http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae323.cfm

TL;DR: Starlight is too faint and it gets washed out by the brightness of Earth.  Look around a full moon and see how many stars you see...or, rather, won't see.

a) Altitude can be relative to sea-level, or it can be relative to anything else you want it to be relative to.  For example, "This ball is two feet above the table; this ball is two feet below the table."

b) A sunset + trigonometry proves without question the sun does not circle above a flat earth according to flat earth modeling.

c) You can keep saying all you want, it just doesn't make it true.  Simple trigonometry proves without question that there is no possible way that the sun in the flat earth model (i.e. ~3000mi above us and ~30-something mi in diameter) could ever get anywhere near the horizon no matter where you are on earth.  It would be visible at all times to everyone on the planet.

d)  Actually, if you're at any altitude above the ground with a line of sight parallel to it, then eye-level is always above the horizon.  You can calculate, measure, and observe how far below your line of sight the horizon is based upon your altitude.  But, because the horizon is so far away and the diameter of the earth is so large, it won't be very perceptually noticeable unless you're a great distance above the surface.  Because math.

e)  See definition of "reflection."

Of course the buildings of the Chicago skyline are right-side up.  You're talking about less than a single degree of angular difference over a 59 mile stretch.  How big of a perceptual difference do you think that is going to make?  That's less than the same amount of differential change that you would notice in the sun's position over a duration of 4 minutes.

Of course you can see the Chicago skyline from 59 miles away.  Notice what you don't see in the picture?  The ground, nor the bottoms of the buildings.  Why?  Because curvature.

Distance to horizon = sqrt(2*r*h)
Radius of earth in meters = ~6,378,100m
h = height in meters

Let's say you have a 500 ft tall building, i.e. h=~152.4m.  From the top of that building to the horizon, you get sqrt(2*6,378,100*91.44) = ~44.122km.  Okay, so, little over 44km to the horizon.

Now, why can you see the bulk of a 500 foot tall building at sea level if its 60 miles (i.e. ~96.56km) away?

Simple: atmospheric refraction.  At sea-level, atmospheric refraction bends light at about 0.5 degrees, which is slightly larger than the entire diameter of the sun as it appears in the sky.  From 60 miles away, the Chicago skyline, would occupy far less than 0.5 degrees of your perceptual scope.  In fact, a 500 foot building would only occupy ~0.08 degrees of perceptual scope at a distance of 60 miles.

What does this mean?  It means that you could simply compensate for atmospheric refraction by imagining that 500 foot building to be more than 6 times its original height, or at minimum 3000 ft, or ~914.4m

So, what's the distance to the horizon from a vantage point of 914.4m?   Sqrt(2*6,378,100*914.4) = ~108.077km, or 67.155mi.

Now, subtract the actual distance of 60mi from this, and you get 7.155 mi.  This is the distance you then use to determine how much of the building you would expect to see blocked by curvature.  It's a little over 32 feet. In other words, you would still see over 460 feet of that 500 foot building from 60 miles away at sea-level.  This is entirely consistent with that photo of the skyline, where the ground is not visible, but the bulk of the buildings are.

This applies to all of your cute little images.  Jesus Christ, research this!

You didn't even bother to read the Wiki on this, or look into all the repeated tests showing curvature, did you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Refraction

It's called atmospheric refraction which creates a superior image mirage.  When you devise an experiment that avoids this problem, you will get a result of curvature e.g. like Alfred Wallace did when he set up 3 poles in a line in the canal, setting a sight line from the 1st pole to the 3rd pole several feet above the water rather than a few inches to compensate for atmospheric refraction.  When you do this, you will find the middle pole is significantly higher than the outer two, proving curvature.

Because physics.

Lol  

Okay, you earned one more response.


Altitude is relative, i.e. "How high is x compared to y?" When the sun is below the horizon, it has negative altitude relative to the 2-D plane connecting your eyes and the horizon, which is why you can't see the sun when it's below the horizon (earth is opaque).  In this case, the sun has negative altitude relative to the visual plane.  When you are up in an airplane, you see the sun while observers on the earth cannot because the 2-D plane connecting your eyes and the horizon are now at a downward angle compared to that of observers on the ground.  Because the angle of your scope now extends across a plane that is angled downward, you see the sun again; its altitude is above the visual plane.

I can't believe I'm explaining this.


Cropped off?  No...no it hasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage


Um, you can see the sun reflect on the water when 1) any part of the sun is above the water and 2) your eyes are above the water.  You realize water reflects light, yes?

Ah, I see.  At this level of misunderstanding, I realize there is nothing I can possibly say that would reconcile that.  This post is so beyond absurd that it's just not worth it.

Edited last post for better picture.

I have no idea what your post is suggesting.  Yes, the sun's light will still reach you directly if you if its path isn't blocked (duh).  I guess in your fantasy the distance of the vanishing point changes depending on the object.  Please respond to the actual point.

Your brain is a vanishing point.

You can see the sun set.  The sun is much, much, much farther away than the boat.  What does it tell you when you can no longer see the boat, but you can still see the sun, which by flat earth standards would still be over a hundred times farther away?

No. Just...no.

Responding in order:

1)  The one "unscientific assumption" is either false or true depending upon the context from which you're examining it.  In a broad, generalized context, it seems to be false.  Not only, as you point out, are there experiments that suggest observation does causally effect physical reality (e.g. by collapsing the wave function), but in a self-apparent sense it seems that physical reality is defined in tandem with observation, i.e. things are what they are when they are perceived as they are.

In an empirical context, the assumption is true.  Any true conclusion derived from empirical exploration necessitates that the assumption is true, else the conclusion can't possibly follow.  We can't explain isolated phenomena in terms of other isolated phenomena unless we control for observation.  In this context, the assumption can be rephrased in a different way:  Instead of assuming "observation doesn't causally effect physical reality," empirical science says "we live in a Positivistic Universe, i.e. a universe wherein physical phenomena have a static nature that is independent of observation, and we can treat them as they are all by themselves."

2)  Science is valid because it must blare its limitations at every turn.  Any scientific conclusion carries a margin-of-error because controlling for observation forces us to use inductive reasoning to make our predictions.  Even from a broader, philosophical perspective, science is valid because it must always acknowledge that certain assumptions are carried which it cannot falsify.  In exchange for the inability to both 1) make conclusions beyond all margin-of-error and 2) explore and conclude upon that which is beyond its scope, it gains specific explanatory power inasmuch as it can formulate working models of specific physical processes. 

As it turns out, this has been incredibly advantageous to us.  In a practical sense, successfully navigate our world through the use of inductive reasoning all the time after perceiving isolated conditions and events in our environment that appear most relevant to us.  In a scientific sense, we can formalize this same approach to learn valuable information about isolated conditions and events that allows us to build a library of knowledge, lending itself to technological development, medical advances, and a better quality of life.

What becomes problematic is when proponents of science misrepresent or misunderstand its limitations so as to use that same library of knowledge to make invalid assertions, e.g. when empirical data is used to conclude upon abstract concepts and principles.  Some things, such as mathematical constructs, are abstract and, despite being real, are not found in physical reality.  We might describe physical systems in terms of these mathematical constructs, but that does not mean that the physical systems themselves are evidence of these constructs.  Broadening the thought, there may be an abstract concept that we call God that can be used to describe and explain all physical phenomena, but that doesn't mean that any or all physical phenomena is evidence of God.

3)  I think it is possible to prove whether a supreme being (God) is logically necessary or unnecessary, but for the reasons aforementioned it is impossible to prove God via empirical evidence.  There could, however, be empirical evidence that suggests or supports the existence of God if it aligns with a pre-existing logical framework in which God has already been deemed necessary.  In the case such a framework exists, then any and all empirical evidence should align with this framework and support it, but the evidence will forever be insufficient proof in and of itself.

It can be falsified via other methods, yes.  But by experiment, only indirectly, not directly.  There is no such thing as a quantum mechanical or metaphysical experiment in the directly-observable sense, but there can be evidence that is suggestive of quantum mechanical or metaphysical behavior which cannot be explained in a classical physics context.  But in general, yes.

Correct, science is a surefire method of pattern recognition, and it exceeds at this because it makes the blanket assumption that observation does not causally effect what it observes.  This assumption is scientifically unfalsifiable.  In other words, it says, "We're going to concede to this one unscientific assumption in order to make the whole of scientific methodology valid." While this makes it valid, it places an impenetrable upper limit upon scientific exploration, and any concept beyond this limit -- which includes the aforementioned assumption and also all existing mathematical and logical principles upon which scientific theorization is utterly dependent -- cannot be explored by empirical science.  Empirical science and accompanying evidence have no business concluding upon the existence or non-existence of God.  "There is evidence for God" is absurd because there never could be, and "there is no evidence for God, therefore it's silly to believe in God" is equally absurd because evidence is irrelevant, anyway.  There's no evidence for abstract mathematical laws, either, but we believe in them and use them all the time anyway because they are self-consistent, logical constructs.

Religion as a faith-based system cannot explore beyond the upper-limit of scientific methodology, either.  But philosophy, logic, and mathematics can. 

A)  These are anything but "back to your trigonometry."  It's more like, "Let me distract you with other models so I never have to explain why the Sun and Moon aren't both visible at all times to everyone on the planet."

B,C,E)  You don't get to have it all ways without an explanation.  You're suggesting 1) the Moon is a magnet, 2) but is less dense than air, and at its proposed size would have so little relativistic mass that it couldn't generate that kind of electromagnetic field, 3) is like a projection, but a...magnet.   Plus, 4) it seems you don't know what the Sun is, either, as it would need to adhere to your density idea, too.

D) At least you don't have as much to unlearn.  I think flat-earthers fall into two categories: 1) Pretty intelligent people with stubborn, contrarian attitudes that will do anything they can to make a contrarian idea work, or 2) people who will believe anything they are told.

F) What do you think the difference is between making a bridge of any small length vs. a bridge of longer length?  The curvature is the same regardless. It's even possible for straight girders to form curved paths on bridges; they're used all the time. You could build a bridge around the world without issue.  I think using the word "drop" is misleading you.  It's curvature, not a "drop."  It doesn't "drop" anywhere.  I'm having difficulty responding to this because I'm still having a hard time understanding what you're conceptualizing.  Regardless, it's not an issue.

G) I have to go to work.  No time to look at this.  Summarize?

A)  Humidity?   I know what you're suggesting, but no.  I think you missed my post above where I asked what one might infer from a sun half-visible above the horizon line.  While to the prior poster the important point was that the sun is apparently just as large as when it is directly above you (goodbye 'vanishing point' idea), to you I would point out that it is also just as clear (goodbye 'dirty water' idea).  The Sun doesn't get hazy or blurry just before sunset, nor is it blurry or hazy at sunrise.  What you do see, however, is Earth blocking the Sun's otherwise clear visibility.

B & C) If there is no gravity but just density, why don't the Sun and Moon fall on us?  You mean to tell me from that picture you believe the Sun and Moon are less dense than air?

D)  Skipping this for a second, because...

E)  ...this is just falling apart now.  First of all, generally speaking, this video is suggesting that the Sun and the Moon are responsible for the tides.  Well...yeah.  The Moon "is" responsible for the tides, just in a different way.  Second of all, electromagnetism?  Wait a minute, back in B&C you're suggesting the moon is less dense than air.  So, what could the Sun and Moon be if they are 1) less dense than air, 2) are capable of generating such a strong electromagnetic field with so little mass (and no rotation? Or...)?  From "D" we know you don't know, so don't you think you ought to figure that out before jumping to such conclusions?  

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

F)  I'm not even sure what the picture means.  Is it saying 1) The curvature in the bridge doesn't exist or 2) design to compensate for the curvature doesn't exist or 3) both?

1)  Vanishing point?  Uh, what?  In this case it's called a horizon.  You also can't see something when something is blocking it, like Earth.  You're likening the visible disappearance of the sun/moon, which by optical illusion actually appears "larger" near the horizon, to something like the apparent convergence of train tracks off in the distance?  What does it tell you then when half the sun is above the horizon (and at virtually the same apparent size as when it's directly above you) and the bottom half isn't visible? It's super elongated or something? Please.  I'll ignore the fact you said "projections."

2) Some flat earth documentary is purporting Earth is accelerating upwards.  I guess people who believe in the flat earth model can't agree upon the model.  Hey, at least they realized there is a problem synthesizing gravity with the flat earth model, and so they attempted to reconcile it, albeit poorly.

3) "I don't have an explanation, but trust me guys!"

4) Hint: light from the moon reaches us faster than light from the sun because it travels trough the same medium (space) and the moon is closer.

5) I said to explain winds and tides, as in "why are there winds and tides if flat earth?" "They are there" doesn't explain why they are there.

6) Oh the irony of telling me to sober up after that last paragraph, and after everything preceding it.

I looked a little further into this and had two reactions:

1) I was surprised at the depth of explanation and creative thinking of flat earth models.

2) I slapped myself.

Where to begin?

A) If the sun and moon are 3000 miles away and are rotating above a flat earth, both would be visible at all times.  Because trigonometry.

B) If there is no gravity, and if the atmosphere isn't rotating along with the earth, and if the earth is accelerating upwards at the rate of gravity, then why doesn't the Earth slam into the clouds, or the sun and moon for that matter?

C) If there is both gravity and a flat earth, why don't people at the edges of the earth tumble back to the center?

D) Explain the speed of light, e.g. why does light from the moon reach us significantly faster than from the Sun?

E) Explain wind and tides.

How many do you need?  I like that people aren't afraid to question conventional thinking, but I'm getting tired of face-palming.

1)  Note that I've already given a base definition for what a theory is, and at a basic and fundemtal level.  If you think it should be different or more refined, or if you think the definition I selected, which applies to all dictionary definitions, is inappropriate, then argue why that's the case.

2) Okay, but that is beside the point I'm making, and irrelevant to it.  However, laws themselves are abstract.  We don't observe laws, but rather phenomena that obeys laws.  Hence, we discover physical laws inductively (I.e. Bottom-up reasoning).

3)  Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics haven't been successfully merged in a way that's acceptable by academics.  Quantum phenomena cannot be observed because they occur below the Planck scale, and are therefore metaphysical, not physical in a traditional sense.  In a peer-reviewed setting, there is no currently no means by which to soundly explain observable phenomena in terms of quantum mechanics and vice versa without a lot of skepticism.  There do exist such theories, but not everyone agrees on them.

4) Your conceptualization of cause and effect is a result of the theoretical context of time in which you place it (I.e. A linear one, from past to future).  This is a component of time, not all that time is.  Time is intertwined with space and momentum, and is a stratification of superposition.  Effects also "effect" their causes.  What I'm getting at here is that your demonstrated understanding of cause and effect is at a surface level, and you're not going to explain the fundamental nature of reality by solely analyzing its surface level interactions.

Incorrect.  A theory is merely a description of the way something is.  Any natural law amounts to a theoretical description of that law.  In more refined disciplines, sure, you only need to worry about the application of those laws.  But what you're trying to do is prove the existence of an entity which allows for both the laws and the theoretical descriptions of those laws.  You can't just assume that the theoretical origins of these laws, and of theorization itself, are sound before trying to prove the existence of the entity which allows the creation of both the laws and their theoretical origins. 

Give it up dude,  you're entitled to your beliefs, but no matter how much you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the three things you mention do not and cannot prove the existence of God in and of themselves.  That you claim they do is a non-sequitur, meaning that your conclusion that God exists does not follow from your premises of those three "laws." 

One simple point which disproves your conclusion is that those three things do not wholly account for your own ability to theorize about God or the rest of reality for that matter.  If you can't account for your ability to theorize in general, then you can't account for the entity that you claim would have created your ability to theorize.  You're putting the cart before the horse and taking your abilities to theorize and reason for granted.  Sorry, can't do that.

GTI isn't diesel, and I think you missed out on one hell of a car!