[IwillprovetheGlobe]

Here I am to discuss the flat earth.
I am a religious, aeronautical engineer who's up for a discussion. I am hoping to convince flat earthers that this theory is wrong.

If you can't prove anymore and you're left with the globe, either ask someone for help or accept the fact that the government doesn't lie to you.
This is not a game about pride.

Many YouTube videos (of which some of you aren't proud) try to give proof of the flat earth. Many explanations contradict each other so here I am asking you guys in person.

Starting with:
How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?
Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?

If you say that there's too much air in between: the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.

[Bikini Polaris]

You're taking the wrong approach, anyway:

FE is a proven theory and FEs do understand that if governments are lying, is because there's a good reason for that. Perspective denies seeing what you mention. Cities are highly illuminated and that's a possible reason for the effect that you mention (but that you don't prove or provide evidence)

[IwillprovetheGlobe]

You're taking the wrong approach, anyway:

FE is a proven theory and FEs do understand that if governments are lying, is because there's a good reason for that. Perspective denies seeing what you mention. Cities are highly illuminated and that's a possible reason for the effect that you mention (but that you don't prove or provide evidence)

You gave reason for half my question. I don't care about your opinions about the government to be clear, just the physical theories. So I'll ask the question again.
And if this us the wrong approach, explain what would be a right one.

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia?

And come on, I don't have to send you a picture to support this question do I?

[iamcpc]

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia?

Because there is a limit to how far light can travel through the air. That distance is above the upper limit of the number of miles that light can travel through the atmosphere.

[stack]

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia?

Because there is a limit to how far light can travel through the air. That distance is above the upper limit of the number of miles that light can travel through the atmosphere.

I would argue against the notion that there is a limit, or that a limit would be reached by simply Indonesia to Nepal a mere 3000 miles +/- or so in distance. I can see Polaris on or near the horizon at night from my location. And according to common FE lore, it's a smidge more than 3000 miles away from me. The 'limit on how far light can travel' thing doesn't work.

Now there may be other explanations, but that is not one of them.

[Pete Svarrior]

it's a smidge more than 3000 miles away from me

Why do RE'ers keep getting the basics wrong after being here for so long? You know, things like "it's probably not safe to assume that the vacuum of space does not have the same optical properties as air and/or obstacles on the Earth"?

This isn't an FE problem, this is a "you forgot to think" problem. "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect" - this is nonsense regardless of which model you prefer to subscribe to.

As for the OP - pipe down. You're not the final boss of the Internet. Nobody will "dare" to debate you like making a post on our own forum would be some super spooky feat. If you have a questions, put on a big smile and ask them. You might get the answers you seek, or maybe you won't. Social interactions are a great thing.

Oh, and start with the FAQ. You won't make much headway if you don't know the first thing about how light behaves in FET.

[totallackey]

Here I am to discuss the flat earth.

How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?

Several reasons. Primarily air quality prohibits visual acuity exceeding approximately 350 km in a straight line.

Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?

No, this is just flat out wrong.

If you say that there's too much air in between:

There is no such thing as "too much air in between."

The amount air in between is going to be the amount air in between, regardless of personal opinion.

... the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.

Again, it is strictly about air quality.

[IwillprovetheGlobe]

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia?

Because there is a limit to how far light can travel through the air. That distance is above the upper limit of the number of miles that light can travel through the atmosphere.

Then how can you see the moon/sun while those are also around that far away?

[IwillprovetheGlobe]

Here I am to discuss the flat earth.

How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?

Several reasons. Primarily air quality prohibits visual acuity exceeding approximately 350 km in a straight line.

Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?

No, this is just flat out wrong.

If you say that there's too much air in between:

There is no such thing as "too much air in between."

The amount air in between is going to be the amount air in between, regardless of personal opinion.

... the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.

Again, it is strictly about air quality.

Then how can you see the moon/sun while those are also around that far away?

[totallackey]

Here I am to discuss the flat earth.

How come that you don't see the Mount Everest when standing on the leftmost island of Indonesia?

Several reasons. Primarily air quality prohibits visual acuity exceeding approximately 350 km in a straight line.

Light bouncing of the mountain couldn't be stopped right?

No, this is just flat out wrong.

If you say that there's too much air in between:

There is no such thing as "too much air in between."

The amount air in between is going to be the amount air in between, regardless of personal opinion.

... the same can be said about cities just miles apart while airplanes even further away can be seen.

Good luck.

Again, it is strictly about air quality.

Then how can you see the moon/sun while those are also around that far away?

You can see the moon and sun, but always?

Tonight, the air quality over my head was such that you could not see the moon.

Right now, I cannot see the Sun due to air quality.

[IwillprovetheGlobe]

You can see the moon and sun, but always?

Tonight, the air quality over my head was such that you could not see the moon.

Right now, I cannot see the Sun due to air quality.
[/quote]

Still when it's day, the sun and moon are 3000 miles above the surface according to your theory. So please explain why we cant see mount Everest from further than ~350 miles with the same conditions, day time.

[ChrisTP]

You can see the moon and sun, but always?

Tonight, the air quality over my head was such that you could not see the moon.

Right now, I cannot see the Sun due to air quality.

Still when it's day, the sun and moon are 3000 miles above the surface according to your theory. So please explain why we cant see mount Everest from further than ~350 miles with the same conditions, day time.
[/quote]to be fair, on a round earth you also cant see that far horizontally on some days but can still see the sun/moon vertically. Sometimes the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth.

[Pete Svarrior]

Sometimes the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth.

"Sometimes"? You're probably looking for something more along the lines of "Virtually all the time, with only rare exceptions"

[ChrisTP]

Sometimes the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth.

"Sometimes"? You're probably looking for something more along the lines of "Virtually all the time, with only rare exceptions"

I mean, sure. I agree.

Sometimes sometimes means some of the times which may or may not be most or barely any of the times. Sorry for my wording but I think my point still stands;

"Most of the time the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth."

Would you disagree? I'm basically saying that because I can see the sun in the sky on a foggy day and can't see a city a mile away, I can't simply conclude the world is x shape.

That said though if the sun/moon was visible on the horizon it's a more interesting question for sure.

[IwillprovetheGlobe]

Sometimes the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth.

"Sometimes"? You're probably looking for something more along the lines of "Virtually all the time, with only rare exceptions"

I mean, sure. I agree.

Sometimes sometimes means some of the times which may or may not be most or barely any of the times. Sorry for my wording but I think my point still stands;

"Most of the time the visibility lower to earth is just poor in comparison. That's not to say that it means we live on a flat earth though, obviously... Just that it's not the best way to define the shape of the earth."

Would you disagree? I'm basically saying that because I can see the sun in the sky on a foggy day and can't see a city a mile away, I can't simply conclude the world is x shape.

That said though if the sun/moon was visible on the horizon it's a more interesting question for sure.

Exactly! thanks I will put your argument in my question as this debunks the travel limit of light through air.:

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

Can anyone answer?

[iamcpc]

Then how can you see the moon/sun while those are also around that far away?

Because the atmosphere is much more dense and much more full of particulates closer to the surface of the earth. The number of air, water, dust, pollen, smoke, and other molecules that light has to travel through when looking horizontally are MUCH MUCH higher than when looking up.

[somerled]

[/quote]

Exactly! thanks I will put your argument in my question as this debunks the travel limit of light through air.:

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

Can anyone answer?
[/quote]

[Pete Svarrior]

For the record: ChrisTP, we're saying the same thing, and my only objection is that you were perhaps not stressing it enough. It's a very minor disagreement as things go

[stack]

it's a smidge more than 3000 miles away from me

Why do RE'ers keep getting the basics wrong after being here for so long? You know, things like "it's probably not safe to assume that the vacuum of space does not have the same optical properties as air and/or obstacles on the Earth"?

It's wildly unclear what the "basics" may be under the Flat Earth paradigm; they are quite varied with little agreement. For one, the concept of 'Space' seems to be quite nebulous and in many flat earth discussions is considered a realm that just doesn't exist. So it's difficult to assume the optical properties of space are different than that of nearer surface when space may or may be a part of the theory.

This isn't an FE problem, this is a "you forgot to think" problem. "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect" - this is nonsense regardless of which model you prefer to subscribe to.

I disagree. This is a "you forgot to think about what I wrote" problem. I never said, "I can see stars therefore visibility on the Earth is perfect". I merely stated that I can see Polaris on or near the horizon, meaning through all of the atmospheric murkiness that is near earth. And Polaris is quite a distance from me. One could argue, why can't I see other objects on or near the horizon at that considerable distance, or even less, yet still farther than actually observed.

[IwillprovetheGlobe]

Then how can you see the moon/sun while those are also around that far away?

Because the atmosphere is much more dense and much more full of particulates closer to the surface of the earth. The number of air, water, dust, pollen, smoke, and other molecules that light has to travel through when looking horizontally are MUCH MUCH higher than when looking up.

Yet you can see the sun and moon set.