I view most flat earthers as people who haven’t left the town where they were raised. Unable to grasp concepts.....
Flat Earthers - I don't get it, at all.
- Thread starter jsd512
- Start date
Yeah, Colorado Springs is a mecca of knowledge. Just like Silicon Valley. I'm only a couple hours south of you. Matter of fact, you can prob take I25 South and do your own experiment with the Spanish Peaks by LaVeta. I can see them from just down the road, too.
So you are a flat earther. I thought that you stated you were not....
Not sure where you are getting that the light would have to refract a mile.
A mile?
??
Down to 5000' from a mile. Making progress.
I'll admit, it took me a bit more than 15 minutes but I'm doing it from a phone. I could go a little faster on a desktop I think.
The elevation does rise a couple hundred feet as you get closer to the mountain, but not until after it drops first.
Using Googlemaps to map the straight line between Saguache and San Antonio mountain peak I found the distance to be 85 miles. (Since you didn't give your actual location where you claimed you were 95 miles away so i could get the elevation, this is the data i used) Saguache is 7707'. From Saguache all the way to the Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge it is a steady decline in elevation down to what Google states the elevation as 7600'. Approx. 107 feet lower than Saguache. This changes the distance of the horizon by a good margin. It could be as many as 10 miles for a 6 ft person vs just over 3 miles for the same height person on perfectly flat ground. Therefore the curvature equation result will be affected. So instead of losing 4483 ft of an object @ 85 miles, you would be closer to losing 37xx ft.
Your mountain is 3202 ft higher than your elevation, so refraction would only need to make up for 500 ft for the peak. Something you claim to be able to live with.
Hope that helps.
Yes. I have land further up highway 285, it's probably 50' higher in elevation. I also did use the 5000+ number for ease of use (it's probably closer to 5500') and I didn't want to provoke anyone any harder than I had too. I also thought it would be easier to just name the town than some obscure rangeland. Good on ya for doing the math, first guy today! You're correct I can live with some refraction and that would account for seeing the tippy top of the mountain but I can see the whole thing on a clear day.
Now a serious question. If refraction can't account for the 500 feet, what then?
What do you also think about the 12 mile stop sign light that should be behind 57 feet of curve?
Now a serious question. If refraction can't account for the 500 feet, what then?
What do you also think about the 12 mile stop sign light that should be behind 57 feet of curve?
Well ****ing A. I’m in Texas but I’m getting a telescope and watching the ball drop in Times Square on New Years.
Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
I put up that stop light. It's on a 57 foot pole. Problem solved.
On a less sarcastic note, your two "problems" have been solved numerous times by several people in this thread. I'm rather embarrassed to admit that I just read through this whole thread. Despite my instincts telling me to leave this thread without commenting, I'll say it one more time. Read this part slowly:
We. Don't. Live. On. A. Sphere.
Your "it should be behind 57 feet of curvature" statement is chock full of misunderstanding. Let me provide an equally misguided, but backwards, example. There is a hill behind my house. On the other side of the hill is a stop light. It is only 200 feet away. But I can't see it, even though the curvature of the earth should allow me to. Why?
Spheres are great for approximations. Oblate spheroid is far closer to the truth. And locally, at ground level, even that approximation doesn't really help.
I'm going to just put this out there and say that there is a stunning amount of technology that we depend on in our daily lives that just flat out wouldn't work if the flat-earthers were right...
On a less sarcastic note, your two "problems" have been solved numerous times by several people in this thread. I'm rather embarrassed to admit that I just read through this whole thread. Despite my instincts telling me to leave this thread without commenting, I'll say it one more time. Read this part slowly:
We. Don't. Live. On. A. Sphere.
Your "it should be behind 57 feet of curvature" statement is chock full of misunderstanding. Let me provide an equally misguided, but backwards, example. There is a hill behind my house. On the other side of the hill is a stop light. It is only 200 feet away. But I can't see it, even though the curvature of the earth should allow me to. Why?
Spheres are great for approximations. Oblate spheroid is far closer to the truth. And locally, at ground level, even that approximation doesn't really help.
I'm going to just put this out there and say that there is a stunning amount of technology that we depend on in our daily lives that just flat out wouldn't work if the flat-earthers were right...
I mean at 85+ miles I'd say it would be difficult to be able to accurately determine how much of a mountain you are seeing but let's give it a shot. How many ft of this mountain are you claiming to see rise above the land around it?
Who? Me? I do have that effect on people sometimes.
Using a submarine periscope to determine a target’s range required us to know a few things. We had to know the “height of eye” or how far above the waterline the periscopes optics were, an estimate of the target’s masthead height in feet, and how many divisions (of the periscope’s reticle viewfinder) the target appeared to fill at the moment of observation.
To remain undetected, we had only a few seconds to raise the scope, place it on the bearing of the target, and make an educated guess of the visual range (in kiloyards) to it. The spoken litany by the Officer of the Deck of a target observation would go as follows; “Observation master one (or whatever the target’s designation was given), number one (or number two) periscope.” At that time, the Diving Officer would respond to announce keel depth (for height of eye), and Fire Control technician on watch would report the true bearing to the contact as reported by Sonar. This coordination was required to minimize periscope exposure to just a few seconds, and this passive visual confirmation of a contact’s range, course (angle on the bow), and speed helped refine the fire control solution which was then input into a Mk48 Adcap (advanced capability) torpedo. A torpedo’s job was to put the enemy on the ocean floor.
Lastly, as the earth is NOT flat, we’d often spot periscope contacts at the edge of visual detection range. These were referred to as “hull down on the horizon” meaning we’d only see a portion of the ship’s mast as the target approached from over the horizon. Due to the earth’s curvature, as visual range decreased, more of the mast and hull would become visible to the periscope operator. Although not spherical, you flat earthers can suck deez nuts.
To remain undetected, we had only a few seconds to raise the scope, place it on the bearing of the target, and make an educated guess of the visual range (in kiloyards) to it. The spoken litany by the Officer of the Deck of a target observation would go as follows; “Observation master one (or whatever the target’s designation was given), number one (or number two) periscope.” At that time, the Diving Officer would respond to announce keel depth (for height of eye), and Fire Control technician on watch would report the true bearing to the contact as reported by Sonar. This coordination was required to minimize periscope exposure to just a few seconds, and this passive visual confirmation of a contact’s range, course (angle on the bow), and speed helped refine the fire control solution which was then input into a Mk48 Adcap (advanced capability) torpedo. A torpedo’s job was to put the enemy on the ocean floor.
Lastly, as the earth is NOT flat, we’d often spot periscope contacts at the edge of visual detection range. These were referred to as “hull down on the horizon” meaning we’d only see a portion of the ship’s mast as the target approached from over the horizon. Due to the earth’s curvature, as visual range decreased, more of the mast and hull would become visible to the periscope operator. Although not spherical, you flat earthers can suck deez nuts.
Amazing discussion. After 2 days we still don't really know if we live on a 'pancake' or an 'oblate spheroid' (descriptive words by others). Some really good info by both sides. Impressive. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I look at stop signs and mountains quite differently now.
With both sides having been able to provide perfectly valid examples that 'prove' their guess you are forced to wonder if perhaps they are both correct? In some cases the world acts like a giant disk. In others, like a curved surface. You can only be describing one thing:
The earth is a cylinder!
If I had to guess I would say shapewise somewhere between tuna can and soup can proportions. About as high as it is wide. Like the weird looking ones they use for canned lobster which may be the world's only 'square' can.
The physics is a bit murky. We are not yet advanced enough to fully understand it. Suffice to say that in any given spot the earth acts as either flat or curved depending on the activity. Look out from the ocean shore and it's curved. Turn around and look at a stop sign with a mountain behind it and it's dead flat.
If it doesn't fill you with wonder and the certainty that we are not alone you are one cold fish indeed.
With both sides having been able to provide perfectly valid examples that 'prove' their guess you are forced to wonder if perhaps they are both correct? In some cases the world acts like a giant disk. In others, like a curved surface. You can only be describing one thing:
The earth is a cylinder!
If I had to guess I would say shapewise somewhere between tuna can and soup can proportions. About as high as it is wide. Like the weird looking ones they use for canned lobster which may be the world's only 'square' can.
The physics is a bit murky. We are not yet advanced enough to fully understand it. Suffice to say that in any given spot the earth acts as either flat or curved depending on the activity. Look out from the ocean shore and it's curved. Turn around and look at a stop sign with a mountain behind it and it's dead flat.
If it doesn't fill you with wonder and the certainty that we are not alone you are one cold fish indeed.
You have clearly done some cool stuff.
Well, the earth can’t be a cylinder either. The program I’m working with now uses satellites (a spherical-shaped earth) in a phased and highly elliptical orbits to provide communication to surprise - submarines operating above 65N latitude up to and including the polar cap.
The earth terminals we use to track satellites in orbit as they come into view (ascension) use ephemera data to predict where the satellite tracking antennas must be pointed to acquire and track the birds so the communication process can take place. The trace created by the tracking terminals creates a nice arc across the sky. If the earth was cylindrical, then we’d observe tracking anomalies as the satellite’s pass occurred.
The earth terminals we use to track satellites in orbit as they come into view (ascension) use ephemera data to predict where the satellite tracking antennas must be pointed to acquire and track the birds so the communication process can take place. The trace created by the tracking terminals creates a nice arc across the sky. If the earth was cylindrical, then we’d observe tracking anomalies as the satellite’s pass occurred.
No, the guy from Europe that claims to be an orbital mechanic.
I'd say I can see the bottom half.
You may be right? But nobody has said anything about the stop sign that's not sarcastic and only a couple people have engaged in debate about the mountain. Nobody has solved anything.
Wait... You think it would dip 57feet after 12 miles? We dont live on one of pluto's moons...
Yes. Have you even bothered to google the curvature math? Here's one. It even accounts for refraction.
Metabunk: Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator
Users who are viewing this thread
