Search results

I'm pretty sure there's some miscommunication going on, please re-read? yes, but typically some part of them is still hidden anyway not quite because the many others usually don't have 0 exactly i am saying that this is why it's black

Because the oil rigs are not hidden. No need for maths. The FE claim is, the horizon shouldn't be that far away, and no glober can contradict it—all we can do is explain it. As a FE follower, you don't need to understand any maths to get that. yes, but the other "proves FE" pictures all...

most of the other "see too far" pictures are about how much of a distant object is hidden this one is about "behind the horizon" vs. "in front of the horizon" and it's very powerful in saying, "horizons aren't real" (real="physical"). anything a glober says about refraction is dismissed as...

CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, and it does matter where in the atmosphere you release it. For example, permafrost soil thawing out releases methane. So if someone argues that the increasing near-ground CO2 concentration doesn't fully account for the projected global warming by itself, I...

It doesn't matter whether the horizon is distinct or not, what matters is that it hides things. "Geometrically", on FE, you should be able to see everything, and observer height shouldn't matter. The fact that the sun shines hundreds or thousands of miles above Flat Earth means we should see it...

so your process is, "make up a number that fits the observation"? who has actually done that?

well, "the economy" can be improved through decarbonisation, it shouldn't "tank" because of that German politics reduced support for PV in 2013 and support for wind in 2017, which depressed how much new generation got installed each year: you could say that with the wind energy that we're...

Yes. If you read my reply closely, I don't contradict that point. I contradict the implication that his "if you use" (your "if we had") is anything but hypothetical. So you appear to be responding to me, but don't actually address what I wrote.

yes, that's what it means Negative power prices on the electricity exchange occur when a high and inflexible power generation appears simultaneously with low electricity demand. This is often the case on public holidays such as Christmas or Pentecost. Particularly in hours of (predictable) high...

Yes. That helps win debates, but doesn't prove anything about the premise. Yes. The question is then, why does Flat Earth have a horizon? The old answer was (ca 2018), "perspective" (things go downward with distance until you can't see them—it doesn't work that way, though) There's a newer...

nobody uses all of them we make predictions for standard refraction, and for everything else we usually don't have the atmospheric data

false dichotomy there the economic impact of climate change is huge that's why it's important for them to deny that bush fires have anything to do with the climate, because that's one way climate change is already costing Australia lots of money the rest of his argument is like, "when I'm...

0.5 degrees is a huge impact like replacing coal power with renewable energy? that's already happening everywhere, no need to wait any longer!

in geometry, a straight line has infinite length, and so they'll come arbitrarily close (no gap). yes (if you equate "intersect" and "converge"), but the thing about parallel lines is that all of them (not just subsets of two) converge on the same point. that's why my sketch shows three lines...

Yes. Generally speaking, in non-Euclidean geometries parallel lines meet, i.e. a geometrically "straight" line isn't what we intuitively think of as straight in such a framework. If you're referring to the equation that derives horizon distance from observer height, that'd be a good way to put it.

Could you explain where exactly you're getting that data (air and ground) from? The column labels are confusing me. Wind direction is given as where it's coming from, which is 180⁰ from where it's going. This motion could be caused by a 162 degree wind blowing at ~7.5 knots (=14 km/h). Figure...

In Euclidean geometry, that's true, yes. But if you project them onto a 2D plane (such as a photograph), perspective dictates that their projections converge (unless they're parallel to the plane). Source...

in my experience, the typical FEer just mentally goes "it's complicated" and stops thinking about it. This is most readily apparent with the sky: sun, moon, stars all work according to globe laws, so as FE believer you have to deny that what you're seeing is where it is. (Sounds a lot like...

why not? how is this different to how perspective normally works?

parallel lines always converge you can define a line by two points the point on an object and the corresponding point on its shadow define a sun ray and so does the center of the lit part of the moon and the center of the moon the geometry of the objects that the shadow is projected on does not...