Again, 5 days on the board and more that 30 views and nada for responses.:P Tried the Wiki? :P
If you want an interesting answer then ask an interesting question.
Flat-earthers have answered questions like this to death. You even asked the same question in two different threads. If you want an interesting answer then ask an interesting question.
Flat-earthers have answered questions like this to death. You even asked the same question in two different threads. If you want an interesting answer then ask an interesting question.
So how can there be a sunset or sunrise?--- because light does not travel forever and you can not see forever.
Even a spotlight turned at a right angle to the viewer is visible to a viewer miles away, and the sun is a -27 magnitude star or for those that use watts, 380 Septillion watts of light. Oh and in lumens it is 6.84X1033 lumens.Which all boils down to this: 1 cloud in the sky is enough to fully obfuscate the sun's rays.
So how can there be a sunset or sunrise?--- because light does not travel forever and you can not see forever.Even a spotlight turned at a right angle to the viewer is visible to a viewer miles away, and the sun is a -27 magnitude star or for those that use watts, 380 Septillion watts of light. Oh and in lumens it is 6.84X1033 lumens.Which all boils down to this: 1 cloud in the sky is enough to fully obfuscate the sun's rays.
Sun setting, not fading, setting, through an inversion layer over the sea.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/gfim13.htm
Flat-earthers have answered questions like this to death. You even asked the same question in two different threads. If you want an interesting answer then ask an interesting question.
So you can't explain it either.
Flat-earthers have answered questions like this to death. You even asked the same question in two different threads. If you want an interesting answer then ask an interesting question.
So you can't explain it either.
Not proving you an answer is not evidence of an inability to answer. You can read the FAQ or use the search function. Hell, you can probably just scroll down or page back to find your answer.
Light DOES travel1 cloud blocks the sun's rays.
---SNIP---
to the sun that my calculator says 0%
Light DOES travel1 cloud blocks the sun's rays.
---SNIP---
to the sun that my calculator says 0%
Can you imagine what 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 clouds might do???????????????????
Sunset is not caused bySo how can there be a sunset or sunrise?--- because light does not travel forever and you can not see forever.Even a spotlight turned at a right angle to the viewer is visible to a viewer miles away, and the sun is a -27 magnitude star or for those that use watts, 380 Septillion watts of light. Oh and in lumens it is 6.84X1033 lumens.Which all boils down to this: 1 cloud in the sky is enough to fully obfuscate the sun's rays.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/08-Weipa%20Sunset_zpstd6ncc8x.jpg) | Wider Spacing | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/13-Weipa%20Sunset_zpsvl5otrfj.jpg) |
Light DOES travel1 cloud blocks the sun's rays.
---SNIP---
to the sun that my calculator says 0%
Can you imagine what 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 clouds might do???????????????????
Flat-earthers have answered questions like this to death. You even asked the same question in two different threads. If you want an interesting answer then ask an interesting question.
So you can't explain it either.
Not proving you an answer is not evidence of an inability to answer. You can read the FAQ or use the search function. Hell, you can probably just scroll down or page back to find your answer.
The point is there is NO answer in FAQ or Wiki that is mathematical. It is ALL of it fantasy that you cannot defend. So, your fall back position is to deflect the questioner to a part of the site that is equivelent to a gerbil running on a wheel; the faster he runs the faster he gets nowhere.
Well I am not running on that wheel. Provide a mathematical solution to why an object at a fixed altitude above a plain can be seen to go below that plain in violation of all known math and geometry.
Flat-earthers have answered questions like this to death. You even asked the same question in two different threads. If you want an interesting answer then ask an interesting question.
So you can't explain it either.
Not proving you an answer is not evidence of an inability to answer. You can read the FAQ or use the search function. Hell, you can probably just scroll down or page back to find your answer.
The point is there is NO answer in FAQ or Wiki that is mathematical. It is ALL of it fantasy that you cannot defend. So, your fall back position is to deflect the questioner to a part of the site that is equivelent to a gerbil running on a wheel; the faster he runs the faster he gets nowhere.
Well I am not running on that wheel. Provide a mathematical solution to why an object at a fixed altitude above a plain can be seen to go below that plain in violation of all known math and geometry.
[/quote
Oh, so you're mind is already completely made up? Well, I'm glad I didn't waste my time writing you a personalized and detailed answer. After all, all the info you seek is in the wiki.
I've read the flat earth wiki answer and it doesn't explain why the sun disappears from the bottom to the top.
If it's perspective then you'd expect the entire object to continuously get smaller.
If it's simply being blocked by clouds you'd expect the entire object to dim, more or less, uniformly.
This isn't what we see.
We see exactly what we would expect if we were on a spinning globe.
Oh and another thing. Your lack of an answer IS evidence that you have no ability to answer the question, it just isn't proof.
Flat-earthers have answered questions like this to death. You even asked the same question in two different threads. If you want an interesting answer then ask an interesting question.
So you can't explain it either.
Not proving you an answer is not evidence of an inability to answer. You can read the FAQ or use the search function. Hell, you can probably just scroll down or page back to find your answer.
The point is there is NO answer in FAQ or Wiki that is mathematical. It is ALL of it fantasy that you cannot defend. So, your fall back position is to deflect the questioner to a part of the site that is equivelent to a gerbil running on a wheel; the faster he runs the faster he gets nowhere.
Well I am not running on that wheel. Provide a mathematical solution to why an object at a fixed altitude above a plain can be seen to go below that plain in violation of all known math and geometry.
[/quote
Oh, so you're mind is already completely made up? Well, I'm glad I didn't waste my time writing you a personalized and detailed answer. After all, all the info you seek is in the wiki.
My mind is made up because I understand math. I know that 2+2 is not whatever you fantasize it to be. I know that the angles involved in FE make it impossible for the sun or moon to set below the plain of a FE.
You FAQ and Wiki ignore a simple fact; Geometry proves an object at fixed distance above a plain cannot descend below the plain.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html
As it has been pointed out, perspective cannot be the answer either. The Sun and Moon rise top first and set bottom first. In perspective both Sun and Moon would, because of the laws of math (geometry) remain above the plain and seem to become smaller, while keeping their shape. Now if you insist that the Sun is a "Spotlight" you add the problem that a spotlight appears as a disk only to those directly under the spotlight. To those east and west or north and south of Local Noon, the disk would be visibly distorted and more so at sun rise and set.
After all, all the info you seek is in the wiki.You mean the wiki that says that the sun is a spotlight and therefore should appear as an ellipse as it "sets"?
Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:Be nice to see your figures.
Fig71.jpg
However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:
Fig75.jpg
This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point. Every receding star and celestial body in the night sky likewise disappears after intersecting with the vanishing point.
Here's the text again, with the figures included. Doesn't make it any better, just completes the foolishness.
Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them. When a plane flies away from an observer, without increasing or decreasing its altitude, it appears to gradually approach the horizon. In a long row of lamps, the second, supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series, will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.
Once the lower part of the Sun meets the horizon line, however, it will intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the sun's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent beyond the resolution of the human eye. The vanishing point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.
Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig71.jpg)
However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig75.jpg)
This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point. Every receding star and celestial body in the night sky likewise disappears after intersecting with the vanishing point.
I had to do some extra work, go to the source and drop the images inline between a pair of IMG tags.