I'm confused about the idea of the sun going under the horizon (or just disappearing) if the earth is flat. 
Two things strike me:
1) if the sun follows the laws of perspective it should get smaller and smaller as it moves towards the horizon. And because it's above the horizon, based on perspective, it should always stay above the horizon point but it should just get tiny until it is a point.  But it doesn't, it gets what seems to be twice as big as it gets closer to the horizon.
2) based on the concept that the sphere of light coming from the sun doesn't just shine in 360 degrees but is refracted downward into a cone shape - we get night and day on a flat earth instead of night-time just getting dimmer and dimmer.  Ok, got it.  But my understanding of a sunset is that if the earth is round, as it hits the edge on of the atmosphere it stretches the longer colors around the edge, making it look LARGER AND LARGER as it sets.  But based on the flat earth concept of light refraction, the sun isn't stretched at the edge, it's compressed!  Therefore, based on this concept, just like the sun gets BIGGER in round earth theory, the sun should get compressed and smaller and smaller as you reach the edge of day/night.   
So, not only should the sun get smaller and smaller as it sets based on perspective, it should also "look" even smaller, faster, as you reach the refractive edge.  It seems very counterintuitive to me to what I see at night and what FEers say is happening.  How does FE explain this?   

I have to see some evidence of this "Sun looking twice as big near the horizon" claim. If anything, the Sun is either the same exact size near the horizon as it was in the middle of the sky, or slightly smaller or slightly squished vertically, based on what I've seen. I don't know if a spotlight sun is widely accepted by the FE community. I certainly don't think it is a spotlight, and from what I see, there is a gradual transition from day to night. The further the light travels, its color changes due to interaction with the atmosphere. Shortly after the red wavelength, it becomes invisible. The atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, it's opacity, and the distance to the light source, is what causes the darkness of night.

As for why it appears to go under the horizon seems to be chalked up to not knowing what a 300mi diameter object looks like as it goes overhead. If you watch a plane fly out over an ocean, even though it may be maintaining its altitude, it appears to be heading down to interact with the horizon before it becomes invisible due to the atmosphere. The assertion is we simply don't know how an object like the Sun would appear if it is beyond the vanishing point.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2130
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile

Offline simba

  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
I have to see some evidence of this "Sun looking twice as big near the horizon" claim. If anything, the Sun is either the same exact size near the horizon as it was in the middle of the sky, or slightly smaller or slightly squished vertically, based on what I've seen. I don't know if a spotlight sun is widely accepted by the FE community. I certainly don't think it is a spotlight, and from what I see, there is a gradual transition from day to night. The further the light travels, its color changes due to interaction with the atmosphere. Shortly after the red wavelength, it becomes invisible. The atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, it's opacity, and the distance to the light source, is what causes the darkness of night.

As for why it appears to go under the horizon seems to be chalked up to not knowing what a 300mi diameter object looks like as it goes overhead. If you watch a plane fly out over an ocean, even though it may be maintaining its altitude, it appears to be heading down to interact with the horizon before it becomes invisible due to the atmosphere. The assertion is we simply don't know how an object like the Sun would appear if it is beyond the vanishing point.

If that's the case for the sun to appear going "down the horizon", then why is the sun and therefore its light colored with a redish-orange hue during sunsets?

I have to see some evidence of this "Sun looking twice as big near the horizon" claim. If anything, the Sun is either the same exact size near the horizon as it was in the middle of the sky, or slightly smaller or slightly squished vertically, based on what I've seen. I don't know if a spotlight sun is widely accepted by the FE community. I certainly don't think it is a spotlight, and from what I see, there is a gradual transition from day to night. The further the light travels, its color changes due to interaction with the atmosphere. Shortly after the red wavelength, it becomes invisible. The atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, it's opacity, and the distance to the light source, is what causes the darkness of night.

As for why it appears to go under the horizon seems to be chalked up to not knowing what a 300mi diameter object looks like as it goes overhead. If you watch a plane fly out over an ocean, even though it may be maintaining its altitude, it appears to be heading down to interact with the horizon before it becomes invisible due to the atmosphere. The assertion is we simply don't know how an object like the Sun would appear if it is beyond the vanishing point.

The sun sets, the sun gets bigger as it sets, and it appears to move faster.  Not slower and slower like a plane in the sky does.  If you disagree with that, well, then our eyes are made differently.   Being a avid nature enthusiast, that would mean my eyes have been lying to me for many many years.

As the sun moves away from it's upper most position in the sky and closest point to us, it should get slower and slower as it descends.  Based on a flat plane perspective, as it reaches the horizon it should basically come to a stop since it is traveling almost perfectly away from us at that point. 
Above us it is traveling perpendicular to us - so it appears to move it's fastest.
at the horizon, it's moving parallel away from us so we shouldn't see it move at all.

If the the earth is a spinning sphere, it should basically look the same size as it plots across the sky most of the sky until it shines through our atmosphere - which is does. 


If that's the case for the sun to appear going "down the horizon", then why is the sun and therefore its light colored with a redish-orange hue during sunsets?

Because the light from the sun is traveling through more atmosphere. Just like on the RE model.

As the sun moves away from it's upper most position in the sky and closest point to us, it should get slower and slower as it descends.  Based on a flat plane perspective, as it reaches the horizon it should basically come to a stop since it is traveling almost perfectly away from us at that point. 
Above us it is traveling perpendicular to us - so it appears to move it's fastest.
at the horizon, it's moving parallel away from us so we shouldn't see it move at all.

If the the earth is a spinning sphere, it should basically look the same size as it plots across the sky most of the sky until it shines through our atmosphere - which is does.

The sun is always moving at the same height in the sky, at the same speed, always parallel to your line of sight. Your thing about it traveling perpendicular or parallel and its apparent speed and position is fun to think about, but not an acknowledgment of reality.

In my opinion, it does appear to move faster when it is over head. I know it's just an illusion though, based on how light is perceived by your eyes and interpreted by your brain, ie perspective.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 04:34:46 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

The sun looks larger on the horizon due to an optical illusion: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate

In fact the sun is the same size when it is setting as when it is overhead.

In the flat earth theory there is no valid explanation for why it does not get smaller as it supposedly moves away from us like every other object we see receding into the distance. The best they can come up with is it supposed to be due to some magical new property of the atmosphere that magnifies objects emitting light. There are several threads on here about this bogus theory, but in essence, it does not really happen. And besides, how utterly convenient that this new heretofore undiscovered and unproven property of the atmosphere has the exact effect of magnifying the receding sun just enough throughout every moment of the day that it appears exactly the same size in the sky all day long as the sunlight travels through ever changing amounts of atmosphere. When it is close there is little or no magnification. When it is a medium distance there is a medium amount of magnification. When it is setting there is the maximum amount and again, always the exact amount to make the sun appear the same size throughout the entire day. That all strains credulity to the breaking point.

These kinds of explanations remind me of the Harry Potter books where whenever the main characters get into a jam, they stumble upon a piece of magic that is just what they need to solve their situation. The flat earthers can't explain something, so they invent a new unbelievable phenomenon to explain it.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 02:12:19 AM by Nirmala »

And besides, how utterly convenient that this new heretofore undiscovered and unproven property of the atmosphere has the exact effect of magnifying the receding sun just enough throughout every moment of the day that it appears exactly the same size in the sky all day long as the sunlight travels through ever changing amounts of atmosphere.

About as much as RE proposition that the Sun and the Moon only appear to be the same size because they just happen to be the exact size and distance from Earth to do so. Also pretty much every other happy convenience used to rectify the improbability of a big bang origin of life and common sense and logic.

And besides, how utterly convenient that this new heretofore undiscovered and unproven property of the atmosphere has the exact effect of magnifying the receding sun just enough throughout every moment of the day that it appears exactly the same size in the sky all day long as the sunlight travels through ever changing amounts of atmosphere.

About as much as RE proposition that the Sun and the Moon only appear to be the same size because they just happen to be the exact size and distance from Earth to do so. Also pretty much every other happy convenience used to rectify the improbability of a big bang origin of life and common sense and logic.

Except that they are not always exactly the same size as the size of the sun varies in the course of the year due to the elliptical path of the earth's orbit. Hence the occasional occurence of an annular solar eclipse where the moon does not block out the entire sun:



How does the flat earth theory explain an annular eclipse?

And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2017, 06:39:21 PM by Nirmala »

I also have never seen a valid explanation for why the sun acts like a spotlight, especially since the light from a spotlight does not stay completely focused. If I turn on a recessed ceiling light at one end of my house during the night, I can still see the light from that lightbulb when standing outside my house at the opposite end from where the single light is iluminated. And that is true even if there is a half closed door between me and the ceiling light blocking my direct view of the ceiling light. So how does the sun shine just on the area underneath it without still being visible from far off to the side of that brightly illuminated area?

In addition, the round ceiling light appears oval from a distance as I move away from standing directly under it, but the sun stays nice and round. Does the atmosphere also magically change the appearance of the sun to maintain its round shape when viewed from a distance?

Finally, there is simply no aspect of the phenomenon of perspective that would hide a distance object beneath the ground if that object was still located above the ground. Perspective is something that only happens inside the eye or camera. When it appears to the eye or camera that the ground is rising up to eye level, that is an optical illusion caused by the lens of the eye or camera. The actual ground outside our eyes does not rise up in both the flat earth and the round earth theories. It either stays level or curves away as predicted by the respective theory. The ground (or the sea) that is not actually rising up outside our eyes cannot hide the sun.

For a more complete explanation of why this concept is completely mistaken see this video:

« Last Edit: May 08, 2017, 08:23:34 PM by Nirmala »

And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Yes, I tend to find it easier to accept an explanation that does not violate any known physical laws and is consistent with all other observations relevant to the explanation than it is to accept an explanation that depends on a completely new and unproven physical property of the atmosphere that has never been observed independent of the context in which it is being claimed.

For example, I downloaded the picture from the Wiki that supposedly is evidence for this effect, and yet when I zoom the picture to 400% of original size, I can easily determine that the distant streetlights appear to be about half of the size in the photo as the closer streetlights. That is what perspective does (make distant objects appear smaller) and it is doing it to the globes of light formed by each streetlight in that picture, which is also attached to this post. So the evidence offered for this magnification effect is in actual fact evidence that perspective works the same for a source of bright light as it does for everything else. There is no magnification effect.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2017, 07:33:13 PM by Nirmala »

Offline simba

  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Is easy, we accept he ones that hold to scrutiny

And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Is easy, we accept he ones that hold to scrutiny

You accept the ones that are shielded from scrutiny. In fact the entire Flat Earth Theory is literally scrutiny of the currently accepted model, if there wasn't more than enough chinks in the armor of said model, the FES wouldn't exist.

The way people react so violently and incredulously to FET actually shows they aren't open to scrutiny or honest debate.

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
The violence reaction has nothing to do with scrutiny.  Rather, it has to do with the flat earth communities total abandonment of logic.  We are concerned that this spreading of poor reasoning skills will corrupt​ the world in a negative fashion and slow progress.

Offline simba

  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Is easy, we accept he ones that hold to scrutiny

You accept the ones that are shielded from scrutiny. In fact the entire Flat Earth Theory is literally scrutiny of the currently accepted model, if there wasn't more than enough chinks in the armor of said model, the FES wouldn't exist.

The way people react so violently and incredulously to FET actually shows they aren't open to scrutiny or honest debate.

The entire Flat Earth is based on assumptions and untested phenomena. The sole explanation for eclipses falls appart quite easily, and that's just one example.

ANd no, people doesn't act violently to FET, you guys barely deserve attention, but hate? Nah, don't victimize yourself. People's reaction to FET is merelly one of surprise, i mean, at this time and age, are you guys really this dense? I mean, i do challenge some of the things around me and that's ok, people shoul'd question what they do and see, but you guys only throw wild guesses with what can be barely called explanations.

You people are really awfull at being skeptical.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2130
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Yes, I tend to find it easier to accept an explanation that does not violate any known physical laws and is consistent with all other observations relevant to the explanation than it is to accept an explanation that depends on a completely new and unproven physical property of the atmosphere that has never been observed independent of the context in which it is being claimed.

For example, I downloaded the picture from the Wiki that supposedly is evidence for this effect, and yet when I zoom the picture to 400% of original size, I can easily determine that the distant streetlights appear to be about half of the size in the photo as the closer streetlights. That is what perspective does (make distant objects appear smaller) and it is doing it to the globes of light formed by each streetlight in that picture, which is also attached to this post. So the evidence offered for this magnification effect is in actual fact evidence that perspective works the same for a source of bright light as it does for everything else. There is no magnification effect.

As the wiki describes, the lights in the distance are not consistently shrinking. They should be little points, but they are not. At a certain distance they appear to stop shrinking altogether.

The lights very close to the camera are bigger, certainly, but that could be because the bulb size is bigger than the projection upon the atmosphere. This is described in the Wiki.

And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Yes, I tend to find it easier to accept an explanation that does not violate any known physical laws and is consistent with all other observations relevant to the explanation than it is to accept an explanation that depends on a completely new and unproven physical property of the atmosphere that has never been observed independent of the context in which it is being claimed.

For example, I downloaded the picture from the Wiki that supposedly is evidence for this effect, and yet when I zoom the picture to 400% of original size, I can easily determine that the distant streetlights appear to be about half of the size in the photo as the closer streetlights. That is what perspective does (make distant objects appear smaller) and it is doing it to the globes of light formed by each streetlight in that picture, which is also attached to this post. So the evidence offered for this magnification effect is in actual fact evidence that perspective works the same for a source of bright light as it does for everything else. There is no magnification effect.

As the wiki describes, the lights in the distance are not consistently shrinking. They should be little points, but they are not. At a certain distance they appear to stop shrinking altogether.

The lights very close to the camera are bigger, certainly, but that could be because the bulb size is bigger than the projection upon the atmosphere. This is described in the Wiki.

So the second light on the left is about 75% of the size of the first light. That is a lot of difference.... and the even more distant buls are less than half the size of the first bulb.

And as far as the bulb size looking bigger because the bulb is supposedly bigger than the mythical projection on the atmosphere, that is an understatement. The first light appears to be about as big in diameter as the height of the parking meter on the other side of the street. That is one damn big bulb!! If the bulbs are that big, then the distant bulbs sure do look damn small for them supposedly being magnified!!

My guess is that all of the lights are creating a halo of sorts on the camera lens, but each successive halo is smaller...just as perspective would cause. There is no street light with a three foot diameter bulb, and the distant lights are not looking smaller because the first bulb is bigger than their so called projection.

I would think that if you wanted to prove a magnification effect on lights via the atmosphere, the least you could do is show us a picture where the more distant lights actually do not get smaller. And also pick a picture where there are no lens effects at play also as there clearly are in this picture....unless you can show me a streetlight with a three foot diameter lightbulb. Not to mention that the headlights on the car in the foreground appear to be about 5 feet in diameter. That would be one funny looking car!!!
« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 02:02:19 PM by Nirmala »

Here is another picture of streetlights receding into the distance:



This picture is even clearer as each successive streetlight is smaller in the image until the smallest ones are about 10% of the size of the largest and closest light. Once again there is clearly a lens effect making all of the lights appear larger than they are, as the first light is about the same size in diameter as the height of the woman in the foreground. There are no streetlights with 5 foot diameter lightbulbs. But in the meantime, the lights get progressively smaller as they recede into the distance, just as the mechanism of perspective suggests will happen. There is clearly no magnification effect happening to the lights in the distance as each light is smaller than the next closer light.

The best way to measure this is to download the picture and then zoom the picture to 400% on your computer screen. At that level of zoom, the differences are obvious to the naked eye, and can also be easily measured with a ruler.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 06:53:29 PM by Nirmala »