[Nexius]

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.

You're right that vacuums have different optical properties compared to air, that's also the reason why light can travel uninterrupted through space, whereas in air light gets reflected and diffracted by dust particles and other junk in the atmosphere. In rural areas/deserts with no light pollution I can almost see the faint milky way with my naked eyes.

[Hants]

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.

So isn't the air quality bad when you want to see the Sun too and not only the Everest? Or is it the air that covers your head different from the one which makes Everest invisible from Indonesia?

[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.

So isn't the air quality bad when you want to see the Sun too and not only the Everest? Or is it the air that covers your head different from the one which makes Everest invisible from Indonesia?

It could be.

Everest does not emit its own light, for one.

The fact of the matter is, even if you offer some object that does emit light, the lumens would not rival that of the Sun.

[Storm]

I'll throw in my hat.

It's all about dimensions, distance, perspective and the limitations of the 'design' of the human eye.

The size/dimensions of the object you are trying to see, the distance that it is from your eyes, your physical perspective/position in space relative to that object (not to mention 'mental perspective': beliefs, etc.) and the limitations of the human eye.

If you look at an ant on the ground while standing upright, it looks very small and hard to make out. If you bring your eyes down closer to the ant, or the ant up to your eyes, it 'appears' larger and more detail comes into view.

Fleas have fleas. It's a fact. Just because we can't see them with the naked eye, doesn't mean they don't exist.

A hawk can see mice and insects from very high in the sky. This is because its eyes are 'designed' with a zoom/magnification capability. Nocturnal animals can see better in the night because their eyes are 'designed' with better night vision capabilities; more reflective retinas, specialized rods and cones, etc.

The human eye is limited in its capabilities when it comes to distance and light detection, etc.

The horizon is always at eye-level no matter how you orient your body or where you are in space; on/near the ground or high in the sky. This fact, alone, is one of the rock-solid proofs of Flat Earth. I have always found Flat Earth easier to grasp if imagined as a 'Plane' of existence. Forget everything you've ever imagined about space, 'planets', etc. If you imagine a 'dimension' that is Flat, endlessly extending in all directions, it helps a lot to understand how Flat Earth works.

If an object on the ground (vehicle, building) moves far enough away from you, it appears to shrink and rise to the horizon line before completely disappearing from view. This doesn't mean it actually rises or actually disappears. Same with the sunset. Any object in the sky, including stars, that move far enough from where you are located 'appear' to shrink, move downward toward the horizon and, ultimately, disappear. This accounts for the dynamics of how we perceive sunset as well as how the star Polaris appears closer to the horizon when viewed from different points on the Earth.

It has been proven many times that if you take a very powerful optic and look at the horizon you will see objects that were previously invisible to the naked eye. Objects that 'appeared' to move down behind the curvature of the Earth come into plain view, proving they were there all along.

Mt. Everest is approximately 3300 miles from the area of Indonesia that you are referring to. The portion of it that you would be able to see over all the geographic obstructions between it and Indonesia is about 3 miles wide. If you were to use a telescopic device powerful enough to see that far, you would see it. So when you consider the size of that target, its distance from the observer and the limitations of your human eyes, you have your answer.

References to the visibility of the sun and moon can be answered using this same formula. Flat Earth Theory puts those bodies at roughly 35 MILES wide, give or take. So it is clear how they are visible from that distance. Also significant is their complete lack of obstructions between them and the viewer.

{Just a little added nugget to chew on...
(The Hubble telescope technology was not designed for, nor ever intended to be used in, space. It was designed for, and has been used ever since, for surveillance of our world from very high in the sky. One of the well-guarded secrets of the Flat Earth is that it is the perfect shape for surveillance from the sky. With a powerful enough optic, like Hubble technology, you can see every single point on the Earth with incredible clarity, down to the letters on a paper document. You can then record that video feed 24/7, 365 and go back to any day/time and see any event, anywhere, from the moment you began recording forward.)}

I hope this helps a little.

[iamcpc]

Do you mind linking the source of where you got that from?

http://gravitationalballoon.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-far-can-light-travel-in-endless.html

If there was such a limit, then how can we see stars that are billions of miles away from us?

because the light traveling between a star to my eye is traveling through like 7-8 miles of atmosphere and 2983749238749238749837 miles of vacuum. Of that 8 miles of atmosphere like 5 miles of it us upper layers of the atmosphere which are not very dense. so really it's only traveling through like 1-2 miles of the dense lower troposphere.

Light traveling between New York and mount Everest would have to be traveling through 7,500 miles of the dense lower troposphere.

The reason we can't see mount everest is because of curvature, as well as clouds, mist etc.

The reason we can't see mount everest is because of clouds, mist etc.

clouds/mist/etc. is also known at the ATMOSPHERE

[Tumeni]

The horizon is always at eye-level no matter how you orient your body or where you are in space; on/near the ground or high in the sky. This fact, alone, is one of the rock-solid proofs of Flat Earth.

If I stand onshore at 100m, and look out to sea, at a ship of 58m height above its waterline, then where is "eye level"?  Is it at 100m? That would place it 42m above the ship, wouldn't it? So I should see the horizon above the highest point of the ship, almost at double the height of the ship? 

[Storm]

The horizon is always at eye-level no matter how you orient your body or where you are in space; on/near the ground or high in the sky. This fact, alone, is one of the rock-solid proofs of Flat Earth.

If I stand onshore at 100m, and look out to sea, at a ship of 58m height above its waterline, then where is "eye level"?  Is it at 100m? That would place it 42m above the ship, wouldn't it? So I should see the horizon above the highest point of the ship, almost at double the height of the ship?

Actually, no.

The whole point is that you would see that ship, 'IF' it were on the horizon, at YOUR eye-level, regardless of whether you were at 100m or 1000m. That is because you are on a 'PLANE'. Not a spherical 'planet'.

If you were on a sphere, the horizon line would appear to drop, or appear lower in YOUR view, as your altitude increased. This is NOT what happens. No matter how high you are in the sky, the horizon ALWAYS, without fail, appears at YOUR eye-level.

This is a fact that has been observed for thousands of years and taught to every art student that has ever learned how to recreate horizon line or line of delineation in a drawing or painting. It is ALWAYS, without fail, PERFECTLY FLAT and extending into infinity. Everything in your perspective moves toward that line from all angles as its distance increases until it appears to shrink and disappear from view.

Google Horizon Lines and Lines of Delineation in Art, or you could research the topic in books in the library. It is a concept that is very old and never been in debate or challenged in any way.

[Tumeni]

The whole point is that you would see that ship, 'IF' it were on the horizon, at YOUR eye-level, regardless of whether you were at 100m or 1000m. That is because you are on a 'PLANE'. Not a spherical 'planet'.

.... but it wasn't "on" the horizon. It was far, far nearer.

If you were on a sphere, the horizon line would appear to drop, or appear lower in YOUR view, as your altitude increased. This is NOT what happens.

Yes, it is. 

No matter how high you are in the sky, the horizon ALWAYS, without fail, appears at YOUR eye-level.

No, it does not. Ready with examples if or when you want to see them.

This is a fact that has been observed for thousands of years and taught to every art student that has ever learned how to recreate horizon line or line of delineation in a drawing or painting. It is ALWAYS, without fail, PERFECTLY FLAT and extending into infinity. Everything in your perspective moves toward that line from all angles as its distance increases until it appears to shrink and disappear from view.

Yes, but you - the observer - are not obliged to look directly along those lines. You can look up, down, left or right. Again, examples ready for if or when you want to see them.

[ChrisTP]

This is a fact that has been observed for thousands of years and taught to every art student that has ever learned how to recreate horizon line or line of delineation in a drawing or painting. It is ALWAYS, without fail, PERFECTLY FLAT and extending into infinity. Everything in your perspective moves toward that line from all angles as its distance increases until it appears to shrink and disappear from view.

Google Horizon Lines and Lines of Delineation in Art, or you could research the topic in books in the library. It is a concept that is very old and never been in debate or challenged in any way.

Don't misunderstand artist interpretations for reality. It has nothing to do with what 'eye level' is. Horizon lines in perspective drawings can be literally anywhere on the page, doesn't even equate to standing and looking out at a perfectly level angle from 4-7 feet off the ground.

Here's a fun test, find a high up place like a cliff somewhere along a shoreline, place a toilet roll on a tripod of some kind that you can adjust, put a spirit level attached to the toilet role with tape or anything else and get the roll perfectly level, then look through the roll out to sea. Does the water line go perfectly through the middle of the view?

*you can just attach a spirit level to a telescope which would be better but if you're poor then anyone can do with a tube of some kind.

*be sure it's a clear day where you can see an obvious break between water and sky

[iamcpc]

The horizon is always at eye-level no matter how you orient your body or where you are in space; on/near the ground or high in the sky. This fact, alone, is one of the rock-solid proofs of Flat Earth.

If I stand onshore at 100m, and look out to sea, at a ship of 58m height above its waterline, then where is "eye level"?  Is it at 100m? That would place it 42m above the ship, wouldn't it? So I should see the horizon above the highest point of the ship, almost at double the height of the ship?

This has been largely debunked yet people still hold on to it. What really weakens the FE theories is that there is no FE idea or concept that a majority of the FE community can agree on. Even Tom Bishop has acknowledged that there are variables which can affect if the horizon is at eye level.




The famous sunk bay time lapse picture

1:32 PM at 64.7 degrees the opposite shore is visible.
1:41 PM at 64.9 degrees the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.

this is very strong evidence that the horizon is not always at eye level.


Here is another video:


you can hold your finger on the horizon and watch that the horizon is not always at "eye level"


Heres another demonstration of the horizon not being at eye level



and another

[Tumeni]

If I stand onshore at 100m, and look out to sea, at a ship of 58m height above its waterline, then where is "eye level"?  Is it at 100m? That would place it 42m above the ship, wouldn't it? So I should see the horizon above the highest point of the ship, almost at double the height of the ship?

Actually, no.

The whole point is that you would see that ship, 'IF' it were on the horizon, at YOUR eye-level, regardless of whether you were at 100m or 1000m.

Storm; which, if any, of these ships is "on" the horizon?

1 -



2 -



3 -



4 - (choice of 4)

[Storm]

I'll comment once more on this particular exchange because I don't see any constructive progress taking place, here.

Tumeni, I can't see how any of the images or videos you've posted refute anything that I stated in my original post at all.
(Reply #43)

1. I was referring to looking at objects in the distance with 'the naked eye.'

2. I'm not even sure we're in agreement about what, exactly, eye-level means.

3. I never presented anything about any ships doing anything, that was your contribution. I was strictly referring to horizon and eye-level and even expounded by referencing the limitations of the human eye.

To be honest, most of those images contribute to proving 'my' point about horizon and eye-level.

If somebody can't go out and try the examples I described and make the same observations that I, and 'many' others, have, that's perfectly fine.

Some people desperately 'need' the Earth to be round. Nobody gains anything among their fellow man when they discover that the Earth is actually flat, and it all becomes an uphill battle from there on out. So nobody, in their right mind, would 'choose' to believe in the Flat Earth....just to be different.

Truth is a heavy burden and a lifelong responsibility.

[Tumeni]

I'll comment once more on this particular exchange because I don't see any constructive progress taking place, here.

No need to be snippy. What were you expecting? That everyone would roll over and agree with you? Before you had posted four times? Really?

Tumeni, I can't see how any of the images or videos you've posted refute anything that I stated in my original post at all.
(Reply #43)

I introduced the ship scenario. You said "if the ship was ON the horizon", to which I said it was not. These examples are not a refutation of what you said, they are to establish a starting point, to establish what YOU think of as "on the horizon". If you want to stop here, that's fine, but don't take a high and mighty "nobody here is making any constructive progress" attitood.....

1. I was referring to looking at objects in the distance with 'the naked eye.'

I looked at the example I'm referring to with my naked eye, and saw exactly what I captured with my telephoto lens. I saw it through my binoculars, too.... same thing seen in all cases

2. I'm not even sure we're in agreement about what, exactly, eye-level means.

Which is why I'm trying to establish what you mean by it.

To be honest, most of those images contribute to proving 'my' point about horizon and eye-level.

How do they do that?

If somebody can't go out and try the examples I described and make the same observations that I, and 'many' others, have, that's perfectly fine.

If you can't even look at the examples which I have gathered, why should I or we "go out" and try your examples?

[Tumeni]

I'll comment once more on this particular exchange because I don't see any constructive progress taking place, here.

It's been less than 6 hours since your first post ....

[Storm]

Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....



...yessir. Straight from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range

Mountain in the foreground is Mt. Rainier in Washington State. Mountains in the background, from left to right, are Adams, Hood and St. Helens.

But wait!!!.....That's impossible!!

Mount Hood is almost a HUNDRED miles from Mount Rainier!!

Science tells us the earth is 25,000 miles in diameter and that the curvature drops 8 inches per mile squared!! We couldn't POSSIBLY see Mount Hood from Mount Rainier!!

--------

Per Wikipedia: Mt. Rainier is 80 miles wide.....hmmm....no curve there anywhere in the image left to right AT ALL. Wiki says it's 700 miles long North to South....nope....no visible curve there. And Mt. St. Helens is 34 miles from Mt. Hood....that's strange.....there's absolutely NO curve between those mountains, EITHER!!!

Maybe it has something to do with where that ol' nasty ship is sitting on the horizon, or OOPS, NOT on the horizon I mean. SORRY!

I know what it is..........it's that dadgum red-liquid rain guage that's boogered things up so good. Drats!! Foiled again!

[Tumeni]

So, you're not going to deal with what I said/asked, and you're going to log-jump to something TOTALLY different, is that it?

Gish-gallop all over. 

What height was the photo taken from? All discussion is meaningless without that.

[Storm]

Now, these, here, can't possibly exist.

These are Moon-blooming flowers. Yep, they ONLY bloom in moonlight.







Yeah, so what?

Well, these flowers will only bloom in moonlight and will completely close if any sunlight touches them. This proves the Biblical description that the sun and moon give their 'OWN' light. Thus, further proving the Flat Earth model of the enclosed world.

Look up these flowers online and look up these Bible verses.

Genesis 1:14-18; Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24; Isaiah 13:10;

[stack]

Here's an impossible image, guys and gals.....

Not at all impossible, more than possible. Seems to be just fine on a globe not really knowing what the exact altitude of the observer is:

[Tumeni]

So, I ask Storm to clarify base assumptions, to find common ground to work from, based on observations, and;

Here's a picture of a mountain. Explain that.
and
Here's some flowers, explain sunlight vs. moonlight


Classic unfocused gish-gallop.

[Storm]

For anybody who lives near the DFW area of Texas, downtown Fort Worth can be seen plain as day from 18 miles away at the TRE parking lot near Trinity and 360.

At that distance, all of the shortest buildings should be almost completely obscured by the curvature of the Earth,....according to science, that is.

Anybody living in that area, check it out for yourself.

And here is a shot of Dallas AND Fort Worth in the same image, almost 30 miles apart. LOOK AT ALL THAT CURVE!!



You can also see this from Interstate 20 and Spur 408 in the Cedar Hill area.

Go look, go look! The curve is bewildering!!

That's what you call an Empirical Experiment that you can see with your own eyes and NOBODY can tell you otherwise.

See, Flat Earth is FUN!!