The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Supernatural on June 13, 2017, 07:46:31 AM
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK? Surely the atmosphere would block that too?
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
you cannot see the opposite land simply because our eyes/ the telescopes are not powerfull enough to see all those miles (not a stupid question)
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
you cannot see the opposite land simply because our eyes/ the telescopes are not powerfull enough to see all those miles (not a stupid question)
This is completely false, we have more than enough optical technology to see those supposed distances if it were indeed a flat earth. It is the curvature of the earth that prevents you from seeing things on the other side of the planet.
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK? Surely the atmosphere would block that too?
The atmosphere stretches about 62 miles upwards vertically (as a gradient) and tens of thousands of miles outwards horizontally (not a gradient). We are looking through a lot less atmosphere when we are looking at things in the sky compared to on the surface near the horizon line.
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK? Surely the atmosphere would block that too?
The atmosphere stretches about 62 miles upwards vertically (as a gradient) and tens of thousands of miles outwards horizontally (not a gradient).
Do you know this for sure are you saying this is according to your preferred model?
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK? Surely the atmosphere would block that too?
The atmosphere stretches about 62 miles upwards vertically (as a gradient) and tens of thousands of miles outwards horizontally (not a gradient).
Do you know this for sure are you saying this is according to your preferred model?
I'm using the traditional milage for the height of the atmosphere. If you have any issues with that number in the traditional atmosphere model, let us know.
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK? Surely the atmosphere would block that too?
The atmosphere stretches about 62 miles upwards vertically (as a gradient) and tens of thousands of miles outwards horizontally (not a gradient).
Do you know this for sure are you saying this is according to your preferred model?
I'm using the traditional milage for the height of the atmosphere. If you have any issues with that number in the traditional atmosphere model, let us know.
Not really. I honestly haven't looked into it that deep. But do you accept the traditional mileage as fact? If so, why would you accept it as a fact?
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK? Surely the atmosphere would block that too?
The atmosphere stretches about 62 miles upwards vertically (as a gradient) and tens of thousands of miles outwards horizontally (not a gradient).
Do you know this for sure are you saying this is according to your preferred model?
I'm using the traditional milage for the height of the atmosphere. If you have any issues with that number in the traditional atmosphere model, let us know.
Not really. I honestly haven't looked into it that deep. But do you accept the traditional mileage as fact? If so, why would you accept it as a fact?
Yes - even in Round Earth theory - the atmosphere has mostly faded to vacuum by around 60 miles.
The claim that the far distant parts of the Flat Earth are blocked by atmosphere DOESN'T hold water though. For this to be the reason you can't see things like mountains beyond (say) 60 miles, the atmosphere would only JUST be transparent enough to see the sun and moon when they are vertically overhead. But if the sun is overhead in (say) Europe and is just setting in the central USA (a distance of around 6,000 miles) with the sun being 3,000 miles above us (according to the TFES Wiki) then by pythagoras, the light passes along the hypotenuse of a 3,000 x 6,000 triangle a distance of 6,700 miles. Using similar triangles - the amount of atmosphere you'd be looking through (call it 'A') would be given by A/60 = 6700/3000 -- so A=134 miles.
So when the sun (or the moon) is setting, we're looking through 134 miles of atmosphere. But FET says that the reason you can't see a mountain that's 100 miles away is because it's blocked by the atmosphere.
Doesn't make sense.
Now - I'm fairly sure someone here is going to say that the sun's rays can pass more easily through the air than light from a mountain - and that's a very fair claim.
However, we have to consider the moon - which is much dimmer than a snow-covered mountain peak. We can repeat all of the above calculations for the moon and come up with the same exact answers. So the "bright sun" idea doesn't fix this issue for FET.
To make the math come out right - so you could see the moon clearly on the horizon but NOT see mountains at 100 miles, the atmosphere would have to be no more than 20 miles deep - not 60 as claimed above (and as RET would have us believe).
But if that were the case, people would not be able to breathe on the top of mount everest...and they clearly can (albeit with difficulty) and at 40,000 feet, airplanes would have far too little air to keep them flying. Air pressure here on the ground would be VASTLY lower than it currently is.
To get an air pressure of 14.7 psi - you need 14 lbs of air sitting above every square inch of the earth's surface - but if the air tapers off to nothing at only 20 miles, the air pressure would be more like 5 psi...and it's plainly not!
So this claim that atmospheric attenuation is the reason you can't see the flat earth mountains from long distances cannot work alongside the claims that the sun and moon are only 3000 miles above the Earth.
One or the other MUST be incorrect.
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK? Surely the atmosphere would block that too?
The atmosphere stretches about 62 miles upwards vertically (as a gradient) and tens of thousands of miles outwards horizontally (not a gradient).
Do you know this for sure are you saying this is according to your preferred model?
I'm using the traditional milage for the height of the atmosphere. If you have any issues with that number in the traditional atmosphere model, let us know.
Not really. I honestly haven't looked into it that deep. But do you accept the traditional mileage as fact? If so, why would you accept it as a fact?
Yes - even in Round Earth theory - the atmosphere has mostly faded to vacuum by around 60 miles.
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
I also don't have a reason to doubt their studies. But does zeteticism only mean questioning NASA and no other organizations? If I could show that NOAA had cgid some photographs would you then reject their studies that show the height of the atmosphere is 62 miles?
-
This for instance, taken from the Deep space climate observatory a NOAA satellite, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Earth-DSCOVR-20150706-IFV.jpg/800px-Earth-DSCOVR-20150706-IFV.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Earth-DSCOVR-20150706-IFV.jpg/800px-Earth-DSCOVR-20150706-IFV.jpg)
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
I also don't have a reason to doubt their studies. But does zeteticism only mean questioning NASA and no other organizations? If I could show that NOAA had cgid some photographs would you then reject their studies that show the height of the atmosphere is 62 miles?
Sure, if you show that an organization is untrustworthy, that is reason to question their claims.
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
I also don't have a reason to doubt their studies. But does zeteticism only mean questioning NASA and no other organizations? If I could show that NOAA had cgid some photographs would you then reject their studies that show the height of the atmosphere is 62 miles?
Sure, if you show that an organization is untrustworthy, that is reason to question their claims.
Did you see Glenlivet's post?
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
I also don't have a reason to doubt their studies. But does zeteticism only mean questioning NASA and no other organizations? If I could show that NOAA had cgid some photographs would you then reject their studies that show the height of the atmosphere is 62 miles?
Sure, if you show that an organization is untrustworthy, that is reason to question their claims.
Did you see Glenlivet's post?
The Sex in the clouds picture? Seen it.
http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/space/finding-sex-on-nasas-epic-earth-image-once-you-see-it-you-wont-unsee-it/
(http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sex-Earth-Nasa-MEME.jpg)
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
I also don't have a reason to doubt their studies. But does zeteticism only mean questioning NASA and no other organizations? If I could show that NOAA had cgid some photographs would you then reject their studies that show the height of the atmosphere is 62 miles?
Sure, if you show that an organization is untrustworthy, that is reason to question their claims.
Did you see Glenlivet's post?
The Sex in the clouds picture? Seen it.
http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/space/finding-sex-on-nasas-epic-earth-image-once-you-see-it-you-wont-unsee-it/
(http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sex-Earth-Nasa-MEME.jpg)
But apparently it originated from NOAA.
-
Maybe its just suppose to say SFX like the Lion King one. (They admitted as much)
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSe_B04ShUlb79lPNYLf3zLGJqtYel_8eJyILfhGxG-hLsyJdmfWBFrulDjkg
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
It is the position of NOAA that the planet is not flat based on their observations. If you are going to call them credible and site their information to try and explain why we can't see things we should be able to see if the earth was flat, how can you then discredit all of the other information provided by NOAA that indicates the earth is definitely not flat?
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
It is the position of NOAA that the planet is not flat based on their observations. If you are going to call them credible and site their information to try and explain why we can't see things we should be able to see if the earth was flat, how can you then discredit all of the other information provided by NOAA that indicates the earth is definitely not flat?
What information would that be? The satellite mentioned above is a satellite NASA put up to collect information for the NOAA.
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
It is the position of NOAA that the planet is not flat based on their observations. If you are going to call them credible and site their information to try and explain why we can't see things we should be able to see if the earth was flat, how can you then discredit all of the other information provided by NOAA that indicates the earth is definitely not flat?
What information would that be? The satellite mentioned above is a satellite NASA put up to collect information for the NOAA.
Are you serious? There is endless information proving the earth is not flat.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/earth-round.html
The real question, that you dodged entirely, which isn't a surprise at all, is how can you site data from NOAA as an argument about atmospheric interference, but dismiss all of the other information that clearly shows the earth is not flat?
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
It is the position of NOAA that the planet is not flat based on their observations. If you are going to call them credible and site their information to try and explain why we can't see things we should be able to see if the earth was flat, how can you then discredit all of the other information provided by NOAA that indicates the earth is definitely not flat?
What information would that be? The satellite mentioned above is a satellite NASA put up to collect information for the NOAA.
Are you serious? There is endless information proving the earth is not flat.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/earth-round.html
The real question, that you dodged entirely, which isn't a surprise at all, is how can you site data from NOAA as an argument about atmospheric interference, but dismiss all of the other information that clearly shows the earth is not flat?
I'm not ignoring any data from NOAA. They may test the atmosphere under a round earth interpretation, but those same tests can be interpreted under a flat earth interpretation. If you can show us some independent research they have performed which suggests that the earth is a globe feel free to post it.
-
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
Oh no Tom!! You disappoint me! You're accepting claims without checking the evidence here.
The world record for the highest altitude reached by a balloon (named BU60-1) was 32.9 miles...only just barely halfway to space. No aircraft that NOAA has ever owned is capable of flying above about 40,000 feet (~7.6 miles). The only people who could possibly have measured "the edge of space" experimentally would be the US-Airforce X-plane project, NASA and non-US and commercial space agencies...all of whom are a part of your conspiracy theory and "cannot be trusted" in your world-view.
The 62 mile number for the official "edge of space" comes about because of something called the Kármán line and was determined long before any man-made object had gotten even halfway there.
As you go higher, the air gets thinner - and a conventional airplane has to fly faster in order to get enough lift. The Kármán line is defined as the altitude at which the air is so thin that any conventional "airplane" would have to fly faster than the orbital velocity at that altitude - and would no longer need lift from its wings. This so-called "boundary" is determined mathematically using - not experimentally. Theodore von Karman used the data from the X-2 aircraft - which reached a mere 24 miles up - and from that calculated this 62 mile number as the limit beyond which an "airplane" would, by necessity, become an orbital satellite.
Because the very definition of the Karman line is dependent on the orbital velocity at that altitude - the calculation of this "62 mile" number entails knowing the radius of the ROUND earth.
Since you won't trust the "radius-of-earth" number required for Karman's mathematical treatment or any experimental results that demonstrates this number - your Zetetic principles must prevent you from honestly claiming to know how thick the atmosphere is.
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
It is the position of NOAA that the planet is not flat based on their observations. If you are going to call them credible and site their information to try and explain why we can't see things we should be able to see if the earth was flat, how can you then discredit all of the other information provided by NOAA that indicates the earth is definitely not flat?
What information would that be? The satellite mentioned above is a satellite NASA put up to collect information for the NOAA.
Are you serious? There is endless information proving the earth is not flat.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/earth-round.html
The real question, that you dodged entirely, which isn't a surprise at all, is how can you site data from NOAA as an argument about atmospheric interference, but dismiss all of the other information that clearly shows the earth is not flat?
I'm not ignoring any data from NOAA. They may test the atmosphere under a round earth interpretation, but those same tests can be interpreted under a flat earth interpretation. If you can show us some independent research they have performed which suggests that the earth is a globe feel free to post it.
https://geodesy.noaa.gov/
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
NOAA is legit. They don't use just dirigibles and planes, but satellites in orbit too. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/earth-pictures-noaa-weather-goes-16-space-science/ These photos clearly show the shape of the planet Earth. Do you doubt that?
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK? Surely the atmosphere would block that too?
The atmosphere stretches about 62 miles upwards vertically (as a gradient) and tens of thousands of miles outwards horizontally (not a gradient). We are looking through a lot less atmosphere when we are looking at things in the sky compared to on the surface near the horizon line.
Yet you can make photographs of Moon touching horizon:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/56/b4/7b/56b47b3bbf6d4efac242a0fcddb9256c--moon-setting-lakes.jpg)
Where is all your thick atmosphere? Or Moon is closer than continent beyond the sea? ;D ;D ;D
-
Tom may want to go back to arguing what he knows: passages from a 19th century book. Clearly, trying to cite data from the work of modern-day respected science agencies is not his forte.
-
As you go higher, the air gets thinner - and a conventional airplane has to fly faster in order to get enough lift. The Kármán line is defined as the altitude at which the air is so thin that any conventional "airplane" would have to fly faster than the orbital velocity at that altitude - and would no longer need lift from its wings. This so-called "boundary" is determined mathematically using - not experimentally. Theodore von Karman used the data from the X-2 aircraft - which reached a mere 24 miles up - and from that calculated this 62 mile number as the limit beyond which an "airplane" would, by necessity, become an orbital satellite.
Because the very definition of the Karman line is dependent on the orbital velocity at that altitude - the calculation of this "62 mile" number entails knowing the radius of the ROUND earth.
Since you won't trust the "radius-of-earth" number required for Karman's mathematical treatment or any experimental results that demonstrates this number - your Zetetic principles must prevent you from honestly claiming to know how thick the atmosphere is.
You could also predict where negligible air pressure would exist by testing the atmosphere at sea level and at various levels of altitude, which some have done. Hitler's scientists also tested the density of space with the Nazi V2 rockets. There is more to is than Karman's mathematical treatment to suggest that there is negligible air pressure 62 miles up.
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
NOAA is legit. They don't use just dirigibles and planes, but satellites in orbit too. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/earth-pictures-noaa-weather-goes-16-space-science/ These photos clearly show the shape of the planet Earth. Do you doubt that?
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goes-overview/index.html
GOES Project Current Status
The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Program (GOES) is a joint effort of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
-
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goes-overview/index.html
GOES Project Current Status
The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Program (GOES) is a joint effort of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Indeed - but as your link says - NOAA use NASA to launch their satellites - and you don't trust NASA (or satellites for that matter) - so if NOAA's results depend on those satellites - you can't trust them as you seemed to want to do here:
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
So - as I said before, using your Zetetic principles, you have to say that the ONLY way you have to measure the thickness of the atmosphere and the density of it's various layers is to rely on NASA and satellites - which you can't/won't do.
As I explained before - the ONLY agencies who have the capability to measure the nature of the high altitude atmosphere are those whom you accuse of faking information to make it seem like the Earth is round. So how can you know that they aren't also faking the atmospheric data upon which you must rely in order to explain how the sun, moon and stars appear set below the horizon.
More specifically - if you don't know any of that information to a degree that an intellectually honest person would be prepared to accept - then how the heck can you come up with your "Bishop Equation/Constant"?
Incidentally, the Wiki alludes to the equation being presented there as being a simplified result from a much more complicated derivation.
I'd very much like to see the original derivation...I'm no stranger to complex mathematics/science involved - but I'm mostly interested in the Zetetic process that got you from whatever starting assumptions you made to the simple(ish) equation in the Wiki.
-
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
NOAA is legit. They don't use just dirigibles and planes, but satellites in orbit too. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/earth-pictures-noaa-weather-goes-16-space-science/ These photos clearly show the shape of the planet Earth. Do you doubt that?
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goes-overview/index.html
GOES Project Current Status
The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Program (GOES) is a joint effort of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
What is the point of this post?
You asked me for a link from NOAA that suggested that the earth is a globe, and I pointed you to a site in which they provide real time data about the shape and behavior of the planet. Do you care to provide a relevant response as to how you are able to quote NOAA information to support a position while dismissing all of the other information they provide?
You are not fooling anyone but fools, Tom. Maybe that is the point.
-
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?
For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?
(is this question ridiculous?)
Tom is actually more correct on this topic. When we see the moon above us, we are only looking through a few kilometers of the densest atmosphere. When we look toward the horizon, we are looking through the densest part of the atmosphere. I have a big zoom camera lens, and getting clear photos along the horizon is all but impossible. They photos are hazy and even on the clearest days, the random distortion is crazy. And yet at the same time I can point up and get a super-sharp image of the moon.
What Tom didn't mention, is that the decreasing density of atmosphere as you go up (a phenomenon you can verify yourself by hiking to 14k ft.), means that the Earth's atmosphere refracts light - and to varying amounts based on temperature, pressure, and amount of mixing. The effect is that the Earth actually appears a little more flat than it is, and the online sight-line calculators I'm aware of, don't actually accommodate this effect into their math (you can actually see a little farther than they calculate). In fact, if the atmosphere where only about 5% more dense (IIRC), the Earth would appear concave. This fact also means that if the FE theory were correct, it should actually appear concave to us now. (And they would instead be hollow earthers.) But it doesn't.
-
Yet you can make photographs of Moon touching horizon:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/56/b4/7b/56b47b3bbf6d4efac242a0fcddb9256c--moon-setting-lakes.jpg)
Where is all your thick atmosphere? Or Moon is closer than continent beyond the sea? ;D ;D ;D
That's an obviously photoshopped image. Here are some real images (http://www.google.com/search?q=moonrise+horizon+1200mm+tripod&source=lnms&tbm=isch) (mixed in with a few obviously photoshopped ones). I'd share my own telephoto "moon on horizon" photos, but since I sell a few photos on the side for fun, it could give my identity away (no that it would be impossible otherwise). I say this because I have a pretty good idea of how they really look, after staring at countless such photos over the years on large monitors for hours.
And to answer your question, the reason you can see the moon on the horizon is because the Earth is round. You'll notice that the horizon in most of the best "moon on the horizon" photos is pretty close, and the vantage point is from low. Since the Earth is curved, the light from the moon isn't traveling through the densest lower atmosphere for too long - long enough to filter out the blue end of the spectrum, and often distort the shape - depending on how close to the horizon it is. You'll notice that the most striking moon/horizon photos are taken from down low, looking at an upward angle. The lower in the sky the moon, the redder and more distorted. Examples:
(http://www.donsmithblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/July-2014-Supermoon-copy.jpg) (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/58NVmGtJ-FI/maxresdefault.jpg) (http://www.kansascity.com/living/9amzp2/picture1173088/alternates/FREE_640/Hungary%20Moonrise.JPG) (http://m8.i.pbase.com/g6/01/444801/2/75122068.nPrQVjjl.jpg) (https://i2.wp.com/www.pictureboston.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ABestOfPB017-1.jpg?resize=600%2C314) (https://media-ncd.cmgdigital.com/photo/2017/04/10/GettyImages-138600898-RqHRO6NnTXVu5BpdtUJXO1I-680x383_7748802_ver1.0_640_360.jpg)
But if you look at photos of the moon on the horizon from the other way around - from up high, looking down to flatter terrain (or with no foreground obstructions), then you see it more obscured by the atmosphere. Examples (the first one obviously a composite of multiple real shots):
(https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0706/UludagMoonrise_tezel.jpg) (http://www.delvera.co.za/blog/wp-content/uploads/Moon-rising-over-Table-Mountain.jpg) (https://wordlesstech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ocean-Moonrise.jpg)
But even then, the horizon still isn't more than 100 miles away or so. (At 10,000 feet you can see about 120 miles under perfect conditions, give or take. In the FE model, of course.) That's a far cry from being able to see all the way across an ocean (if the Earth were flat.) No matter how low or high you were, the horizon wouldn't be a sharp line - it would disappear into a reddish, warping haze - more or less so depending on conditions - Kind of like the Eastern plains of Colorado do when viewed from the top of Pike's Peak, like so:
(http://www.jsjgeology.net/Pikes-Peak_files/image006.jpg)(http://www.summitdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/HikingGuide-sdn-061817-1-2.jpg)(http://www.bidontravel.com/blog/uploads/IMG_PIKESPEAKCOGview5.jpg)(https://www.cloudhiking.com/assets/images/mountains/mtns/pikes-barr/summit-view.jpg)