re: Why are "they" so obsessed with mentions of 'FLAT EARTH'? Just a silly "CT", right?

13 pages on this topic....

Can never take this forum too seriously

quote:

---

I’m taking it you cannot answer. Cmon.

Polaris is the same brightness in Ontario Canada as Mexico City. With alllll the dust. With all the moisture. With all the atmospheric disruption.

But it’s dust and moisture that keeps the southernmost part of a South American country.. that is over two times smaller than Texas. From seeing it.

Same brightness from Ontario to Mexico City. Dust, moisture, atmosphere. Same.

Can see from northern Equator. Can’t see in south.

Lay it out for me. Layman’s terms. Pull out your charts… your books… take celestial readings tonight. Don’t care. Hit me with an explanation.

---

And there is where the gears evidently grind to a halt.

Surely to be followed by “you have to pruuve your claim!!1!” While they have to prove nothing.

quote:

---

Because magnification exists.

---

Which would mean the ship didn't disappear beyond the curvature, no? It's either beyond the curvature or its not. And if it is, how can simple magnification bring it back to visibility if it's beyond the curvature??

quote:

---

Ok. So you're admitting you can't prove that Polaris is the same brightness in Ontario as it is in Ecuador?? Am I reading that right??

---

Why do I have to prove anything if you agree with it???

Once it turns into a pissing contest it just keeps going and going no matter.

OP talks at the 2 minute mark

quote:

---

A ship disappearing behind the curvature at less than 5 miles which is what the science suggests (3.2 miles if I'm not mistaken)

---

You are mistaken. It's six miles. And that's only if the object you are viewing is at the same height you are. As in two people who are both 6' tall. I just use six miles as a base reference. A ship will still be visible beyond six miles because it is taller than the person viewing it.

If you're claiming you stood on a beach and sighted in another beach over 40 miles away I'm going to call you a liar until you provide evidence.

quote:

---

You are saying you should be able to see Lisbon from NYC because you can see a pen top at 2 inches.

---

I absolutely, 100%, completely, absolutely did not say that. You gave the example.. and I said they both sat on the same plane. The stars are above the plane.. in your belief.

quote:

---

Read what you are saying. You said this. Any change in brightness would be too subtle to quantify.

For tens of thousands of miles. A change in brightness is too subtle to quantify. From the far North America to Central America. No easily seen change.

But. But… atmospheric phenomena keeps the southern tip of Ecuador from seeing it. When the northern tip can. In a country 2.5 x smaller than Texas.

Same thing in Kenya. Columbia. The Maldives. Same.

You have been just so on point so far to start answering questions with questions.

I can explain it. But you don’t believe it.

Now explain it to me.

---

At what point does light dissipate through water completely? Idk. All I know is that at a certain depth, there is no more light.
Does light dissipate through the atmosphere? Yes. At what distance? Again, I don't know.

quote:

---

I didn't say I agreed.

---

But…

quote:

---

I said that any difference in Polaris' brightness is probably not measurable at the distances we are discussing.

---

So here again is your take.

The difference in brightness of Polaris is not completely measurable between northern Canada and Central America. Tens of thousands of miles.

Now you said also:

quote:

---

Light dissipates through the atmosphere

---

Remember that.

If you are saying it definitely is measurable…stop me.

But the reason you can see the same Polaris in Northern Equator and not in southern equator is because of line of sight. Dust, and atmospheric phenomena.

Across a country 2.5 times smaller than Texas.

You are going with that? Stop me where I’m misreading you.