Right Divider
Body part
I wasn't saying that the video was showing tidal activity.... just that tides in general argue in favor the global model and oppose the flat earth "model".
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
How do you understand the phrase, "lifted upward from behind the curvature"?
If you see yourself in a mirror are you seeing you or are you seeing a refracted image of you? Similarly, if you place a mirror in such a way as to see something behind you that you cannot see directly (akin to, "located behind the curved earth hidden from view") are you seeing the actual object or are you seeing a refracted image of the object? (FYI, reflections are refracted images.)
Your method of argumentation, failure to understand word usages ("supra") and your inability to comprehend simple concepts calls into question your ability to reason clearly. I understand simple for me doesn't mean simple for you (an aspect of the Dunning–Kruger Effect) but this is fifth-grade science class material for crying out loud.
One can be taught something that is not correct even as far back as the 5th grade.
And yes, I'm questioning some of the most basic things we were taught in grade school.
It's quite clear that a reflected/refracted image is not the actual thing.
I had posted two pics that showed what I meant by the statement below.
Those pics along with others have been removed. One of those pics can seen in this article, Titanic's Mirage:
When anything (ship or city) is hidden behind the curvature of the earth, and an image of it is lifted upward from behind the curvature so that we can see what was before hidden from view, as the two illustrations show, we have a refracted image of it. We are not seeing the actual ship or city, because it's still located behind the curved earth hidden from view.
View attachment 26492
--Dave
David,
So just how is this discussion about refraction arguing for a flat Earth anyway?
As I've said, no one denies that light is refracted by the atmosphere. When light travels from a medium of lesser density into a medium of higher density (or vise versa), it refracts. The amount it refracts depends on the amount of difference between the densities of the two mediums (and other factors such as the angle of incidence), the bigger the difference in density, the more the light is refracted. Light refracted due to temperature inversions would bend toward the surface because light refracts toward the denser medium. If the Earth were flat, this would SHORTEN the distance from which a city skyline or other large object is visible. If, on the other hand, the Earth is round, the light would bend around the surface rather than shooting off into space causing the object to be seen from much further away than would otherwise be possible due to the horizon getting in the way, which just happens to nicely explain both why we see what we see and when we see it.
In any case, light refraction seems to argue against FET.
The alternative for you is to say that what we are seeing is not due to refraction (or some other form of mirage) but that what is being seen is the actual straight line of sight view of the city or ship or whatever. If that is your contention then it is on you to explain why seeing cities from 50 miles away is not the norm. Why is it so rare and why is the visibility of distant objects dependent (primarily) on temperature inversions?
Clete
So just how is this discussion about refraction arguing for a flat Earth anyway?
As I've said, no one denies that light is refracted by the atmosphere. When light travels from a medium of lesser density into a medium of higher density (or vise versa), it refracts. The amount it refracts depends on the amount of difference between the densities of the two mediums (and other factors such as the angle of incidence), the bigger the difference in density, the more the light is refracted. Light refracted due to temperature inversions would bend toward the surface because light refracts toward the denser medium. If the Earth were flat, this would SHORTEN the distance from which a city skyline or other large object is visible. If, on the other hand, the Earth is round, the light would bend around the surface rather than shooting off into space causing the object to be seen from much further away than would otherwise be possible due to the horizon getting in the way, which just happens to nicely explain both why we see what we see and when we see it.
In any case, light refraction seems to argue against FET.
The alternative for you is to say that what we are seeing is not due to refraction (or some other form of mirage) but that what is being seen is the actual straight line of sight view of the city or ship or whatever. If that is your contention then it is on you to explain why seeing cities from 50 miles away is not the norm. Why is it so rare and why is the visibility of distant objects dependent (primarily) on temperature inversions?
Clete
The image above is not displaying refraction but rather reflection and would result in an upside down image of the ship as in the picture below...
View attachment 26493
If the image is due to refraction, it will be upright...
View attachment 26494
(There is actually some of both refraction and reflection occurring in that last image. (i.e. The bottoms of the buildings seem to be inverted.))
Clete
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
So, according to your "theory" the nature of light and refraction is/was taught incorrectly in 5th grade?
The real question is, "Why are you?".
ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING you see is "quite clearly" NOT the actual thing. What we "see" is light reflected off of or emitted from/by an object. We never "see" the actual object... ever. The light we see from the object is affected by a variety of mostly uncontrollable conditions (the atmosphere, water, the physical limitation of our eyes, etc.) and a few controllable conditions (man-made lenses, such as telescopes, glasses, etc.)
Clete explains this clearly above, "... no one denies that light is refracted by the atmosphere. When light travels from a medium of lesser density into a medium of higher density (or vise versa), it refracts. The amount it refracts depends on the amount of difference between the densities of the two mediums (and other factors such as the angle of incidence), the bigger the difference in density, the more the light is refracted".
Effectively, the light reflected off of and emitted from the Chicago skyline is "bent around" the curvature of the Earth ("lifted upward"?) by refraction of the light by the atmosphere between Chicago and our (your) eye(s).
Whack-a-Mole time? Instead of looking at just the pictures, did you bother to read the article?
As I said above, we NEVER EVER see the actual object, we see light reflected off of or emitted from the object. The light we see then is our perception of the object and that light is affected (refracted) by a variety of mediums, the atmosphere being the primary medium refracting the light from objects far away and "parallel" to the Earth's surface. My fellow amateur astronomer, Clete, and I have both explained how light is refracted by the atmosphere such that the Chicago skyline is visible from "50 miles" away despite the curvature of the Earth. That you're still questioning this phenomena is confusing to us who aren't allowing cognitive dissonance to cloud our judgement.
Which ones?
So your answer is "no, we aren't sure there is a relatively accurate map of the flat earth" and that's fine.
I happen to work near enough to Lake Michigan across from Chicago that I can look for Chicago any day I like. When Chicago can be seen, it's a big enough deal that it is mentioned at the office when it happens. So I probably hear more reports about the Chicago skyline more than anyone else on TOL. And the bottom line is that it is very variable what is seen when the skyline shows up or doesn't show up. So it isn't going to do much good to discuss it in relation to the globe or flat earth model. Reflection and refraction can always be used as a reason why something is seen or not seen by someone on either side of the argument, but there is no way to check the air densities or humidities to verify that any particular sighting (or non sighting) is affected by those factors.
Therefore, I think discussing reflection and refraction in air is fruitless for you to pursue. The globe model says that is why you can see things over the horizon, but there is no way for you to personally verify whether it is true or not. Sure, you can check for internal consistency of an argument, but that doesn't take as long as you have been discussing the topic.
How often does it happen that you can see Chicago from across the lake?
It's rare. Perhaps a handful of times per year of the tops of the tallest buildings. And a view of the full skyline is a once-every-few-years event.
I was sort of ignoring this point just because I understand what he's getting at but I'm glad someone mentioned it. It is important to point out as many flaws in the Flat Earth thinking process as possible.
In actual fact, we are seeing the real city or ship or whatever. The light has bounced off of the object (or been emitted from it) and found it's way into our eye. We see it just like we see everything else we see. The only difference between seeing it from over the horizon and seeing it straight on is the path the light took to get to our eye. David's wording implies that we're seeing something unreal, which is not the case. We see ourselves in a mirror every day and what we see is really us. The fact that the light has been reflected in a mirror doesn't change the fact that it bounced off us first.
Is the weather man able to predict in advance when it is likely to happen?
If so, is he also able to say how strong the effect will be (i.e. how much of the skyline you'll be able to see)?
Right Divider
Body part
Which is exactly why I asked Dave to stick to normal conditions and quit focusing on the abnormal.
And even in the rarest case of the "full skyline", many things are still not visible (i.e., Adler Planetarium, etc.)
Because I'm bored to death with this treadmill discussion about refraction, I'm going to jump to a different treadmill discussion...
Dave,
You occasionally reject arguments on the basis that they presuppose that the Earth is round. I wonder if you've given any consideration to how a round Earth helps to resolve what had been perplexing problems that can be resolved in no other way?
Take, for example, solar and lunar eclipses. The occurrence of eclipses was relegated entirely to the realm of mysticism and divine interventions until we figured out that the Earth was not flat, that the Moon orbited the Earth and that the Earth/Moon system orbited around the Sun. Indeed, these facts are so well known and understood that we can know down to the minute precisely when an eclipse will occur and from where it will be visible. The calculations used to ACCURATELY PREDICT eclipses hundreds of years into the future are definitively based on not just that the Earth is an oblate spheroid but that the Sun is tens of millions of miles away.
If FET is a valid cosmology, then why aren't they able to make such predictions or even to mathematically describe how such prediction might be made given a flat geometry and why am I able to pull up the exact date of the next eclipse on my PC with software that is clearly predicated on the Earth being round?
Solar and Lunar Eclipses Worldwide – Next 10 Years
List of solar eclipses in the 21st century
Clete
Dave,
You occasionally reject arguments on the basis that they presuppose that the Earth is round. I wonder if you've given any consideration to how a round Earth helps to resolve what had been perplexing problems that can be resolved in no other way?
Take, for example, solar and lunar eclipses. The occurrence of eclipses was relegated entirely to the realm of mysticism and divine interventions until we figured out that the Earth was not flat, that the Moon orbited the Earth and that the Earth/Moon system orbited around the Sun. Indeed, these facts are so well known and understood that we can know down to the minute precisely when an eclipse will occur and from where it will be visible. The calculations used to ACCURATELY PREDICT eclipses hundreds of years into the future are definitively based on not just that the Earth is an oblate spheroid but that the Sun is tens of millions of miles away.
If FET is a valid cosmology, then why aren't they able to make such predictions or even to mathematically describe how such prediction might be made given a flat geometry and why am I able to pull up the exact date of the next eclipse on my PC with software that is clearly predicated on the Earth being round?
Solar and Lunar Eclipses Worldwide – Next 10 Years
List of solar eclipses in the 21st century
Clete
Last edited:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
There is no "Flat Earth thinking process" that is not flawed.
This is exactly what I tried to convey to Dave in Post 2002, "If you see yourself in a mirror are you seeing you or are you seeing a refracted image of you? Similarly, if you place a mirror in such a way as to see something behind you that you cannot see directly (akin to, "located behind the curved earth hidden from view") are you seeing the actual object or are you seeing a refracted image of the object?"
His reply in Post 2004 was characteristically Dave, characteristically naïve, and characteristically flawed, "It's quite clear that a reflected/refracted image is not the actual thing".
On a personal note... I know you have an interest in astronomy as do I. I have a 12" f/10 Meade ACF and am the treasurer of a club in southern Florida. I did some observing at Maunakea last year and visited Kitt Peak a couple of weeks ago. Clear skies!!
Wait... what??? Are you saying you and Dave were discussing this in 2002??? Flat earth theory or just light reflection kinda stuff?
This is a fantastic question. I hope Dave gives it a response worthy of the intent of the question. :up:
You know, if we ever get the chance in this thread, I'd like to discuss the Flood of Noah and which model supports the event found in the Bible the best.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
I know you're just being funny...
Post Number 2002 (or "5248068" if using the post quoting function).
I'd be as out of my mind as he is if I had been" discussing FE nonsense with him for this long (16+ years).
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
- Status