Flat Earth on the ballot? Debunked claim pops up in US politics.

[soylentgreen]

You mean it wasnt challenged. You challenge a hypothesis. A hypothesis is True until proven wrong.

No, a hypothesis is merely an attempt to explain that is neither considered wrong or right until it can be proven either way. If it is proven right then it becomes what is called a scientific theory.

What you are referring to is a belief. Beliefs are often considered to be true until proven wrong.

Looking out of a window is a valid observation

True, But an observation on its own is not a valid scientific theory.

 

[dmpi]

Yeah, I can "observe" the ocean falling off of the edge of a flat world

What do you see when you look at the 'edge' of the ocean? I just see a straight horizontal line between ocean and sky.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

What do you see when you look at the 'edge' of the ocean? I just see a straight horizontal line between ocean and sky.

SO, the sea just miraculously stops moving when it reaches the horizon?

 

[Deuce]

I also said if there is no focal point. Given a flat plane such as looking out across the sea or a desert than atmospheric haze obscures your vision to around 3 miles.

Then why does the FAA tell me the visibility is greater than ten miles? How do they know where my eyes are focused?

Your weather reports are assuming you can see things within that range such as mountains, buildings or clouds. all of which are focal points. Do remember that this started out as a conversation about looking across the ocean to see a ship on the horizon and not the normal views we have every day around airports.

Ok, so if I look at a mountain that is five miles away, and unfocus my eyes, you're claiming the mountain will disappear?

 

[soylentgreen]

Then why does the FAA tell me the visibility is greater than ten miles? How do they know where my eyes are focused?

They would be assuming that you have a focal point. ie; the ground or the airport you are arriving at. They do not assume that you are staring into space and have nothing to focus on. Are you aware that in movies they always show planes flying among clouds. That is because without some background to focus on the plane has the illusion of looking like it is not moving. Your eyes need contrast, something to focus on in order to judge speed or depth. Have you ever parachutted? When high in the air there is no sensation of movement because there is nothing to focus on the ground is to far away to give a focus. But when you get close to the ground then you get the impression of falling because you can see the ground coming closer.

Ok, so if I look at a mountain that is five miles away, and unfocus my eyes, you're claiming the mountain will disappear?

No, it will just go blurry. Again, the mountain acts as a focal point. When you have something to focus on then the illusion does not work because you mind has something to contrast infinity with. And by infinity I do not mean you can see forever but that there is nothing to focus on to give you a measure.
Have you looked at a painting and seen depth in the picture yet knowing full well that you are staring at a flat surface with no depth.

 

[Deuce]

They would be assuming that you have a focal point. ie; the ground or the airport you are arriving at. They do not assume that you are staring into space and have nothing to focus on. Are you aware that in movies they always show planes flying among clouds. That is because without some background to focus on the plane has the illusion of looking like it is not moving. Your eyes need contrast, something to focus on in order to judge speed or depth. Have you ever parachutted? When high in the air there is no sensation of movement because there is nothing to focus on the ground is to far away to give a focus. But when you get close to the ground then you get the impression of falling because you can see the ground coming closer.

No, it will just go blurry. Again, the mountain acts as a focal point. When you have something to focus on then the illusion does not work because you mind has something to contrast infinity with. And by infinity I do not mean you can see forever but that there is nothing to focus on to give you a measure.
Have you looked at a painting and seen depth in the picture yet knowing full well that you are staring at a flat surface with no depth.

A focul point that I'm not focusing on isn't a focal point.

You have no idea how eyes work.

 

[maquiscat]

The first Homo sapiens man emerged millions of years ago and just like that figured the earth is round?

Pretty sure they weren't thinking about either possibility. More important survival things going on.

 

[soylentgreen]

A focul point that I'm not focusing on isn't a focal point.

You have no idea how eyes work.

A focal point is anything that breaks up the infinite distance. You do not have to focus on it it just has to be there for the eye to see even if only peripherally.

Yet you offer no alternative explanation, only that your denial is based on your ignorance of the subject.

 

[Deuce]

A focal point is anything that breaks up the infinite distance. You do not have to focus on it it just has to be there for the eye to see even if only peripherally.

Yet you offer no alternative explanation, only that your denial is based on your ignorance of the subject.

Here's what you got wrong:

The 3 mile figure comes from an earth curvature calculation, 3 miles is not a limitation due to atmospheric density, it's a typical line of sight limit for having your eyes six feet above sea level. (the actual distance seen will vary a little bit due to refraction)

The rest of the stuff you say about focal points is absolute gibberish. Light does not know whether there is an object behind it or not. It doesn't behave in a radically different fashion just because a mountain is in the background. Atmospheric scattering doesn't abruptly change because of some other solid object in the general vicinity. The laws of physics are not determined by your eyeballs, the universe doesn't care what you are perceiving. You can't focus your way past vision that is physically being blocked.

 

[soylentgreen]

Here's what you got wrong:

The 3 mile figure comes from an earth curvature calculation, 3 miles is not a limitation due to atmospheric density, it's a typical line of sight limit for having your eyes six feet above sea level. (the actual distance seen will vary a little bit due to refraction)

The rest of the stuff you say about focal points is absolute gibberish. Light does not know whether there is an object behind it or not. It doesn't behave in a radically different fashion just because a mountain is in the background. Atmospheric scattering doesn't abruptly change because of some other solid object in the general vicinity. The laws of physics are not determined by your eyeballs, the universe doesn't care what you are perceiving. You can't focus your way past vision that is physically being blocked.

How ridiculous that you blame light for doing something your brain actually does. As I said, you have no clue about how illusions work.

 

[Deuce]

How ridiculous that you blame light for doing something your brain actually does. As I said, you have no clue about how illusions work.

You said atmospheric density stops you from seeing more than three miles away, unless there's some other object behind this magical position. I have questions:

1) How did you arrive at this three mile figure?
2) By what mechanism is the light from four miles away prevented from reaching your eyes if there is no focal object, but its totally fine if there is a focal object?
3) Can my dog see more than three miles without a focal object, or less? His eyes and brain don't work the same as mine.

 

[bomberfox]

There is nothing untoward about believing the earth is flat. It depends only on your capacity for observation. An isolated community today, say some tribe in the Amazon forest, say, that has never been in contact with outside civilisation; or same society millenia back; has to go by their observations; and that will yield a flat earth hypothesis

There is everything untoward about believing in flat earth. Ancient sciences have disproven flat earth.

 

[bomberfox]

It's flat as far as I can see

Until you go to lake pontchartrain causeway and see those drop dead sexy curves!

 

[bomberfox]

So you came about a round earth thesis without observation?






The flat earth proposition was testable, stood the test for centuries, if not millenia; until better observations proved it wrong. It was a valid scientific hypothesis in the observations it was based on





The flat earth hypothesis met all that

Umm no. No it didnt… you just dont know history.

Measuring the Curvature of the Earth, in the Style of the Ancient Greeks – UCSB Physics Circus

circus.physics.ucsb.edu

The ancient greeks measured the earth’s curvature and knew it wasnt flat.

There is absolutely no flat earth model or hypothesis that stands up to scientific tests. Not a single one.

 

[bomberfox]

You mean it wasnt challenged. You challenge a hypothesis. A hypothesis is True until proven wrong.










Looking out of a window is a valid observation

LOL