• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


payne said:
Be class if we could calculate this to find out what atmospheric density or atmospheric crush appears at a certain elevation or distance. Maybe a scale diagram with pinpoint data using an unhindered set of rules.

Like everything you post it's vague and without detail. You basically say it every post.
Click to expand...
It has been at the back of my mind to work out but it will not be a straight forward thing.

If you assume the density of the atmosphere is constant looking horizontal then you can estimate how much atmosphere you look through when looking at a certain distance. If you elevate and it is less (it really isn't much less, but lets to with the 'theory') then looking horizontal you can shuffle the calculation to work out how far you should be able to see looking exactly horizontally by working out how much atmosphere you should see through to have looked through 'the same amount of stuff' as on sea level. That should be further, but unless there is something really high there is nothing to see.

Now if you look down towards the horizon, you are looking diagonally, which is a longer distance. Flattards claim that you look through less atmosphere overall because you are starting at a less dense point. The changing density of the atmosphere seemingly makes no difference though. Odd that.

If you imagine it sliced into 3 layers then you can calculate how much stuff you look through from each layer. But if you slice it into 5 layers you will get an even more accurate calculation. 7 will be more accurate still and so on. How much do you slice it up before you have a reliable and accurate answer? It is exactly this sort of problem that calculus was invented for.

It will be a waste of time. I'll not convince him and he will just say "that is a very nice story but" or call it "magical maths". He can't understand the most basic trigonometry I've posted, so diving into calculus has no chance. On the other side of the argument, we all know it is bollocks. An interesting bit of maths to play one day, but ultimately one to model a fantasy land and nobody actually cares about the end numbers.
payne said:
I think he's so brainwashed to flattness that he can only see in pinpoints or summit
Click to expand...
Laser eyes, we all have laser eyes
payne said:
I think he's so brainwashed to flattness that he can only see in pinpoints or summit
Click to expand...
Laser eyes, we all have laser eyes
Nukehasslefan said:
Draw a curve and place your scopes on it like was mentioned with the bridge and towers and show me how those two scope crosshairs can be seen pinpoint to pinpoint.

The bridge argument kills off the scope view.
Click to expand...
Show me a bridge with two towers and two scopes facing each other that have cross hairs and are pin point to pin point, and show both are perfectly level.
 
Last edited:
DaveH said:
It has been at the back of my mind to work out but it will not be a straight forward thing.

If you assume the density of the atmosphere is constant looking horizontal then you can estimate how much atmosphere you look through when looking at a certain distance. If you elevate and it is less (it really isn't much less, but lets to with the 'theory') then looking horizontal you can shuffle the calculation to work out how far you should be able to see looking exactly horizontally by working out how much atmosphere you should see through to have looked through 'the same amount of stuff' as on sea level. That should be further, but unless there is something really high there is nothing to see.

Now if you look down towards the horizon, you are looking diagonally, which is a longer distance. Flattards claim that you look through less atmosphere overall because you are starting at a less dense point. The changing density of the atmosphere seemingly makes no difference though. Odd that.

If you imagine it sliced into 3 layers then you can calculate how much stuff you look through from each layer. But if you slice it into 5 layers you will get an even more accurate calculation. 7 will be more accurate still and so on. How much do you slice it up before you have a reliable and accurate answer? It is exactly this sort of problem that calculus was invented for.

It will be a waste of time. I'll not convince him and he will just say "that is a very nice story but" or call it "magical maths". He can't understand the most basic trigonometry I've posted, so diving into calculus has no chance. On the other side of the argument, we all know it is bollocks. An interesting bit of maths to play one day, but ultimately one to model a fantasy land and nobody actually cares about the end numbers.

Laser eyes, we all have laser eyes

Laser eyes, we all have laser eyes

Show me a bridge with two towers and two scopes facing each other that have cross hairs and are pin point to pin point, and show both are perfectly level.
Click to expand...
In years to come it would end up on a flat earth website with the title 'scientist proves atmospheric stacking'
 
DaveH said:
It has been at the back of my mind to work out but it will not be a straight forward thing.

If you assume the density of the atmosphere is constant looking horizontal then you can estimate how much atmosphere you look through when looking at a certain distance. If you elevate and it is less (it really isn't much less, but lets to with the 'theory') then looking horizontal you can shuffle the calculation to work out how far you should be able to see looking exactly horizontally by working out how much atmosphere you should see through to have looked through 'the same amount of stuff' as on sea level. That should be further, but unless there is something really high there is nothing to see.

Now if you look down towards the horizon, you are looking diagonally, which is a longer distance. Flattards claim that you look through less atmosphere overall because you are starting at a less dense point. The changing density of the atmosphere seemingly makes no difference though. Odd that.

If you imagine it sliced into 3 layers then you can calculate how much stuff you look through from each layer. But if you slice it into 5 layers you will get an even more accurate calculation. 7 will be more accurate still and so on. How much do you slice it up before you have a reliable and accurate answer? It is exactly this sort of problem that calculus was invented for.

It will be a waste of time. I'll not convince him and he will just say "that is a very nice story but" or call it "magical maths". He can't understand the most basic trigonometry I've posted, so diving into calculus has no chance. On the other side of the argument, we all know it is bollocks. An interesting bit of maths to play one day, but ultimately one to model a fantasy land and nobody actually cares about the end numbers.

Laser eyes, we all have laser eyes

Laser eyes, we all have laser eyes

Show me a bridge with two towers and two scopes facing each other that have cross hairs and are pin point to pin point, and show both are perfectly level.
Click to expand...
A less time consuming way of demonstrating the light "theory" being bollocks is to post a link to CoolHardLogic ridiculing it. Of course this will be seen as an appeal to authority, so it doesn't count

You must be logged on to see media items
 
payne said:
Space X might land the rockets but they don't go to space as it doesn't exist, you can't travel in no medium and it would hit off the underside of the dome if it went to high. It all makes sense.
Click to expand...
God im glad thats ironic. Imagine believing that dribble man
 
chelt_mackem said:
A less time consuming way of demonstrating the light "theory" being bollocks is to post a link to CoolHardLogic ridiculing it. Of course this will be seen as an appeal to authority, so it doesn't count

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
rather than admit their stupidity, they doubled down. sounds familiar
 
A little something to play with, as this conversation comes around on a regular basis. Basically two questions, on a globe what would be the distance to the horizon when up a tower, and what angle would that be at, down from the horizontal? The issue with answering such things is the comprehension of scale - earth big, us and even the biggest towers are comparatively small.

In this simulation (you can zoom in and out):
You must be logged on to see external links
you can change the radius of the planet and a tower height up to 10km. I've picked 600m as the starting point for a tower as that is inline with the worlds highest sky scrapers. From there the distance to the horizon is reported as 86 km and an angular drop of 0.7 degrees. This site agrees working it out mathematically:
You must be logged on to see external links
It gives 87.5km. The difference is the granularity of the sliders and it is not exactly 0.6km underneath.

Pull the slider down to the smallest it will register (0.1km - I could not get more than one decimal place) that is a 100m tower and an angle to the horizon of 0.2 degrees. To actually see the tower you have to zoom right in (middle scroll wheel) and at that point the curve of the earth appears in the diagram as being so slight it almost looks like a level line. Pushing the height of the tower up to 5km high and you have a drop of 2.2 degrees. All well within an expected field of view of the human eye and most optical instruments. If you wanted, you can also change the size of the planet. (Earth has a radius of 6731km)

What it shows is just how huge the earth is, in comparison to us and all this falling backwards unable to see the ground is a load of bollocks. We have tended to show diagrams where the height of a tower or observer is massive, perhaps a 5th of the planet radius. That is over 1000km high so yes on that sort of scale you would be looking down a long way to see the horizon. I can see why flat earth conspiracy nuts get confused, but it is like often said on this thread, draw it out to scale and it makes a lot more sense.

Supplied because I thought many on this thread will find it interesting. I'm not expecting it to be used to convince a certain somebody, who will say 'but but, nah bollocks, deflection, look squirrel'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top