• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

soylentgreen said:
True. It depends on the atmosphere density. Fly high enough and it does not.
Click to expand...
I just flew into LAX and saw the airport 20 miles out. You said that is impossible. Maybe you don’t know how atmospheric visibility works better than an airline pilot, have you considered that possibility?

Can you show me some math? What altitude makes the horizon drop below eye level? Does it vary based on air pressure or temperature or humidity? How is this calculated? Show me some kind of scientific discussion on this.
 
Deuce said:
I just flew into LAX and saw the airport 20 miles out. You said that is impossible. Maybe you don’t know how atmospheric visibility works better than an airline pilot, have you considered that possibility?

Can you show me some math? What altitude makes the horizon drop below eye level? Does it vary based on air pressure or temperature or humidity? How is this calculated? Show me some kind of scientific discussion on this.
Click to expand...
My comments were meant for visibility at sea level. As I did say there is variables depending on where you are and what focus points you may have.
https://deckee.com/blog/what-is-the-maximum-visibility-at-sea
There are two ranges of visibility: the nominal range and the graphic range. The nominal range determines the maximum visibility of an object in the best possible conditions. The graphic range, on the other hand, is much smaller. It’s the distance from which you can see something. You may be able to see the light from 11 kilometers (7 miles) or even 3 kilometers (2 miles) away, depending on the circumstances.What we usually call “visibility”, is the graphic range. This is limited by the curvature of the Earth and affected by the height at which your eyes are. So you will have greater visibility from the deck of a tanker than from the cockpit of a sailboat.
Your range will also be influenced by the size and height of the object you are looking at. For example, a tall lighthouse on top of a cliff will be visible from farther away than a small motorboat.

So visibility is the combination of the graphic range and the nominal range. Your graphic range may be 4.5 kilometers (2.8 miles) on a clear night, standing on the deck of your motorboat. However, you may be able to see the light of a 15-meter (50 feet) high lighthouse perched on a low rock from a distance of 23 kilometers (14 miles).
Click to expand...
 
Gordy327 said:
Flat Earthers certainly think so.
Click to expand...
I always liked that argument by flat earthers that pictures of earth from space are fake because there are no stars in the sky surrounding the earth. While that is true bit not for the reason they give.
 
Bodi said:
A 2D picture proves that the Earth is 3 Dimensional?


f
Click to expand...
That and live video feeds from the ISS. That and gravity would prevent formation of a flat earth.
 
soylentgreen said:
I always liked that argument by flat earthers that pictures of earth from space are fake because there are no stars in the sky surrounding the earth. While that is true bit not for the reason they give.
Click to expand...
Do Flat Earthers think all planets are flat, or just Earth? What about moons? Or stars?
 
soylentgreen said:
Science amuses you. better to just believe what your eyes tell you like flat earthers do.
Click to expand...
You were saying the visibility at sea level was limited by atmospheric density. That article does not support what you said.

And it's certainly not a scientific publication.
 
Deuce said:
You were saying the visibility at sea level was limited by atmospheric density. That article does not support what you said.

And it's certainly not a scientific publication.
Click to expand...
Does it actually need support? Do you not know how atmosphere works.

Nor does it need to be. Find a way to dispute what it says.
 
America is as dumb as a bag of shit.
 
soylentgreen said:
Does it actually need support?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Do you think the FAA somehow missed this completely? Because every single day at work I look at weather reports that include visibility. Do you think those reports constantly lie to me?
 
Hamish Howl said:
America is as dumb as a bag of shit.
Click to expand...
As we can see from some of the discussion here, the problem is sometimes just a complete inability to assess one's own level of knowledge about a subject.
 
Gordy327 said:
That and live video feeds from the ISS. That and gravity would prevent formation of a flat earth.
Click to expand...

That is not what I asked...



nj
 
soylentgreen said:
After three miles the haze obscures your view
Click to expand...

That can be trivially disproven. Just stand 5 miles away from a mountain and look at the mountain.

Notice how instead of not being able to see the mountain, you are instead able to see the mountain?

That is because the haze isn't obscuring your view after 3 miles.

Unless, of course, it is actually so hazy that you can't see the mountain. Do you live in some bizarre location with daily haze limiting visibility to three miles, and don't realize that the entire rest of the world isn't like that?

If you ever leave your creepy three-mile-visibility-cursed ghost town, you should look up at the night sky sometime. There is a big rock up there that we call the "moon." It is just shy of 240,000 miles away, and I can see it just fine as long as it isn't a cloudy night, despite well over 3 miles of atmosphere in the way.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
www.usatoday.com

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

A few politicians are making news for accepting a once-fringe conspiracy theory that the Earth is flat. Voters aren't embracing it − yet.
www.usatoday.com

10% ??

Any flat Earthers on here? Don't be embarrassed, tell us how it is possible that the Earth is flat. We need edumacation.
Click to expand...

Actually, Earth has need of some of that skin stuff us humans used when much younger to help deal with little bumpy things on our skin. You see, I have noticed the flat isn't quite flat enough. In fact, now that temperatures are up a bit now and this south room work station window is open I see a big pimple about 200 meters to the south. And some stupid human actually built a path with concrete over parts of it to help other stupid humans walk over that pimple. I am sure I learned a long time ago that pimples were not a good thing and so Mother Earth should not allow humans to let the pimples stay. Maybe a few buckets from a chopper of that medicine we used as kids will fix the Earth's pimples. I mean, "flat" mean "flat" yes?

On the other hand, if you are asking if any of us believe in the Cosmic Bowling Alley and all those bowling balls are round and stuff, - - - well, then I suppose Earth pimples are no big deal. I gotta tell ya, when I was a kid and we lived in Kansas I could have sworn that teacher had her head screwed on backwards when she read from some textbook that the Earth was round. We looked out that classroom window and it sure was hard to trust that information she was feeding us.

Of course, at night that Moon thing sure does look like a plate from the kitchen. That is round and flat. Maybe we are on just that here on Earth; both round and flat. See, all can be happy now. Compromise and all are happy. Earth is both round and flat. Debate over. Decision made. Now we vote on that and include it in the minutes for this meeting.
 
Lycanthrope said:
Beat me to it
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you dumped the repeat, as the software told me "No-No, medi." when I hit the reply button on your now disappeared post. BUT I will still use your second post.

I wanted to ask you where the evidence is that there are, in fact, other planets?

Yourself and Gordy327 seem to think there are other planets, but I see no evidence posted to support that and so we now must open the meeting to that discussion, I think?

As I made note of when referring to what some folks call a "Moon" out the window I see at night, it is clearly a dish type entity I am seeing. So that has been established as fact, yes? So now the question is: Are there other dishes out-and-about? And do they belong in the files as "planets"?

Looks like this meeting requires a continuation. I need to leave the room for a bit, so y'all discuss this latest development, please.

Believes there are more "planets" - some folks. Quite entertaining.
 
AConcernedCitizen said:
Just the earth. They think the other planets, stars, sun, moon and any other celestial bodies are decorations on the 'firmament' which is like a dome covering the disc of the earth.
Click to expand...

Good gosh, I can't seem to escape this meeting!

You just introduced a new noun - "star(s)" - and how the heck does a Hollywood human that has that title "star" get to fly without any machine for help? And my 'son' is going to be mighty angry with you for misspelling his title on Earth.

This meeting is beginning to remind me of some of our post meetings. Even some of our district meetings. All sorts of new stuff getting tossed in.

Okay, and Bollywood 'stars' should be included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom