Originally posted by josephw
Ha ha! The Bible is of Biblical proportions, and to some it's a conspiracy. Why can't there be another conspiracy of equal or greater proportion?

[b]"If the Earth is indeed flat, why has so much effort been put in to convincing people it isn't?"

I don't know! Have any ideas? 😉[/b]

Because it is not flat, physics 101 would show you that. But of course, now physics is added to the list of banned sciences in the flatasser mind.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Because it is not flat, physics 101 would show you that. But of course, now physics is added to the list of banned sciences in the flatasser mind.

Well, I hope it makes you feel better, but I'm not a flatasser. 😉

I still believe God created everything that exists though! 🙂

Originally posted by josephw
Well, I hope it makes you feel better, but I'm not a flatasser. 😉

I still believe God created everything that exists though! 🙂

Then why do you keep appearing to support other flatassers hanging around here? You have to know they are trolls.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Then why do you keep appearing to support other flatassers hanging around here? You have to know they are trolls.

Jesus sonhouse! I'm just trying to have some fun and maybe learn something I didn't already know. To bad you can't see me laughing at myself while I'm doing it.

No one knows but me when I'm serious and when I'm not. 😉

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If distant objects can be seen, they are not yet below the horizon.

Nasa may indeed be guilty of incidents of lying or exaggeration, to improve its reputation or funding etc. This however has no bearing on the fact that the Earth is a sphere or we have been to the moon. For either of these facts not to be true would require a conspiracy on a bibli ...[text shortened]... . If the Earth is indeed flat, why has so much effort been put in to convincing people it isn't?

If distant objects can be seen, they are not yet below the horizon.
Now you're cooking with gas.
If the formula used to determine the rate of curvature for a sphere is to be trusted (and it's the same one that's been used for time immemorial), a person can only see so far on a sphere.
From the observer's viewpoint, even the most level of surfaces will gradually and continually fall away from his position at consistent rates, relatively-speaking (relative to the shape and contour of the earth, that is).

For instance...
Two people 6' tall are standing on the surface of the ocean.
One remains in place while the other begins moving away from the first, one mile at a time.
In the first two miles, there is little to no visible loss from one person to the other.
By the third mile, there should be a little more than a foot of loss.
By the sixth mile, neither person should be able to see the other person anymore on account of the loss from the curvature.
The 'line' each of them can are able to see on the horizon is the furthest point visible between the surface of the planet and the sky.

Only problem with this (and it's a big one) is experience tells us this is simply not the case.
We are able to see objects which are unquestionably mathematically beyond that horizon as to be rendered out of sight... and yet they are not.

Nasa may indeed be guilty of incidents of lying or exaggeration, to improve its reputation or funding etc.
It is a foregone conclusion that they indeed, have--- no "may be" involved.

This however has no bearing on the fact that the Earth is a sphere or we have been to the moon.
It actually has quite a bit of bearing.
They either tell the truth, or they don't.
The fact that they represent themselves as truth tellers always telling the truth doesn't bode well for any of their claims otherwise.

For either of these facts not to be true would require a conspiracy on a biblical scale, and a conspiracy to boot that serves no purpose.
That's speculation.
It's not unheard of, but it's speculation nonetheless.

My question to you. If the Earth is indeed flat, why has so much effort been put in to convincing people it isn't?
It's a great question, to which I do not have an answer... as it requires speculation.
I try to remain focused only on what I can prove in this matter.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]If distant objects can be seen, they are not yet below the horizon.
Now you're cooking with gas.
If the formula used to determine the rate of curvature for a sphere is to be trusted (and it's the same one that's been used for time immemorial), a person can only see so far on a sphere.
From the observer's viewpoint, even the most level of surfaces ...[text shortened]... .. as it requires speculation.
I try to remain focused only on what I can prove in this matter.[/b]

You have ZERO proof. You only spout crap you think wins an argument. I answered your two big questions but that is not good enough for you, my answers do not fit into your mythology so you reject the answer.

You dis astronomy, physics and every other discipline that proves Earth round. Without a shred of real evidence except your mouthing it.

You say perspective is what makes us unable to see Paris from New York but you know absolutely nothing of optics and the power of telescopes. If Earth was flat, you WOULD be able to see Paris from New York.

You are so far out in left field it is pathological.

Yet I am sure you will post yet another trolling point with yet more verbal diarrhea.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You have ZERO proof. You only spout crap you think wins an argument. I answered your two big questions but that is not good enough for you, my answers do not fit into your mythology so you reject the answer.

You dis astronomy, physics and every other discipline that proves Earth round. Without a shred of real evidence except your mouthing it.

You sa ...[text shortened]... gical.

Yet I am sure you will post yet another trolling point with yet more verbal diarrhea.

In the verbal diarrhea category, you've cornered the commode.

You have no answer for the visibility of distant objects other than one that doesn't fit reality.
Your claim of refraction of light doesn't hold water, and is otherwise inapplicable to the countless scenarios present literally every day.
Of course, you know this, but you continue to assert it anyway.
That's textbook mythology, if you think about it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In the verbal diarrhea category, you've cornered the commode.

You have no answer for the visibility of distant objects other than one that doesn't fit reality.
Your claim of refraction of light doesn't hold water, and is otherwise inapplicable to the countless scenarios present literally every day.
Of course, you know this, but you continue to assert it anyway.
That's textbook mythology, if you think about it.

Like I said, more of the same. We should be able to see Paris from NYC with a telescope. BTW, you don't even know how to characterize a telescope.

The Hubble has a resolution of 0.05 arc seconds or 50 milli-arc seconds. That allows it to split a circle into about 25 million slices so if you consider a circle 25 million miles in circumference the resolution would be 1 mile, it would be able to see an object 1 mile across at about 4 million miles out.

That scope has a 2 meter wide mirror and amateur scopes about 1/10 that.

So pound for pound, a 200 mm scope would have a resolution about 1/2 arc second, 500 milli arc seconds.

That would mean at the same distance, 4 million miles, it would see an object about 10 miles across if the atmosphere allows.

So at 4000 miles it could see an object .01 mile across, or about 50 feet.

So on a flat Earth, an amateur telescope WOULD see paris from NYC.

You can forget about that EVER happening, even if the Hubble was on ground level, on Earth on top of the new trade center building in NYC, it would NEVER be able to see anything in Paris. If Earth was flat, that scope would have a resolution of about 5 feet.

There are scopes on top of mountains with even more resolution now than Hubble, giants 10+ meter sized mirrors with better than hubble resolution and some of them have been aimed at the horizon and saw only one thing: The horizon, nothing further unless there was some atmospheric effect extending the view some.

Even without a scope, we would see the LIGHTS of Paris from NYC at night.

That NEVER happens no matter what the atmosphere does to light, it can't refract thousands of miles away.

That only happens with radio signals which DO get refracted at such extreme distances by interacting with the ionosphere.

There are radio wavelengths that get ducted by the lower atmosphere too but maybe a thousand miles max not 4 or 5 thousand miles.

But it is ducted by the atmosphere and light can do the same but to a much more limited extent.

That is the fact of the matter and no amount of mealy mouth denials can change that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Like I said, more of the same. We should be able to see Paris from NYC with a telescope. BTW, you don't even know how to characterize a telescope.

The Hubble has a resolution of 0.05 arc seconds or 50 milli-arc seconds. That allows it to split a circle into about 25 million slices so if you consider a circle 25 million miles in circumference the resolu ...[text shortened]... extent.

That is the fact of the matter and no amount of mealy mouth denials can change that.

By your own admission, light doesn't act the same.
Whatever.
No matter how powerful the telescope, I've yet to see one with ability to pierce clouds, fog or smog.
At the horizon during a spectacular sunrise or sunset, do you think the clouds are just a few feet above the surface of the earth?
Of course not!
Ranging from >6,500' to upwards of 45,000', from our perspective, they appear to be very near the surface.
That's a vanishing point impact.
The further one sees, the more the fusing of earth with sky.
If a telescope were actually out of our atmosphere, it would not be limited by that phenomenon... but it still can't see through clouds!

It's funny, your fixation on Paris from NY: it's as though surely at THAT distance, the curvature will come into play.
You know, because the points are soooo far apart.
Yet you ignore other points which are also too far apart to see one from the other... at least according to all calculations.
Instead of 'focusing' on what is impossible optically, focus on what is impossible mathematically.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
By your own admission, light doesn't act the same.
Whatever.
No matter how powerful the telescope, I've yet to see one with ability to pierce clouds, fog or smog.
At the horizon during a spectacular sunrise or sunset, do you think the clouds are just a few feet above the surface of the earth?
Of course not!
Ranging from >6,500' to upwards of 45,000 ...[text shortened]... stead of 'focusing' on what is impossible optically, focus on what is impossible mathematically.

You just don't get it. If there was a clear sky to Paris, just an example, you WOULD see it in a telescope IF Earth was flat and you would see the lights even if the clouds were there and on the ISS at night they see stuff in line of sight but not over the curvature of Earth and there is very little in the way of atmosphere 250 miles up. No lights from around the world EVER. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can get off this obsession and join the real world.

Not going to continue this for now, found out wife has cancer so this is the end of this for a few weeks at least.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You just don't get it. If there was a clear sky to Paris, just an example, you WOULD see it in a telescope IF Earth was flat and you would see the lights even if the clouds were there and on the ISS at night they see stuff in line of sight but not over the curvature of Earth and there is very little in the way of atmosphere 250 miles up. No lights from arou ...[text shortened]... nue this for now, found out wife has cancer so this is the end of this for a few weeks at least.

The earth being flat is not as important as taking care of your wife.
My thoughts are with you and your family.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You just don't get it. If there was a clear sky to Paris, just an example, you WOULD see it in a telescope IF Earth was flat and you would see the lights even if the clouds were there and on the ISS at night they see stuff in line of sight but not over the curvature of Earth and there is very little in the way of atmosphere 250 miles up. No lights from arou ...[text shortened]... nue this for now, found out wife has cancer so this is the end of this for a few weeks at least.

Sorry to hear that. Hope everything goes ok.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sorry to hear that. Hope everything goes ok.

Thanks, there is some positive in it, they may be able to get it all at one time, no metastasizing. That is the hope anyway.