18 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHUnder normal conditions the horizon is about 2.7 nautical miles away. At 1,000 ft one can see about 33 nautical miles. At 10,000 about 106 nautical miles. This factors in both curvature and refraction effects in the atmosphere. If visibility isn't that good then one won't be able to see all the way to the horizon. What you are saying is not true. If the earth were flat the only limits to the distance one could see at any level is obstructions and visibility. In fact, since light is refracted back down from distant objects the earth should appear slightly concave, but it does not.
No, you got it wrong again.
The amount of earth between the observer and the horizon would be limited, due to the curvature.
Instead, we see an extension of the amount of visible earth between the observer and the horizon--- far beyond where the curvature would come into play.
You're not getting the phenomenology of a flat earth right and you are claiming empirical effects that just aren't there.
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat the FAA manual says does not support your position.
The only 'we' thought ought to be a concern is the 'we' herein who continues to argue the points which are completely supported by outside sources... including the FAA among other authorities.
But don't let that get in the way of your fun.
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't understand why so many of you think this a flat earth argument. Freaky recently mentioned something about the curvature of the earth. If he IS a flat earther he's the ONLY one I've ever seen or heard say anything about the earths curvature...
Under normal conditions the horizon is about 2.7 nautical miles away. At 1,000 ft one can see about 33 nautical miles. At 10,000 about 106 nautical miles. This factors in both curvature and refraction effects in the atmosphere. If visibility isn't that good then one won't be able to see all the way to the horizon. What you are saying is not true. I ...[text shortened]... enomenology of a flat earth right and you are claiming empirical effects that just aren't there.
Unless perhaps you believe he thinks it's a bent flat disk?
Originally posted by lemon limeYes, FreakyKBH mentioned "curvature of the earth" recently. One instance was here:
I don't understand why so many of you think this a flat earth argument. Freaky recently mentioned something about the curvature of the earth. If he IS a flat earther he's the ONLY one I've ever seen or heard say anything about the earths curvature...
Unless perhaps you believe he thinks it's a [b]bent flat disk?[/b]
"With the curvature of the earth, the horizon ought not to extend indefinitely; at a certain point it would necessarily fall off any available view and below the horizon.
What we see instead, however, is that an increase in altitude only increases the depth of view to the horizon--- which is why it remains at eye level, even in planes traveling at 33,000 feet above sea level." --FreakyKBH
You ought to be able to see that this has the following structure:
"If A were true, we ought to observe X. Instead we observe not-X".
The implication, of course, is that this is supposed to count against A being true, where here A = the earth has curvature.
That should clear up your confusion.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYour summary was in error, and I have not disagreed with my own claims.No, you got it wrong again.
Oh, you mean I got it wrong when I simply summarized your own statement back to you? Apparently, not even you agree with your own claims.
Do you have a further meta-point to be made beyond this charade of pretending to present evidence that the earth is not well-approximated as an oblate spheroid?
To assert that "not even you agree with your own claims" is akin to the same complaint that a person cannot have faith in something which they do not hold to exist.
Instead, you're inferring that somehow the message has been muddled.
Fail again, since it is apparent that everyone here is arguing against the thing I am asserting.
They cannot argue against it if it isn't presented, now can they?
And that message is this: the horizon which remains at the observer's eye level regardless of elevation requires surface which does not curve away from the observer.
For a 6' person standing on the shore looking across a relatively calm body of water, that horizon under normal conditions appears to be nearly three miles out.
He will be able to see the equivalent amount of earth between him and that point.
However, the curvature would represent nearly his entire height over that span of earth: if his twin were standing in a boat looking back to shore, neither would be able to observe the other 2.9 miles away as the curvature would mean they are each below the other person's eye level.
So even at this point, the most rudimentary consideration, there's already a problem.
If the true horizon is that apparent line where the earth and sky are divided, how is either observer able to see a line formed at that vanishing point where earth and sky are divided, but the earth part is already 6' below their eye level?
It only gets worse with elevation, since the earth is curving down and away from every observer exponentially, yet an increase in altitude affords each and every observer a horizon further and further away.
By the time the observer makes his way to Mt. Everest, his horizon--- at eye level--- is ~209 miles away in any direction.
Here, those objects on his horizon are ~5.5 miles below his eye level... and yet there the horizon sits, eye level where earth and sky are divided.
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you have a further meta-point to be made beyond this charade of pretending to present evidence that the earth is not well-approximated as an oblate spheroid?
Your summary was in error, and I have not disagreed with my own claims.
To assert that "not even you agree with your own claims" is akin to the same complaint that a person cannot have faith in something which they do not hold to exist.
Instead, you're inferring that somehow the message has been muddled.
Fail again, since it is apparent that everyone ...[text shortened]... elow his eye level... and yet there the horizon sits, eye level where earth and sky are divided.
18 Nov 15
This is so easy to visualize it almost pains me to explain it... if I could literally draw a large circle here with little stick men standing on different points of that circle, it would be readily apparent where their eyes appear to be looking (line of sight). 🙂
By the way... was that smily face looking to the left of you, to the right of you, or directly at you?
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeI don't think he believes in a flat earth, he's producing arguments to attempt to show it's empirically reasonable. The problem is he's got the phenomenology of a flat earth, a spherical earth, and the actual earth wrong and the argument isn't viable.
I don't understand why so many of you think this a flat earth argument. Freaky recently mentioned something about the curvature of the earth. If he IS a flat earther he's the ONLY one I've ever seen or heard say anything about the earths curvature...
Unless perhaps you believe he thinks it's a [b]bent flat disk?[/b]
It's not absolutely clear to me what he means by "eye level", which should simply mean the height of the eyes - but he seems to be using it to mean looking at the astronomical horizon (looking at a tangent to the earth's surface). If that is the case then he's equivocating as the true horizon is the most distant point at ground level that can been seen from a given vantage point, so one is looking in a slightly different direction.
He was trying some kind of rhetorical trick to make a point but it's just utterly misfired as the whole thing's got lost in this failed defence of evidence for a flat earth theory.
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThat's all well and good (except for the errors), but what does that have to do with the quoted text?
Under normal conditions the horizon is about 2.7 nautical miles away. At 1,000 ft one can see about 33 nautical miles. At 10,000 about 106 nautical miles. This factors in both curvature and refraction effects in the atmosphere. If visibility isn't that good then one won't be able to see all the way to the horizon. What you are saying is not true. I ...[text shortened]... enomenology of a flat earth right and you are claiming empirical effects that just aren't there.
No one is debating the impact imperfect conditions have on the ability to see over great distances.
However, the quoted text to which your post is attached referred to how far one can see to their elevation-dependent horizon and how much the earth is said to be curving down and away from their position.
A 6' person standing on the shore is able to see a maximum of 2.9 miles of surface up to that vanishing point known as the horizon.
The issue, as I've pointed out, is there is nearly 6' of drop between him and that point--- so the dividing line is representative of a surface that is below his eye level.
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'm sorry, but I still don't see why this necessarily must be a flat earth argument. It seems obvious to me that all of those stick men standing 'straight up' (not leaning forward or backward) on the surface of a large circle would all be looking (from their particular position) at the horizon.
I don't think he believes in a flat earth, he's producing arguments to attempt to show it's empirically reasonable. The problem is he's got the phenomenology of a flat earth, a spherical earth, and the actual earth wrong and the argument isn't viable.
It's not absolutely clear to me what he means by "eye level", which should simply mean the height of ...[text shortened]... sfired as the whole thing's got lost in this failed defence of evidence for a flat earth theory.