Flat Earth rant continued
I wanted to circle back and repeat and clarify. What I enjoy about Flat Earth is encouraging an alternate view point. Not simply taking what we're told for granted. I actually appreciate that aspect of it completely. If that was the sole reason people kept talking about it, I'd be all for it.
I like to take arguments and use them as thought experiments and see how far they pan out.
In this case, they simply don't withstand very long.
Most of the arguments leverage a kernel of truth. Just enough common sense and fact that certain generalized arguments are either true, or could seem true. But, fall apart when the specifics are scrutinized.
For instance, imperfections in the surface of the Earth occluding the sun as it gets further away. This could theoretically happen. The problem is scale... and reality.
The easiest way to break this? It relies on there being other objects above your line of sight. No matter how far away the sun goes, since it is well and truly above, if there is nothing above your line of sight, the sun should never become occluded. Therefore, Mount Everest should never experience night time. Even if you can explain night, it should still, always be possible to see the sun (through a magnifying glass per se) from Everest.
Even at an infinite distance, as an object moves away from you the angle will never go below 0 degrees. And likewise, an object below your eye line will never go above 0. Far enough away, they will appear to merge into 1 item. But that is simply at the vanishing point of your eye. Actual occlusion between 2 such objects isn't possible. And a magnification device would readily reveal their true state.
But, the problem doesn't end there. It really doesn't even work in practice.
Everest is the highest point on Earth. It is roughly 5.5miles above sea level. We'll round down to 5 miles AND assume other land is at sea level. None of this either true, nor typical topography. It does skew things in favor of FE though. So, let's extrapolate. Some rough napkin math says if I stand 5 Everest's away from the mountain (25 miles), then, for every 15-ish Units of Everest back an object goes, a further 3 units of Everest of height are occluded. At 30000 miles high according to the FE, the sun is 600 units of Everest in height. So, at sea level, 25 miles away, the sun would have to travel 3000 units of Everest away to start being occluded. Which is (very) roughly 15000 miles. Or 60% of the diameter of the FE Earth.
NOW problematically, since that distance only starts at high noon over Everest, and it would need to travel 60% of the diameter of the Earth just to be START being occluded, it would very likely start becoming morning again before it was ever fully occluded.
SO, when you assume that most of us don't live in the shadow of Everest, you have to accept that the distance required to occlude the sun most places on Earth would need to be far more massive than the size of the FE disc Earth. Meaning, virtually everywhere on Earth, you should be able to whip out a telescope and follow the progression of the Sun 24 hours a day.
This is just one example. The basic principle of occlusion is sound. The application of it to the proportions and distances given by the Flat Earth society don't support it. Changing those proportions just to make this work, breaks other things.
I like to take arguments and use them as thought experiments and see how far they pan out.
In this case, they simply don't withstand very long.
Most of the arguments leverage a kernel of truth. Just enough common sense and fact that certain generalized arguments are either true, or could seem true. But, fall apart when the specifics are scrutinized.
For instance, imperfections in the surface of the Earth occluding the sun as it gets further away. This could theoretically happen. The problem is scale... and reality.
The easiest way to break this? It relies on there being other objects above your line of sight. No matter how far away the sun goes, since it is well and truly above, if there is nothing above your line of sight, the sun should never become occluded. Therefore, Mount Everest should never experience night time. Even if you can explain night, it should still, always be possible to see the sun (through a magnifying glass per se) from Everest.
Even at an infinite distance, as an object moves away from you the angle will never go below 0 degrees. And likewise, an object below your eye line will never go above 0. Far enough away, they will appear to merge into 1 item. But that is simply at the vanishing point of your eye. Actual occlusion between 2 such objects isn't possible. And a magnification device would readily reveal their true state.
But, the problem doesn't end there. It really doesn't even work in practice.
Everest is the highest point on Earth. It is roughly 5.5miles above sea level. We'll round down to 5 miles AND assume other land is at sea level. None of this either true, nor typical topography. It does skew things in favor of FE though. So, let's extrapolate. Some rough napkin math says if I stand 5 Everest's away from the mountain (25 miles), then, for every 15-ish Units of Everest back an object goes, a further 3 units of Everest of height are occluded. At 30000 miles high according to the FE, the sun is 600 units of Everest in height. So, at sea level, 25 miles away, the sun would have to travel 3000 units of Everest away to start being occluded. Which is (very) roughly 15000 miles. Or 60% of the diameter of the FE Earth.
NOW problematically, since that distance only starts at high noon over Everest, and it would need to travel 60% of the diameter of the Earth just to be START being occluded, it would very likely start becoming morning again before it was ever fully occluded.
SO, when you assume that most of us don't live in the shadow of Everest, you have to accept that the distance required to occlude the sun most places on Earth would need to be far more massive than the size of the FE disc Earth. Meaning, virtually everywhere on Earth, you should be able to whip out a telescope and follow the progression of the Sun 24 hours a day.
This is just one example. The basic principle of occlusion is sound. The application of it to the proportions and distances given by the Flat Earth society don't support it. Changing those proportions just to make this work, breaks other things.
Comments
Post a Comment