[Tom Bishop]

What would happen in the view you created if my red line were there connecting the sun to the moon? It would bend!

You clearly are trying to hand wave whatever effect you applied, or was inadvertently applied on a preset filter, away. In your original video you even bring up the words "wide angle" and "Field of View" when you "zoom in".

The person in the video in the OP did not need to zoom into the moon and change his "wide angle" view of the moon to see that it was not lined up with the sun. Shame on you.

I found the problem here Tom.  What you haven't figured out, is that the viewing distance to the moon is quite short compared to the distance from the moon to the sun.  We are viewing it from that "up close" viewpoint that is used in the 3d model video Flatout made.

In Flatout's first video he clearly mentions changing the wide angle field of view when he zooms in. When did the man in the video in the op zoom in and change his wide angle view?

A more accurate action would be to simply take his camera near the moon and see if it lined up with the sun. Flatout does not do this, because he knows that doing so would be detrimental to his position.

[Tom Bishop]

just went out and did the string experiment for the first time.  works beautifully.

you should go out and do it this morning, tom.  if you're in the pacific time zone, then you should have a good view of both the sun and moon for the next 3-4 hours or so.

A planetarium is just a movie theater. They don't project the movies inside cubes because the corners are ugly.

what do you mean by "the corners are ugly"?

Corners are so ugly that they do not even allow them in regular movie theaters......oh wait......I have never seen a regular movie theater with a dome for a screen. Never mind.

Regular movie theaters don't project their movies into corners. I don't know what point you are making.

[Flatout]

What would happen in the view you created if my red line were there connecting the sun to the moon? It would bend!

You clearly are trying to hand wave whatever effect you applied, or was inadvertently applied on a preset filter, away. In your original video you even bring up the words "wide angle" and "Field of View" when you "zoom in".

The person in the video in the OP did not need to zoom into the moon and change his "wide angle" view of the moon to see that it was not lined up with the sun. Shame on you.

I found the problem here Tom.  What you haven't figured out, is that the viewing distance to the moon is quite short compared to the distance from the moon to the sun.  We are viewing it from that "up close" viewpoint that is used in the 3d model video Flatout made.

In Flatout's first video he clearly mentions changing the wide angle field of view when he zooms in. When did the man in the video in the op zoom in and change his wide angle view?

A more accurate action would be to simply take his camera near the moon and see if it lined up with the sun. Flatout does not do this, because he knows that doing so would be detrimental to his position.

Tom, there is no such "wide angle setting".  In any perspective view you increase the field of view from the eyes perspective by getting closer to the objects so the head has to be turned.  I did exactly what you say I should have done.  I moved under and closer to the moon. The video clearly shows that things are lined up.  We all know that.  Nobody is saying they don't.  What we are talking about is how one perceives them to not line up.   My video shows how objects that are lined up can appear to not line up when we don't have reference for depth.   

Your accusation of deceit is duly noted.

[Tom Bishop]

What would happen in the view you created if my red line were there connecting the sun to the moon? It would bend!

You clearly are trying to hand wave whatever effect you applied, or was inadvertently applied on a preset filter, away. In your original video you even bring up the words "wide angle" and "Field of View" when you "zoom in".

The person in the video in the OP did not need to zoom into the moon and change his "wide angle" view of the moon to see that it was not lined up with the sun. Shame on you.

I found the problem here Tom.  What you haven't figured out, is that the viewing distance to the moon is quite short compared to the distance from the moon to the sun.  We are viewing it from that "up close" viewpoint that is used in the 3d model video Flatout made.

In Flatout's first video he clearly mentions changing the wide angle field of view when he zooms in. When did the man in the video in the op zoom in and change his wide angle view?

A more accurate action would be to simply take his camera near the moon and see if it lined up with the sun. Flatout does not do this, because he knows that doing so would be detrimental to his position.

Tom, there is no such "wide angle setting".  In any perspective view you increase the field of view from the eyes perspective by getting closer to the objects so the head has to be turned.  I did exactly what you say I should have done.  I moved under and closer to the moon. The video clearly shows that things are lined up.  We all know that.  Nobody is saying they don't.  What we are talking about is how one perceives them to not line up.   My video shows how objects that are lined up can appear to not line up when we don't have reference for depth.   

Your accusation of deceit is duly noted.

Flatout,

The sun and moon clearly appear to be curving across the inside of a sphere when you pan your camera across them, as admitted by garygreen in this thread.

Where can we see this effect in reality? The real sun and moon do not look like they are curving across a sphere when we take a video camera and pan it across them in the sky. This is suggestive of a pincushion camera effect, not a "celestial sphere". As the celestial sphere is described, the sun and moon would curve as they travel in their course across the sky -- not when they are static and a camera pans across them.

Kindly refrain from using deceiving words in your response.

Thank you,
Tom

[model 29]

Where can we see this effect in reality?

Anywhere there is a straight line slightly above (or below for that matter) that you can walk up close to and look left or right along it's length. 

[Tom Bishop]

Where can we see this effect in reality?

Anywhere there is a straight line slightly above (or below for that matter) that you can walk up close to and look left or right along it's length.

What are you going on about? We are talking about the pincushion effect in the video. When we pan a camera across a static object above us it does not appear to curve across the inside of a sphere.

[model 29]

What are you going on about?

Why the moon's phase does not 'appear' to line up with the sun even though the path of light is straight.  The original subject of this thread, remember?  As I said, this effect with straight lines can be seen with a variety of locations.

[Flatout]

Again, even if the sun and Moon are only 3000 miles above a flat earth the effect will still happen.  I looked at the moon and sun this morning.  They didn't appear to line up until I connected them with a taught string.  It's an illusion.  The brain is totally capable of not seeing things as they really are until your perspective of them changes.   The horizontal lines in the image below are actually parallel  but they do not appear to be.  The brain gets fooled.

[garygreen]

A more accurate action would be to simply take his camera near the moon and see if it lined up with the sun. Flatout does not do this, because he knows that doing so would be detrimental to his position.

the most accurate action would be use a string to make a straight line perpendicular to the moon's terminator and see if that line points at the sun.

you do not do this because you know that it would be detrimental to your position.  that's the only excuse i can think of for not trying such a simple experiment yourself.

[Flatout]

It is really interesting what the brain does to understand the world.  In reality there are all kinds of angles that it has to interpret.  It's uses a lot of depth cues to understand it.  Most optical illusions can trick the mind because they lack a field of depth.  When depth can be interpreted the brain makes sense of all the conflicting angles that are caused by perspective.  It was interesting to track my kids head and eyes as the looked from corner to corner in my living room.  Their eyes moved in an arc not a straight line.  My wife would slightly tip her head at each extent so her eyes would be parallel with the rising left and right corner lines.  The eyes and do the same thing when they look from one horizon to the moon to the sun to the other horizon.  They created a big arc as if they are looking at a sphere.  Perspective geometry demand this.  The reality is all those could be at the same level but the eye and head movements would be plotted as an arc.   

[Boots]

Again, even if the sun and Moon are only 3000 miles above a flat earth the effect will still happen.  I looked at the moon and sun this morning.  They didn't appear to line up until I connected them with a taught string.  It's an illusion.  The brain is totally capable of not seeing things as they really are until your perspective of them changes.   The horizontal lines in the image below are actually parallel  but they do not appear to be.  The brain gets fooled.

Does this illusion business cause the world to appear globe shaped to us even though it is actually flat?

[Flatout]

Again, even if the sun and Moon are only 3000 miles above a flat earth the effect will still happen.  I looked at the moon and sun this morning.  They didn't appear to line up until I connected them with a taught string.  It's an illusion.  The brain is totally capable of not seeing things as they really are until your perspective of them changes.   The horizontal lines in the image below are actually parallel  but they do not appear to be.  The brain gets fooled.

Does this illusion business cause the world to appear globe shaped to us even though it is actually flat?

I don't think that one can always determine what really is by making a single observation with the eyes.  Many things require investigation.  The claim that the horizon rises to eye level is a great example.  In reality over long expanses of water it doesn't rise to eye level.  It does take some precise measurements to measure the drop because it's very subtle. 

[Nirmala]

So you admit you don’t see what we’re saying (10th dan in missing the point), you won’t do the simple experiment that Gary and others have offered as you don’t know when the moon will be in the daytime sky, well the “children’s” moon is often in the sky,
 •  Look within a week or so of the date of full moon.
•  Before full moon, look for the daytime moon in the afternoon.
•  After full moon, look for the daytime moon in the morning
(waxing gibbous tonight 6th April so you are on, although being near the equinox the discrepancy won't be profound).

A full moon with the sun in the sky isn't supposed to ever happen in the Round Earth model. You want me to perform an experiment that cannot happen?

Why do I need to perform some kind of experiment to confirm someone else's argument? If you are making a claim that a certain experiment will confirm your argument, YOU need to do the experiment.

In the meantime answer Nirmala and my earlier point, does your model explain the problem you see with the angles?

I would say that the effect is a confirmation of the long-postulated Flat Earth mechanism which places the sun lower than it actually is over a Flat Earth. There are several mechanisms which have been proposed over the years. Mechanisms have been proposed ranging from an atmospheric effect, to the Electromagnetic Accelerator which bend light rays, to a perspective effect, and further analysis and consideration would need to be conducted to say which effect this observation most strongly supports. The video in the OP shows that the sun actually does appear lower than where the moon thinks it is. If this mechanism did not exist, the sun would at all times be above the surface of the earth and night and day could not exist.

I was curious as to whether "an atmospheric effect" could make the sun appear lower than it actually is, so I did some research on light refraction including the fast paced videos on this site: http://byjus.com/physics/why-do-stars-twinkle/

It turns out that given the position of the sun above the atmosphere in both the flat earth model and the round earth model, refraction will always make the sun appear higher than its actual position (unless the sun is directly overhead in which case it will have no effect at all). When light travels from an optically less dense medium to an optically more dense medium it is bent towards the normal (defined as a line perpendicular to the line forming the boundary between the two mediums). This is a long established and experimentally proven principle of the behavior of light.

If you draw out the position of the sun, atmosphere and an observer on earth, this bending is always in the direction that makes the sun appear higher in the sky. This does explain why in the round earth model, the sun appears above the horizon even after it has actually set, as again any refraction caused by the sunlight hitting the atmosphere will always make the sun appear higher than its actual position. This also rules out refraction as an explanation for why the sun sets at all in the flat earth model because if refraction is involved, it would actually make it less likely for the sun to appear to have set in a flat earth model.

So, refraction cannot be reasonably used as an explanation for what is observed in the original video.

[Tom Bishop]

So you admit you don’t see what we’re saying (10th dan in missing the point), you won’t do the simple experiment that Gary and others have offered as you don’t know when the moon will be in the daytime sky, well the “children’s” moon is often in the sky,
 •  Look within a week or so of the date of full moon.
•  Before full moon, look for the daytime moon in the afternoon.
•  After full moon, look for the daytime moon in the morning
(waxing gibbous tonight 6th April so you are on, although being near the equinox the discrepancy won't be profound).

A full moon with the sun in the sky isn't supposed to ever happen in the Round Earth model. You want me to perform an experiment that cannot happen?

Why do I need to perform some kind of experiment to confirm someone else's argument? If you are making a claim that a certain experiment will confirm your argument, YOU need to do the experiment.

In the meantime answer Nirmala and my earlier point, does your model explain the problem you see with the angles?

I would say that the effect is a confirmation of the long-postulated Flat Earth mechanism which places the sun lower than it actually is over a Flat Earth. There are several mechanisms which have been proposed over the years. Mechanisms have been proposed ranging from an atmospheric effect, to the Electromagnetic Accelerator which bend light rays, to a perspective effect, and further analysis and consideration would need to be conducted to say which effect this observation most strongly supports. The video in the OP shows that the sun actually does appear lower than where the moon thinks it is. If this mechanism did not exist, the sun would at all times be above the surface of the earth and night and day could not exist.

I was curious as to whether "an atmospheric effect" could make the sun appear lower than it actually is, so I did some research on light refraction including the fast paced videos on this site: http://byjus.com/physics/why-do-stars-twinkle/

It turns out that given the position of the sun above the atmosphere in both the flat earth model and the round earth model, refraction will always make the sun appear higher than its actual position (unless the sun is directly overhead in which case it will have no effect at all). When light travels from an optically less dense medium to an optically more dense medium it is bent towards the normal (defined as a line perpendicular to the line forming the boundary between the two mediums). This is a long established and experimentally proven principle of the behavior of light.

If you draw out the position of the sun, atmosphere and an observer on earth, this bending is always in the direction that makes the sun appear higher in the sky. This does explain why in the round earth model, the sun appears above the horizon even after it has actually set, as again any refraction caused by the sunlight hitting the atmosphere will always make the sun appear higher than its actual position. This also rules out refraction as an explanation for why the sun sets at all in the flat earth model because if refraction is involved, it would actually make it less likely for the sun to appear to have set in a flat earth model.

So, refraction cannot be reasonably used as an explanation for what is observed in the original video.

You are assuming that there are no thicker mediums between us and the celestial bodies.

[Nirmala]

You are assuming that there are no thicker mediums between us and the celestial bodies.

Any evidence you can offer that there are? Each model of airplane is limited as to how high it can fly because the atmosphere gets thinner with higher altitude. What evidence do you have for a more optically dense medium above the atmosphere? Or are you arguing from your theory to suggest that something is or at least could be out there? That does not sound very Zetetic to me.

[garygreen]

we don't need refraction to explain this 'illusion.'  a straight line perpendicular to the moon's terminator does intersect the sun.  the op and the video author are simply mistaken that it does not.  there's not really anything that needs to be explained.

[Nirmala]

we don't need refraction to explain this 'illusion.'  a straight line perpendicular to the moon's terminator does intersect the sun.  the op and the video author are simply mistaken that it does not.  there's not really anything that needs to be explained.

You are of course correct, but the "refraction" explanation is also used improperly by flat-earthers to explain other observations also (including how it is possible for the sun to rise and set on a flat earth), so I thought it useful to discount it here in regards to this discussion.

[Tom Bishop]

You are assuming that there are no thicker mediums between us and the celestial bodies.

Any evidence you can offer that there are? Each model of airplane is limited as to how high it can fly because the atmosphere gets thinner with higher altitude. What evidence do you have for a more optically dense medium above the atmosphere? Or are you arguing from your theory to suggest that something is or at least could be out there? That does not sound very Zetetic to me.

The principles of Zeteticism are to consider all possibilities when formulating a test or conclusion. By not accepting other possibilities your conclusion is to a fault.

[Nirmala]

You are assuming that there are no thicker mediums between us and the celestial bodies.

Any evidence you can offer that there are? Each model of airplane is limited as to how high it can fly because the atmosphere gets thinner with higher altitude. What evidence do you have for a more optically dense medium above the atmosphere? Or are you arguing from your theory to suggest that something is or at least could be out there? That does not sound very Zetetic to me.

The principles of Zeteticism are to consider all possibilities when formulating a test or conclusion. By not accepting other possibilities your conclusion is to a fault.

I am on this forum because I was willing to consider other possibilities, but I have yet to be presented with evidence or reasoning that is enough to shift my conclusion. Does accepting other possibilities include accepting possibilities with no evidence or rationale? Am I supposed to remain open to the idea that the earth is riding on the back of a giant turtle when formulating a test or conclusion?

Do you have any evidence for an optically denser medium (not the same thing as something that is denser in terms of mass) that is between the atmosphere and the sun? Do you have any rationale that acts as the basis for considering the possibility of such a medium?

In many cases, if there was such a medium it would have no effect on the perceived position of the sun as the light is bent again when leaving a more optically dense medium, but in the opposite direction. This is why objects viewed through a window glass appear to be pretty much where they actually are located.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

The principles of Zeteticism are to consider all possibilities when formulating a test or conclusion. By not accepting other possibilities your conclusion is to a fault.

Apart from you actually trying out the string experiment it would seem, where your pathological dodging of the issue has become a running joke.