horizon" and "recovering the ship" are just two of the most obvious of the flat earth fallacies.
But I just wanted to see how they would try to explain weasel word their way out of it.
Maybe just the usual way of ignoring the question ?
On a flat earth the horizon doesn't exist. It is an optical illusion, unless you believe the sea really meets the sky at some preordained distance away from you. I don't know what's so hard for you to envision. The horizon is the place that the flat level ground appears to meet the sky.
-
TruthIsOne
Just do it one more time.
If the earth was flat , tell us what the horizon would be, where the horizon would be, and how you could estimate the distance to the horizon ?
The horizon is not "the vanishing point" . Ships can be seen on the horizon and parts of them after they have passed beyond the horizon.
Is it too early to expect an answer ?
This subject of the "horizon" and "recovering the ship" are just two of the most obvious of the flat earth fallacies.
But I just wanted to see how they would try to explain weasel word their way out of it.
Maybe just the usual way of ignoring the question ?
On a flat earth the horizon doesn't exist. It is an optical illusion, unless you believe the sea really meets the sky at some preordained distance away from you. I don't know what's so hard for you to envision. The horizon is the place that the flat level ground appears to meet the sky.
Exactly !
What I have been saying. But you may have missed the point. The horizon is the distinct line where sea and sky APPEAR to meet. And the distance can be easily estimated. And sailors have done this for years. The horizon does exist !
You say "On a flat earth the horizon does not exist" and then you say "The horizon is the place where the flat level ground appears to meet the sky." That is simply the definition of the horizon. Please explain why you say it doesn't exist but then you give its definition correctly ? Seems to be a contradiction ? If the earth was flat, would the horizon be the line where the bottom of the so-called "ice dome" ACTUALLY meets the top of the so-called "ice wall" ? This would seem to be the case in the old painting of the person kneeling on a flat earth, at the edge of a flat earth, peering through a hole in the dome where it meets the flat earth ?
If the horizon does not exist on a flat earth, what is the flat earth explanation ? What is your opinion of the facts, in particular the Manual For Lookouts ? It clearly lists distances for various heights.
Have you ever been to sea or down to the shore ? What DID you see when you looked out on the sea if it wasn't the horizon ?
-
Are you really this dense?
DO. YOU. BELIEVE. THAT. THE. OCEAN. TOUCHES. THE. SKY, SOMEWHERE?
I hope not, because it doesn't. It only appears to. Where it appears to do so is the horizon.
I have absolutely no idea what you are getting on about ice domes and ice walls. You are so hung up on this same paragraph you've posted for 4 years that you can't even comprehend anything beyond it. Not me problem. Have a good day.
-
Are you really this dense?
DO. YOU. BELIEVE. THAT. THE. OCEAN. TOUCHES. THE. SKY, SOMEWHERE?
I hope not, because it doesn't. It only appears to. Where it appears to do so is the horizon.
I have absolutely no idea what you are getting on about ice domes and ice walls. You are so hung up on this same paragraph you've posted for 4 years that you can't even comprehend anything beyond it. Not me problem. Have a good day.
I keep repeating that the horizon is the line where the sea and the sky APPEAR to meet. That is what the horizon is.
What IS your problem ? I also keep asking how you could see the horizon if it isn't there on a flat earth ?
The ice dome and the ice wall are what I have read from some flat earthers.
Some say there is a dome above a flat earth and some say it is made of ice.
I suppose I'm like Will Rogers - "All I know is what I read in the papers (substitute "flat earth website" for "papers") and that's my excuse for ignorance."....Ignorance about the flat earth, that is.
-
I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.
(http://graphicdesignjunction.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/water-drop-photos-28.jpg)
(http://inspired.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/62.jpg)
(https://www.billtrack50.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/wpid-Photography-Water-Drop-Wallpaper-95.jpg)
Estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth. Understanding where the vanishing point is and your approximate altitude you could easily use Pythagorean theorem to determine. On the flat earth, the ground and your height create a right triangle, even though it is perceived as an equilateral triangle.
Where is the vanishing point, exactly? Could you give an example of how to work this out?
And give an example of how to work out the distance to the horizon ?
-
TheTruthIsOnHere, I think it's easy to say that you need no formulas because you don't have to directly deal with the shape of the earth or the horizon to solve any real problems. For those who have to communicate, take measurements, or estimate distances of things on or beyond the horizon then solution formulas are needed. It has nothing to do with indoctrination. It has to do with real world scenarios where decisions need to be made, money will be spent, and solutions need to exist. The value of a model is based it's ability to explain, predict, and solve problems.
But here's the thing... 99% of problems in the world are solved without regard for the curvature of the Earth. Engineers don't have to account for it. And when they do it is some kind of micro-measurement that wouldn't cause a bridge to fail if the Earth was flat. For all intents and purposes, things are generally designed with the simplification of a flat Earth.
I'm still waiting to see curved water anywhere in my life, by the way.
Please explain to me what kind of real world application requires a rough estimation of the distance to the horizon anyway .
Several examples were given : Ship's lookouts, radar, microwave repeaters.......
-
Are you really this dense?
DO. YOU. BELIEVE. THAT. THE. OCEAN. TOUCHES. THE. SKY, SOMEWHERE?
I hope not, because it doesn't. It only appears to. Where it appears to do so is the horizon.
I have absolutely no idea what you are getting on about ice domes and ice walls. You are so hung up on this same paragraph you've posted for 4 years that you can't even comprehend anything beyond it. Not me problem. Have a good day.
I keep repeating that the horizon is the line where the sea and the sky APPEAR to meet. That is what the horizon is.
What IS your problem ? I also keep asking how you could see the horizon if it isn't there on a flat earth ?
I am going to be blunt.
Are you fucking retarded?
The horizon is the place where the sea and sky APPEAR to meet. Something having an appearance implies that it is vision related, and that you can SEE it.
Jesus christ you must be fun at parties.
-
TheTruthIsOnHere, what is your mechanism for determining the distance to the horizon? In the global model there is a distinct distance at which the horizon occurs according to the geometry of a sphere. How does the flat earth community do it? How do you justify your position? Is your position that is just can't be known?
I own a theodolite and I can accurately measure drop angles that predictably match the spherical model. Have you come up with some way to take measurements? Have you measured to see whether the horizon actually rises to eye level? I personally have and it never does over large expanses and the drop below horizontal can be measured and fits with spherical predictions.
-
TheTruthIsOnHere, what is your mechanism for determining the distance to the horizon? In the global model there is a distinct distance at which the horizon occurs according to the geometry of a sphere. How does the flat earth community do it? How do you justify your position? Is your position that is just can't be known?
I own a theodolite and I can accurately measure drop angles that predictably match the spherical model. Have you come up with some way to take measurements? Have you measured to see whether the horizon actually rises to eye level? I personally have and it never does over large expanses and the drop below horizontal can be measured and fits with spherical predictions.
To Flatout:
I am sure we have been asking the same question , but we don't seem to be getting any answers. LOL.
I know the answers for the real world, but I would just like to see some answers from the flat earth world.
I don't have a theodolite, but I do know how they estimate the distance to the horizon in the U.S. Navy.
I seem to be getting the old flat earth runaround ?....No ?.....It must be the flat earth runaplane ?
I think TruthIsOnHere is just being obtuse. But in doing so he is just making flat earth look bad...very bad.
As if it wasn't already !
P.S.-
To TheTruthIsOnHere :
I have been giving some real world examples.
Now, how about some flat earth examples ?
I'm not the only one asking.
-
I guess TheTruthIsOnHere is on Spring Break
-
I have been giving some real world examples.
Now, how about some flat earth examples ?
I'm confused. If you did, indeed, provide real world examples, why would you ask TheTruthIsOnHere to just repeat them?
-
I have been giving some real world examples.
Now, how about some flat earth examples ?
I'm confused. If you did, indeed, provide real world examples, why would you ask TheTruthIsOnHere to just repeat them?
I think you may have misunderstood my post.
What I meant by "real world examples" were "round earth examples."
I had some guesses for "flat earth examples" but I wanted to check to see if they were right and get them straight from a flat earther.
Since I didn't get a flat earth reply, here's my guess.:
Actually here is a simple method for estimating distances on a flat earth.
Using trigonometry, let h = the height of the observer let d = the horizontal (ground) distance to the observer
let a (or alpha) = the angle from the ground to the observer
d= h/tangent of a
Where h=100 feet and a=1 degree
d= 100/0.01745506=5729.0174 feet from the observer
If a=45 degrees, then d=100 feet from the observer
If my figures are wrong, please correct me ?
You would need a good theodolite to measure the angle. Draw that out to scale and you can see how small the angle would be.
And you would need a table of angle to tangent , calculator, or slide rule to look up the tangent for the angle.
And a calculator or slide rule ......or maybe an abacus ?........to compute the distance.
That is the way I would do it.
The question is How would you do it, TheTruthIsOnHere ? [/b
Since there is no horizon on a flat earth, I don't have a clue as to how you would measure the distance to the horizon....if there is no horizon ? Aye ! There's the rub !
This is all complete nonsense. anyway. I just come here for the entertainment. You know.......Like The Three Stooges.
-
TheTruthIsOnHere, what is your mechanism for determining the distance to the horizon? In the global model there is a distinct distance at which the horizon occurs according to the geometry of a sphere. How does the flat earth community do it? How do you justify your position? Is your position that is just can't be known?
I own a theodolite and I can accurately measure drop angles that predictably match the spherical model. Have you come up with some way to take measurements? Have you measured to see whether the horizon actually rises to eye level? I personally have and it never does over large expanses and the drop below horizontal can be measured and fits with spherical predictions.
To TheTruthIsOnHere
I know that "bumping" a thread is not considered proper Internet Etiquette, but we're still waiting for answers to the questions. I have given my ideas, but I'm just waiting to hear it "straight from the horse's mouth" from a flat earth believer himself.
My big problem is how you can say "There is no horizon" since it is such an obvious fact of life ?
-
I would still be interested in hearing a report from a flat earth believer if he ever visited any naval installation - ship, station, or even a recruiting office - and sat down and had a discussion concerning "flat earth."
Betcha they'll never do it ! Dare ya to do it !
I'll be honest. I may be a bit dense. But that old "horizon" thing is my big hang up on the flat earth . As far as I can figure it, if you were that person on the beach or on the ship, you could see forever if it wasn't for the density of the "atmoplane". Then you would just see a blur. If the earth was flat there would be no curvature of the earth to limit the distance you could see.
But going back to flat earth . You show me and I'll show you. Seeing is believing.
But the horizon is a very real thing. And so is the globe.
-
TheTruthIsOnHere, what is your mechanism for determining the distance to the horizon? In the global model there is a distinct distance at which the horizon occurs according to the geometry of a sphere. How does the flat earth community do it? How do you justify your position? Is your position that is just can't be known?
I own a theodolite and I can accurately measure drop angles that predictably match the spherical model. Have you come up with some way to take measurements? Have you measured to see whether the horizon actually rises to eye level? I personally have and it never does over large expanses and the drop below horizontal can be measured and fits with spherical predictions.
To Flatout:
How close can you read angles on your theodolite ?
I have been doing the maths on my examples as explained on a previous post and the angle of the ground to the observer for most distances would be less than 1 degree and require rather precise measurements.
Perhaps one of the FES experts can give some examples of how it's done ?
As has been stated there is no horizon on a flat earth so that would not be a limiting factor in how far you could see if the earth was flat other than "the thickness or density of the atmoplane."
-
TheTruthIsOnHere, what is your mechanism for determining the distance to the horizon? In the global model there is a distinct distance at which the horizon occurs according to the geometry of a sphere. How does the flat earth community do it? How do you justify your position? Is your position that is just can't be known?
I own a theodolite and I can accurately measure drop angles that predictably match the spherical model. Have you come up with some way to take measurements? Have you measured to see whether the horizon actually rises to eye level? I personally have and it never does over large expanses and the drop below horizontal can be measured and fits with spherical predictions.
To Flatout:
How close can you read angles on your theodolite ?
I have been doing the maths on my examples as explained on a previous post and the angle of the ground to the observer for most distances would be less than 1 degree and require rather precise measurements.
Perhaps one of the FES experts can give some examples of how it's done ?
As has been stated there is no horizon on a flat earth so that would not be a limiting factor in how far you could see if the earth was flat other than "the thickness or density of the atmoplane."
±-3" (arc seconds)
-
TheTruthIsOnHere, what is your mechanism for determining the distance to the horizon? In the global model there is a distinct distance at which the horizon occurs according to the geometry of a sphere. How does the flat earth community do it? How do you justify your position? Is your position that is just can't be known?
I own a theodolite and I can accurately measure drop angles that predictably match the spherical model. Have you come up with some way to take measurements? Have you measured to see whether the horizon actually rises to eye level? I personally have and it never does over large expanses and the drop below horizontal can be measured and fits with spherical predictions.
To Flatout:
How close can you read angles on your theodolite ?
I have been doing the maths on my examples as explained on a previous post and the angle of the ground to the observer for most distances would be less than 1 degree and require rather precise measurements.
Perhaps one of the FES experts can give some examples of how it's done ?
As has been stated there is no horizon on a flat earth so that would not be a limiting factor in how far you could see if the earth was flat other than "the thickness or density of the atmoplane."
ur
±-3" (arc seconds)
OK. Thanks Flatout. You could do those measurements with your theodolite. I am assuming that is the way it would be done on a flat earth. But it would take some careful measurements and computations.
My questions remain :
(1) Is there or is there not a horizon on a flat earth ?
(2) If there is a horizon on a flat earth, how would you estimate the distance to it ?
(3) Where would the horizon be on a flat earth ?
On the round earth, estimating the distance to the horizon is a simple process...
And we do know there is a horizon on a round earth.
And we do know it has been done and is being done.
But the problem on the flat earth is knowing where the horizon is ?
And if there is a horizon on a flat earth ?
-
Gecko, what don't you understand. The horizon isn't a real place. Even on a round earth your vision is still subject to the same "tunnel vision" optical illusion. Yet you, or OP, completely don't account for that whatsoever. Some half ass illustration from MS Paint with absolutely no scale or accommodation for the effect of perspective on vision are not accurate representations of reality.
So Geek, if you really want the flat earth formula for the distance to horizon, take your little navy guide, and use a little trigonometry and that would be just as useful for estimating the distance to the imaginary place you are dying to locate.
-
On a spherical earth the horizon is a real place. That location is dependant on the topography and the elevation of the observer. It's location can be predicted, measured, and is consistently at the same place when observed from a give observation point providing that its not obscured by the weather.
-
On a spherical earth the horizon is a real place. That location is dependant on the topography and the elevation of the observer. It's location can be predicted, measured, and is consistently at the same place when observed from a give observation point providing that its not obscured by the weather.
Under absolutely no circumstance is the horizon a real place.
-
On a spherical earth the horizon is a real place. That location is dependant on the topography and the elevation of the observer. It's location can be predicted, measured, and is consistently at the same place when observed from a give observation point providing that its not obscured by the weather.
Under absolutely no circumstance is the horizon a real place.
The reality is that we can put the horizon at a specific position in geography when viewed from a given position. For example, the circle on many naval commercial radar screens represents the line of site horizon. The circle will encompass a larger radius of land based on the height of the radar transmitter/receiver. The same is true aircraft based radar. This is an issue of geometry not atmoplane translucence.
-
To TheTruthIsOnHere
I think you should talk to a real sailor and ask him if the horizon was a real thing to him.
I don't consider myself a real sailor. I was just a navy radio and radar repair man.
The best I can remember was port was on the left side and I think starboard was on the right side of the ship.
Or was it the other way around ? I would have to go back on some of my old books to be sure.
Go down to a beach. Any beach any where. On the ocean. Any ocean. Look out to sea. Do you really see a distinct line where the sea and sky appear to meet - I repeat "appear to meet" - or are you just imagining that is what you see ?
I think flat earth says you would see "An indistinct blur that fades away at an indefinite distance."
Which did you see ? Do this is on a clear, sunny day sometime.
To Flatout
For one example:
The range of the old WWII Vintage SG-1b Surface Search Radar was limited by the distance to the horizon. The antenna was on one of the highest masts on the ship. The higher the antenna, the geater the range.
This is one thing of which I can report from personal experience. I am sure of this. They were still in use my naval service.
-
Please answer me this... Can you get to the horizon?
Can you travel to it. Can you set the horizon as your destination and actually reach it?
No. It is not a real place. Why is this so hard to understand?
Naval Radar and Sonar screens have a circle on them, and that's supposed to be evidence of the earth being round?
-
On a spherical earth the horizon is a real place. That location is dependant on the topography and the elevation of the observer. It's location can be predicted, measured, and is consistently at the same place when observed from a give observation point providing that its not obscured by the weather.
Under absolutely no circumstance is the horizon a real place.
Technically speaking you might say the horizon is not a real place.
But you can't say the horizon is not a real thing.
-
Please answer me this... Can you get to the horizon?
Can you travel to it. Can you set the horizon as your destination and actually reach it?
No. It is not a real place. Why is this so hard to understand?
Naval Radar and Sonar screens have a circle on them, and that's supposed to be evidence of the earth being round?
Once again, maybe not a real place, but a real thing.
The horizon is always ever changing as long as you are moving.
You are always traveling to it, but you never reach it.
You are in the middle of circle and the horizon is all around you.
If there was land or a ship on the horizon you could set that to be your destination and reach it.
Since the range of that radar is limited by the distance to the horizon.
The distance to the horizon is due to the curvature of the earth, which is proof that the earth is the shape of a sphere, or globe.
If the earth was flat, there would not be that limitation.
You could design a surface search radar to have an infinite range ?
There are a lot of other design features to consider.
I don't know how or even if you could design a long range surface search radar if the earth was flat.
However.......Let's face the facts. The earth is a globe.
-
The horizon is a location that is based on a frame of reference. This is true for many things. If I'm sitting in car going 40 miles per hour and I toss up a ball, the horizontal velocity of the ball from the passengers perspective is 0. From the perspective of the road the balls horizontal velocity is 40 mph. It could be said that the ball is going both 0 and 40 depending on the frame of reference. The ball could also be viewed from a vehicle going 10 miles in the opposite direction and the frame of reference velocity would be 50. In reality that ball only has a defined velocity and location in space when the frame of reference is defined. The same is true for the horizon. The horizon from an eye height of 5 feet above the ocean is just short of 3 miles. You could float a boat at that geographic location and it would be right at the horizon with no part obscured and no remaining horizon behind it. It could be put on a map. The horizon from the reference frame of the floating boat is at a different location.
-
The horizon is a location that is based on a frame of reference. This is true for many things. If I'm sitting in car going 40 miles per hour and I toss up a ball, the horizontal velocity of the ball from the passengers perspective is 0. From the perspective of the road the balls horizontal velocity is 40 mph. It could be said that the ball is going both 0 and 40 depending on the frame of reference. The ball could also be viewed from a vehicle going 10 miles in the opposite direction and the frame of reference velocity would be 50. In reality that ball only has a defined velocity and location in space when the frame of reference is defined. The same is true for the horizon. The horizon from an eye height of 5 feet above the ocean is just short of 3 miles. You could float a boat at that geographic location and it would be right at the horizon with no part obscured and no remaining horizon behind it. It could be put on a map. The horizon from the reference frame of the floating boat is at a different location.
The point is that the horizon is a known thing but there is no known explanation for it if the earth was flat.
-
I am still of the opinion that some flat earth believers should talk to some navy people about a flat earth. LOL.
Or "Join the Navy and see the world ! "
-
The point is that the horizon is a known thing but there is no known explanation for it if the earth was flat.
How many times do you have to have it explained to you before you stop saying there is no known explanation?
Optical illusion.
-
The point is that the horizon is a known thing but there is no known explanation for it if the earth was flat.
How many times do you have to have it explained to you before you stop saying there is no known explanation?
Optical illusion.
And how many times do I have to ask YOU ? LOL
Is there is a horizon on a flat earth ?
(Excuse me. But I have read one flat earth opinion that there is none and if you looked out to sea - for example - you would just see "an indistinct blur which fades away at an indefinite distance". I would appreciate it if you would tell whether this is true or if I just got some bad information.)( I really would appreciate it !)
Where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
How far from an observer is the horizon on a flat earther ?
What is your method for estimating for estimating the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
Have you ever considered discussing the subjects of "The Horizon" and/or "Recovering (with a telescope) a ship which has passed out of sight over the horizon" with a real naval person ?
What is your opinion of the information for estimating the distance to the horizon in the Naval Training Manual For Lookouts ?
Have you ever considered the thought that the earth is real , that it is a globe ?
-
A drop of water isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to waters propensity to find its own level.
The water droplets show that the shape is determined by the forces acting on it. For a small drop of water, surface tension causes it to form into a small sphere. On the large scale, water is pulled towards the spherical surface of the earth due to gravity. There is no "finds its own level law" that would prevent water from naturally forming into a spherical shape.
The vanishing point is the place where level horizontal lines converge.
Equations please. You just said that "estimating the distance to the horizon is still possible on a flat earth". An example would be nice, with actual numbers and equations.
Yes !!!!!!!
Round earth equation and examples with actual numbers have been given peviously.
Need they be repeated ?
-
The point is that the horizon is a known thing but there is no known explanation for it if the earth was flat.
How many times do you have to have it explained to you before you stop saying there is no known explanation?
Optical illusion.
The point of my continued persistence is simply that an explanation regarding the horizon on a flat earth has not been forthcoming on these points.:
Where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
What is the distance from an observer to the horizon on a flat earth ?
How is this distance computed on a flat earth ?
Can you show an example of how this distance was computed ?
Can you show an example of the results of this computation ?
I will review the explanation for the horizon on a round earth to explain and why a similar explanation for the horizon has been asked.:
On the round earth, there is there is a curvature of the earth. On a flat earth, there is no curvature, just a straight line.
On the round earth, due to the curvature, there is a definite line where the earth and sky appear to meet. You may call this an illusion if you wish, but there is a definite line to be observed. On a flat earth, where would this line be ?
Due to the curvature of the earth, the distance from the observer to the horizon is known, and it depends on the height of the observer. On a flat earth, how would this be known ?
On a round earth , this distance can be computed by a simple equation which has been derived for estimating it :
The distance in miles (d) is equal to the result of multiplying a constant (1.22) times the square root of the height (h) of the observer in feet above the surface of the earth (or sea) . What is the equation for a flat earth ?
Some examples are these for a round earth are :
For a 6 feet tall person , standing on the ground (or at sea level), the distance to the horizon is about 3 miles.
For a person 100 feet above the ground (or above sea level in a crow's nest on a ship for example) the distance to the horizon is about 12.2 miles.
These examples have been made from those in a Navy Manual For Lookouts, and have been proven to be correct in day-to-day usage. Could flat earth supply some similar examples ?
With all the flat earth experts on this website, why hasn't one come forward to answer these questions ?
Flat earth should be able to supply the same information for all of these questions. Please do so.
Or is that just too much to ask of the FES ?
Or should we just conclude that FES doesn't have any answers and just consider the question of the horizon to be just one more nail in the flat earth coffin ????? LOL
Might as well just write this one off, too, for lack of FES response ???? :-(
-
(http://i.imgur.com/tWMwH7y.png)
You completely missed the point with your illustration
Sorry, I accidentally replicated the latter image. I fixed it
You're still not addressing the increased line of sight you still achieve with increased altitude on the flat earth.
Also you're neglecting the fact that when looking towards the horizon the ground appears to come up and meet the sky. Trying to illustrate how light is actually perceived by the human eye with 2 dimensional stick figures is not at all an appropriate reflection of reality.
There is no increased line of sight in the flat earth, it impossible without the curvature of the earth, and the stick figures are just an example. I'm doing these exercises that don't need long hours of math and calculations so that you yourselves can do these at home. All these are impossible without a round earth and yet we see echoes of the results every day. In fact, the Burden of Proof is on TFES to showcase evidence disproving decades of scientific research that can't just be explained away as a "conspiracy". Tell me, how much does NASA have to gain from releasing fake photos to "lie" to us that the earth is round when the average American spends more money on pizza every year than their yearly budget (27 billion dollars worth of pizza). NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion reùpresented about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion United States federal budget during that year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. These numbers are minuscule.
You say there is no increased line of sight on a flat earth... when I literally used your own illustration to show you that there is. That brown line is the line of sight. You can technically see objects that are further away than you could from the ground.
You didn't offer any mathematical or scientific accompaniment with your illustrations because you don't have any. You show us MS Paint sketches without any evidence that you have even a rudimentary knowledge how light or optics work.
TruthIsOnHere I haven't seen any "mathematical or scientific accompaniment" from the flat earth side in regard to the horizon on a flat earth. I have posted some for the round earth. Flat earth equations, examples and figures, please !
In other words, I have seen no explanations for a flat earth.
(1) Where is the horizon ?
(2) How far is the horizon from the observer ?
(3) How would you estimate the distance ?
(4) Is there an equation for estimating the distance ?
(5) Is there a horizon ?
All of the ansfor these questions are known for a "round earth."
Until I see the answers for a "flat earth", I will just have to continue to assume that there are no explanations.
I'm back and still waiting for answers.I won't debate. I just want to make some comparisons.
Thanks for the banning. Gave me time for more serious subjects. :-)