[Tom Bishop]

You can't have it both ways.   If visual perspective seems to shrink things the further they are from us (which it undoubtedly does) then why is the sun the same exact size on the horizon as it is at noon?

In RE, it's not a problem - the sun is always at the same distance (well, more or less) so it's size is the same no matter where it is in the sky.

So, sorry Flat Earthers - your video is bogus.  BUSTED.

This was discussed by Samuel Birley Rowbotham over 150 years ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Alternatively, you may visit the sun magnification article in our Wiki which we have long provided for people with queries on this subject, and basically provides the same explanation as is in Earth Not a Globe.

[3DGeek]

That doesn't work...if these light ray distortion effects make the sun look bigger than it is, they'd also make the gap between the sun and the horizon look bigger too...or are you telling us that there are different kinds of light rays - those which are magnified by the atmosphere and those which are not?

Be careful how you answer this one because my next question will be about the magnification of the moon, airplanes and clouds close to the horizon...and the slightest mistake in your reply will produce a horrible inconsistency in your theory...and you can be quite sure I'll catch it!

[Oami]

This was discussed by Samuel Birley Rowbotham over 150 years ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Alternatively, you may visit the sun magnification article in our Wiki which we have long provided for people with queries on this subject, and basically provides the same explanation as is in Earth Not a Globe.

In that article there is a picture that shows virtually the same thing as 3DGeek's railway:



I don't know how many pairs of streetlamps there are, I lost count after 5, but absolutely more than 10. We can assume that they are somewhat evenly spaced.

Even though the streetlamps seem to be of equal size*, the distances between them seem to shrink, so much that after 5 we cannot tell one apart from the next. This is very much unlike from what is claimed to happen to the setting sun in the diagram – the diagram that has some neat spots, not only equally sized but also equally spaced, all the way down to the horizon.

And despite the fact that the streetlamps seem to come closer and closer to each other, they are still, at the end of the street, clearly above the street level. Not at the street level and surely not below. This is despite the fact that the length of the street is far, far greater when related to the height of a streetlamp, than the distance to the horizon when related to the claimed distance to the sun.

*) this seemingly equal size is due to lens flare, which could be corrected using certain filters when taking the picture.

[Oami]

I'd also like to point out a certain difference in the flat earth philosophy when regarding to the claimed magnification phenomenom.

The most common argument for a flat earth I ever hear (not only on this forum, there are several out there) is that it looks like so. And yes, it does. There have surely been a lot of ancient civilisations who believed in flat earth, and why not: from each of their perspectives, that has probably been a reasonable belief.

But I seriously doubt that any of them would have believed in a sun that circles endlessly above the earth. No. When they have seen how the sun seems to go behind the horizon, they have believed that that's what it really does. During the night it then moves beneath the earth (and whatever structure there is supporting us down there allows it to do so) to the other side. Or maybe the sun only lasts for one day, and the gods or whatever they believed in makes a new one for each day. But it surely doesn't stay above the earth forever: that would clearly be against their senses.

It is only this modern day theory (and I consider Rowbotham a "modern day" person in this context), that on the other hand says that we should trust our senses more than "unproven" theories and that the earth is flat, and simultaneously claims that the sun circles above the earth which it certainly doesn't seem to do. It labouriously makes up a theory about perspective and magnification in order to make it look possible, but still that seems to contradict anything we know about perspective and magnification in a closer-to-earth context. Making up a theory like this is really opposite to this entire philosophy.

Of course, this needs to be done. Unlike ancient civilisations, we know that the earth is large, something they had no idea about. We know about the existence of Europe, two Americas, Asia, Africa, Australia and so on, we probably have friends living in several of those, we surely know that the sun shines in different times in different places. This is when the reality tells us that our common sense is wrong. This is when we need to fabricate a new theory to make the reality fit in. And, frankly, some do this better than others.

[Tom Bishop]

That doesn't work...if these light ray distortion effects make the sun look bigger than it is, they'd also make the gap between the sun and the horizon look bigger too...or are you telling us that there are different kinds of light rays - those which are magnified by the atmosphere and those which are not?

Be careful how you answer this one because my next question will be about the magnification of the moon, airplanes and clouds close to the horizon...and the slightest mistake in your reply will produce a horrible inconsistency in your theory...and you can be quite sure I'll catch it!

If you read through the sun magnification article closely you will find that it says that only light sources of a certain intensity in the far field can catch onto the atmosphere and magnify. There is a highway scene with headlights that stay consistent in size as they go into the the distance next to red tail lights in the next lane over which are appropriately shrinking into the distance. The headlights are bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere and the tail lights in the adjacent lanes are not.

[Tom Bishop]

And despite the fact that the streetlamps seem to come closer and closer to each other, they are still, at the end of the street, clearly above the street level. Not at the street level and surely not below. This is despite the fact that the length of the street is far, far greater when related to the height of a streetlamp, than the distance to the horizon when related to the claimed distance to the sun.

The article is about the topic of the size consistency of the sun, not some other topic about how it can intersect with the horizon.

[Rama Set]

And despite the fact that the streetlamps seem to come closer and closer to each other, they are still, at the end of the street, clearly above the street level. Not at the street level and surely not below. This is despite the fact that the length of the street is far, far greater when related to the height of a streetlamp, than the distance to the horizon when related to the claimed distance to the sun.

The article is about the topic of the size consistency of the sun, not some other topic about how it can intersect with the horizon.

He said thinking they were unrelated.

[geckothegeek]

You can't have it both ways.   If visual perspective seems to shrink things the further they are from us (which it undoubtedly does) then why is the sun the same exact size on the horizon as it is at noon?

In RE, it's not a problem - the sun is always at the same distance (well, more or less) so it's size is the same no matter where it is in the sky.

So, sorry Flat Earthers - your video is bogus.  BUSTED.

This was discussed by Samuel Birley Rowbotham over 150 years ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Alternatively, you may visit the sun magnification article in our Wiki which we have long provided for people with queries on this subject, and basically provides the same explanation as is in Earth Not a Globe.

"Written by Samuel Birley Rowbotham over 150 years ago.
Doesn't that tell you something ? LOL
Most of ENAG is bogus.

[Rama Set]

No. Newton wrote the Principia 350 years ago. It doesn't matter in the slightest how old the book is, only the content of the ideas. It just so happens that Rowbotham is a sloppy theorist and experimentalist as well.

[geckothegeek]

No. Newton wrote the Principia 350 years ago. It doesn't matter in the slightest how old the book is, only the content of the ideas. It just so happens that Rowbotham is a sloppy theorist and experimentalist as well.

The point was that Rowbotmam's audiences over 150 years ago were mostly illiterate and they believed him.
People are a bit more literate today.

[Oami]

The article is about the topic of the size consistency of the sun, not some other topic about how it can intersect with the horizon.

First: then, the picture is not very good, because of the lens flare effect. (Of course, eliminating it with a proper filter would destroy the point of the whole picture anyway.)

Second: all the laws of nature must work all the time. "All the time" includes articles that don't particularly discuss just those laws.

The topic of this thread is "If the sun is close", and the question on whether or not the sun meets the horizon is an integral part of that topic.

I could add that this magnification theory seems to work quite strangely. First, the sun looks like its size doesn't change at all: it is claimed that this is because its apparent shrinking (due to perspective) and the magnification nullify each other. But then, when it seems to meet the horizon, it actually starts shrinking, but not evenly: it's like a chord starts cutting horizontal slices off the sun, bottom to top. But even at the moment when this chord coincides with the diameter – when the sun actually looks like a semi-circle – the long diameter of that semi-circle is still practically the same as anytime during the day, despite half of the sun having disappeared.

And then the sun shrinks even more, until the point when it finally disappears, and from that moment on the magnification phenomenom has completely ended.

The time interval during which the sun is reduced from a full circle to nothing is not very long: few minutes, depending on the latitude. Before those few minutes, the magnification works perfectly. After those few minutes, it doesn't work at all. Not even the best telescopes cannot bring the sun back to sight.

[Tom Bishop]

The article is about the topic of the size consistency of the sun, not some other topic about how it can intersect with the horizon.

First: then, the picture is not very good, because of the lens flare effect. (Of course, eliminating it with a proper filter would destroy the point of the whole picture anyway.)

Second: all the laws of nature must work all the time. "All the time" includes articles that don't particularly discuss just those laws.

The topic of this thread is "If the sun is close", and the question on whether or not the sun meets the horizon is an integral part of that topic.

I could add that this magnification theory seems to work quite strangely. First, the sun looks like its size doesn't change at all: it is claimed that this is because its apparent shrinking (due to perspective) and the magnification nullify each other. But then, when it seems to meet the horizon, it actually starts shrinking, but not evenly: it's like a chord starts cutting horizontal slices off the sun, bottom to top. But even at the moment when this chord coincides with the diameter – when the sun actually looks like a semi-circle – the long diameter of that semi-circle is still practically the same as anytime during the day, despite half of the sun having disappeared.

And then the sun shrinks even more, until the point when it finally disappears, and from that moment on the magnification phenomenom has completely ended.

The time interval during which the sun is reduced from a full circle to nothing is not very long: few minutes, depending on the latitude. Before those few minutes, the magnification works perfectly. After those few minutes, it doesn't work at all. Not even the best telescopes cannot bring the sun back to sight.

The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.

[Rounder]

The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.

First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true.  Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset.  Or to sunrise.  Or to anything about the sun at all.  Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.

Second, even if it had been in there it would mean nothing, since a lot of the statements in that tired old text are outright fabrications.  For example, the following is a list (with links) of other preposterous things also "noted in Earth Not a Globe":

A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea, and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam above the Biblical lake of fire
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer
F) Sunlight puts out fire
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers

Any ONE of these ludicrous propositions is enough to discredit him; the fact that they're all in the same book makes one wonder if he was trying to let people know it was all a big joke.

[Tom Bishop]

The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.

First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true.  Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset.  Or to sunrise.  Or to anything about the sun at all.  Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.

Lie? You have apparently have not read the material. What I mentioned is at the end of the chapter Tangential Horizon: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

The above remarks are made considering the water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit

p. 275

of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----


FIG. 97.

A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.

This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.

[geckothegeek]

The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.

First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true.  Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset.  Or to sunrise.  Or to anything about the sun at all.  Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.

Second, even if it had been in there it would mean nothing, since a lot of the statements in that tired old text are outright fabrications.  For example, the following is a list (with links) of other preposterous things also "noted in Earth Not a Globe":

A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea, and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam above the Biblical lake of fire
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer
F) Sunlight puts out fire
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers

Any ONE of these ludicrous propositions is enough to discredit him; the fact that they're all in the same book makes one wonder if he was trying to let people know it was all a big joke.

Just about any ONE thing on this website makes one wonder if this website is  the "One big hoax or one big joke" which seems to be a widespread opinion on the Internet.

[geckothegeek]

The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.

First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true.  Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset.  Or to sunrise.  Or to anything about the sun at all.  Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.

Second, even if it had been in there it would mean nothing, since a lot of the statements in that tired old text are outright fabrications.  For example, the following is a list (with links) of other preposterous things also "noted in Earth Not a Globe":

A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea, and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam above the Biblical lake of fire
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer
F) Sunlight puts out fire
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers

Any ONE of these ludicrous propositions is enough to discredit him; the fact that they're all in the same book makes one wonder if he was trying to let people know it was all a big joke.

Add the illustration on the next reply (#33) to the "ludicrous" list. It should be obvious why. Note that point D is apparently at a point where the water level is depressed in the center.
(F) & (G) Also.....While sunlight will put out a fire, moonlight will support it.
A beam of light from the moon focused on a thermometer will cause the temperature to drop on a thermometer.

[geckothegeek]

The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.

First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true.  Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset.  Or to sunrise.  Or to anything about the sun at all.  Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.

Second, even if it had been in there it would mean nothing, since a lot of the statements in that tired old text are outright fabrications.  For example, the following is a list (with links) of other preposterous things also "noted in Earth Not a Globe":

A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea, and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam above the Biblical lake of fire
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer
F) Sunlight puts out fire
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers

Any ONE of these ludicrous propositions is enough to discredit him; the fact that they're all in the same book makes one wonder if he was trying to let people know it was all a big joke.

One more example of derailing the OP (If the sun is close) with off-topic gibberish.

[Rounder]

First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true.  Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset.  Or to sunrise.  Or to anything about the sun at all.  Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.

Lie? You have apparently have not read the material. What I mentioned is at the end of the chapter Tangential Horizon: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

My mistake, thank you for the link.

Now, explain why Rowbotham is allowed to use a side-view 2D drawing, when your video narrator says those kinds of drawings are worthless.
Also explain why the TFES wiki uses the same kind of drawing.

[3DGeek]

That doesn't work...if these light ray distortion effects make the sun look bigger than it is, they'd also make the gap between the sun and the horizon look bigger too...or are you telling us that there are different kinds of light rays - those which are magnified by the atmosphere and those which are not?

Be careful how you answer this one because my next question will be about the magnification of the moon, airplanes and clouds close to the horizon...and the slightest mistake in your reply will produce a horrible inconsistency in your theory...and you can be quite sure I'll catch it!

If you read through the sun magnification article closely you will find that it says that only light sources of a certain intensity in the far field can catch onto the atmosphere and magnify. There is a highway scene with headlights that stay consistent in size as they go into the the distance next to red tail lights in the next lane over which are appropriately shrinking into the distance. The headlights are bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere and the tail lights in the adjacent lanes are not.

So the idea here is that dim objects would get smaller as perspective shrinks them towards the horizon - but bright objects remain the same size, no matter the effect of perspective?

This produces two major problems for your theory:

1)  When the sun is at zenith - (and you say that it's 30 miles wide and 3000 miles overhead) - how come it doesn't completely fill the sky?   If it's immune to perspective - then even though it's 3000 miles above us - it should look just like the city of New York parked right over our heads - it should extend all the way from horizon to horizon.  You have to understand that what makes a 30 mile-across sun that's 3000 miles away (at zenith) look like it's the size of a quarter held out at arm's length, is perspective.   But you say that when it's at zenith over the Sahara, but on the horizon in Texas - and it's 6,000 miles away from Texas and perspective is failing to reduce it to something half that size.

2) How dim to objects have to be to be immune from perspective?  The moon has a "visual magnitude" that makes it 400,000 times dimmer than the sun.   Big planets like Jupiter and Saturn can be seen as a disk with even a small backyard telescope but are barely visible to the naked eye - but Jupiter and Saturn appear the same size at the horizon as they do at zenith too.   So clearly VERY dim objects get the benefit of "perspective immunity" - yet things like aircraft in daylight evidently do not.

So the FE rule of perspective is VERY difficult to lay out...it turns off for objects that are "bright" (including Jupiter and Saturn - but not including airplanes) - it doesn't turn off for even the brightest objects unless they are more than 3000 miles but less than 6000 miles away.

But even that doesn't work...but let me give you a chance to respond before I explain the other reasons.