[SiDawg]

This means that the point you're describing as the "top" is actually the back of the rotated image (and consequently it's obstructed by the rest of the Sun).

I think i see what you mean, and you're rotating my sun to match what the observer sees: i'm saying leave the sun and my points where they are: I accept that the observer views that sun at an angle. We do not disagree with each other. I'm picturing that "roughly" at sunset set the person would be seeing an image of the sun upwards at 45 degrees or so, i.e. tracing the light rays back from the observer to the sun. As you can see in my diagram, the angles of those rays are roughly 45 degrees: it's diagrammatic. So the observer sees an image of the sun, with a "top" and a "bottom" yeah?... If the top is 0 degrees, and the bottom is 180 degrees (for arguments sake), my points are at 0 degrees (green) and 90 degrees (orange). The lower point is not the bottom of the sun, it's just lower than the top point, and disappears after the top point. Nothing you've said seems to address the obvious issue of light towards the top of the sun failing to reach the observer before the lower point of the sun. All you seem to be doing is picking unrelated holes in how I've described the problem, without addressing the problem.

This is high school physics. If you don't grasp these fundamentals then you are going to have a difficult time understanding EAT

lol seriously? Flat earth believes disregard so much of high school physics, how am i meant to know what bits you accept or not? But yes i misspoke and used velocity instead of speed. I realise velocity is a vector. Please don't insult me, it makes me want to do the same and i'm trying reeeeally hard not to.

But yeah i get you're point, light rays are pulled in a perpendicular direction and maintaining the same speed. That still seems a bit "odd" to me but i accept it, and I don't believe it effects what i'm saying in the slightest: the paths of light that i assumed were bending up sharply hit the ground anyway... they're irrelevant to my point just because they hit the ground at a slightly different angle. Roughly speaking: light rays are bending upwards. My point still holds as far as i can tell.

[Pete Svarrior]

i'm saying leave the sun and my points where they are: I accept that the observer views that sun at an angle.

That makes no sense. The figure you're looking for is (very close to) 90 degrees, not 45, and if we leave your points where they are, then you're proposing that the back of the Sun would disappear before the front. You can't even see the back of the Sun because it's obscured by the rest of the Sun.

The reason I'm attacking your understanding of the problem is that if you manage to finally draw a correct diagram, you'll realise that there is no problem. I can't address something that doesn't exist, especially when all you have done to make your case is present diagrams with glaring holes. Currently, your argument is "if light were a projectile, a person with x-ray vision could see the back of the Sun fade away sooner than the front of the Sun". It shouldn't be shocking that we're trying to get you to say something that makes at least some sense prior to addressing it.

[SiDawg]

It's hardly "at the back" of the sun... unless you're starting to propose again that all light from the sun starts off by travelling downwards from the centre like the original EA diagram from Tom? I thought we had established that you agree that light from the sun emanates in all directions and isn't an array of lasers?

[Pete Svarrior]

Virtually all light that any observer on the Earth will see will have originated downwards. That much should be obvious. Other light tends not to be illustrated because it's frankly irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but if you can't see how your own diagrams (even before fixing your curves and the fact that your observer is hundreds of kilometres tall) result in a 90-degree rotation of the Sun for the observer at sunset, then there's very little I can do to help you. You already drew an adequate explanation of this, and if you fail to comprehend your own explanations, then I sure as hell won't be able to do any better.

The answer to your question is "this doesn't happen under EAT because your premise directly contradicts EAT."

[SiDawg]

Why do you have to talk to me like im an idiot? To me, i don't get what you don't understand about the diagram... the rays exit the sun at roughly 45 degrees, the sun hasn't "rotated 90 degrees", nothings rotated at all, just the view that the observer would see would have the green point at the top, and the bottom point 180 degrees below that. If you fail to understand that after careful explanation there's very little i can do to help you.

But I think we can both have a win here... if you're saying the majority of the light rays visible by the observer are from those emanating downwards, then yes, it makes total sense that my hypothesis of the top disappearing first would probably be wrong. What you could've said at the start is that "light rays exiting the sun at anything greater than a few degrees to vertical will never reach the observer" but hey... whatevs.

So we can at least conclude that "light rays that reach the observer must emanate a 'half sun' described by a line parallel to the surface of the earth. If light rays reaching the observer were to eminate from a point ABOVE that line, then that point would become the effective 'top' of the sun to the observer, and because that point will have a corresponding point 90 degrees below it, then the apparent 'top' of the sun will disappear before that lower point". Agreed? Note I've said "lower point", not bottom. Or to be more precise, because it wouldn't be the perfect half sphere (i.e. you'd have to work out the angle towards the eye and reduce the half sphere visible) then you could say "once the top most point rotates such that there is a second point directly below it", or once that first point rotates past the true half way parallel line... something like that...

[Pete Svarrior]

Why do you have to talk to me like im an idiot?

You keep saying this. I don't think you're an idiot. I mean it sincerely that, if you still don't see the 90-degree rotation despite producing a diagram that illustrates it yourself, then I do not know how to explain it better. This isn't a case of "I think you're an idiot", but rather one of "this is an unfortunate lose-lose scenario".

What you could've said at the start is that "light rays exiting the sun at anything greater than a few degrees to vertical will never reach the observer" but hey... whatevs.

I did not realise that this was unclear until you've made it explicit in your previous post. I really can't just guess what is and isn't confusing to you. That's why I previously asked you to state your contentions.

So we can at least conclude that "light rays that reach the observer must emanate a 'half sun' described by a line parallel to the surface of the earth. If light rays reaching the observer were to eminate from a point ABOVE that line, then that point would become the effective 'top' of the sun to the observer, and because that point will have a corresponding point 90 degrees below it, then the apparent 'top' of the sun will disappear before that lower point". Agreed? Note I've said "lower point", not bottom.

No, we can't agree on that. What you call the "lower point" will not be visible to the observer around that time, since it will literally be obstructed by the front of the Sun. The concept of something you can't see "disappearing" is not accessible to me. For something to disappear, it must have first appeared.

Similarly, if you look at my avatar, you can't see the back of my head. This is not due to any property of perspective. It's simply a case of my beautiful face being in the way.

[xasop]

But yeah i get you're point, light rays are pulled in a perpendicular direction and maintaining the same speed. That still seems a bit "odd" to me but i accept it, and I don't believe it effects what i'm saying in the slightest: the paths of light that i assumed were bending up sharply hit the ground anyway... they're irrelevant to my point just because they hit the ground at a slightly different angle. Roughly speaking: light rays are bending upwards. My point still holds as far as i can tell.

No, you never had a point to begin with. As a consequence of different rays having different curves in your diagram, they cross over each other all the time. This means that, for most observers, the same point on the Sun's edge will be observable in multiple directions at once.

The technical term for this is "blur", and you're going to have a tough time making the case that the Sun is not observable as a coherent circular image in the sky. If your diagram cannot even model a single point on the Sun correctly, how do you hope to produce a meaningful description of what the entire Sun looks like?

[SiDawg]

But yeah i get you're point, light rays are pulled in a perpendicular direction and maintaining the same speed. That still seems a bit "odd" to me but i accept it, and I don't believe it effects what i'm saying in the slightest: the paths of light that i assumed were bending up sharply hit the ground anyway... they're irrelevant to my point just because they hit the ground at a slightly different angle. Roughly speaking: light rays are bending upwards. My point still holds as far as i can tell.

No, you never had a point to begin with. As a consequence of different rays having different curves in your diagram, they cross over each other all the time. This means that, for most observers, the same point on the Sun's edge will be observable in multiple directions at once.

The technical term for this is "blur", and you're going to have a tough time making the case that the Sun is not observable as a coherent circular image in the sky. If your diagram cannot even model a single point on the Sun correctly, how do you hope to produce a meaningful description of what the entire Sun looks like?

er, no, i don't think you know how an eye works... only the paths of light that enter the eye will be visible. The diagram just shows all of the possible paths of light: something is visible if there is a path of light entering the eye. The eye will "focus" a number of rays entering the lens at certain angles from the same point by converging them to a single point. If you drew all of the rays of light in the room you're in right now it might freak you out. It doesn't look "blurry" though does it? There's light bouncing around all of the place, they just don't enter the eye, or they enter the eye at the wrong angle

[SiDawg]

I mean it sincerely that, if you still don't see the 90-degree rotation despite producing a diagram that illustrates it yourself, then I do not know how to explain it better

OK i'll try this one more time, but i can concede my entire point is moot if light rays start downwards. I can concede that with what I now understand to be the correct EAT theory of the the suns light rays, then my problem doesn't occur. I'm completely happy with this outcome as it gives additional information to EA and provides a path for further discussion. But anyway, one final time for the folks back home:



Curves not shown, just "starting angle" and "ending angle"



There's no "90 degree rotation", there's a 45 degree angle of light, so the "visible portion" of the sun describes a perpendicular 45 degree angle...



I imagine what's happened here is you've taken your understanding of the sun "pointing downwards", and then seen my two points on a 45 degree sun, and my two points DO describe a 90 degree angle to your version of the sun... but in of themselves, they are not 90 degrees to MY understanding of the sun: they're just an additional 45 degree angle (45 + 45 = 90!)

So on my apparently totally incorrect version of the angles of light from the sun, then the top point would disappear first. This is now made almost entirely irrelevant, as you've explained that in EAT the light from the sun is almost completely downwards. Although we still have some points higher than others, they're also "further away" so you don't end up with the same problem of the area of visible light ending at the top before the bottom.

I think you'd still find if you modelled what the sun would look like as it disappears in your version, it would not be as perfectly uniform as observed

[Bobby Shafto]

I understand it this way:


Not all light that reaches an observer on earth starts straight down. It depends on where you are. 

The sun is radiating light in all directions, but only that light emanating within a certain angular  range reaches earth, and where you are on earth relative to the sun determines the angle from vertical of those light rays leaving the sun that reach you. As the sun moves westward, those angles of light leaving the sun increase slightly, but result in a greater angle incident to earth due to EA.

If there was no earth and you were suspended in space on a plane below the sun, the sun wouldn't "set." You'd just see it appear to get lower below horizontal. (Edit: have to think on this more. Might not be true. checks out.)  The sole reason for the sun "setting" in either standard RE mechanics or EA theory is the obstruction of earth. With EA, to see the rays that emanated at angles such that they are curving upward before they reach earth, you have to climb in elevation to intercept them.

[Pete Svarrior]

It doesn't start straight down. Just close enough to it for practical purposes. Sure, if it makes you feel any better, we can make the angle 80-90 degrees. 45 is a no-go.

[xasop]

er, no, i don't think you know how an eye works... only the paths of light that enter the eye will be visible. The diagram just shows all of the possible paths of light: something is visible if there is a path of light entering the eye. The eye will "focus" a number of rays entering the lens at certain angles from the same point by converging them to a single point. If you drew all of the rays of light in the room you're in right now it might freak you out. It doesn't look "blurry" though does it? There's light bouncing around all of the place, they just don't enter the eye, or they enter the eye at the wrong angle

If two light rays intersect at a point, and you place an eye at that point, both of those rays are going to enter the eye. The eye can't magically "focus" two light rays that originate from the same point but different directions. If it were somehow able to do that, then mirrors would appear as black objects because all of their light would be "focused" onto the original. Can you see how absurd this claim is?

[SiDawg]

If two light rays intersect at a point, and you place an eye at that point, both of those rays are going to enter the eye. The eye can't magically "focus" two light rays that originate from the same point but different directions

*shrug* don't tell it to me, tell it to science



When things are "in focus" the different direction of light coming from a single point all go to a single point. When things are "out of focus" they go to different points and appear blury. If two paths of light enter the eye at "the same spot" on the front of the lens but originate from different spots, the shape of the lens will "direct" those rays of light to separate spots on the retina. So the eye's dealing with two things: the "location" of something i.e. wheres the top of the sign, the bottom of the sign, the word 'stop' etc, and the eye is also dealing with "focus"... i.e. for these rays all coming from the same spot, am i going to focus and converge them back to a single point, or am i converging other things in the picture... am i focusing on the bird or the building. If it was only single rays of light from each point in an image that reached the retina, then EVERYTHING would be in focus in your image plane.

In fact your iris does control this: it's an "aperture": just like a camera: when the aperture is tiny, then the depth of field is huge: "everything" is in focus but the amount of light entering is less so the image is darker. When the aperture is wide open i.e. big hole, then the depth of field is small: you need to "focus" on certain items at a certain distance, and everything else is blurry. Your eye doesn't change the shape of the iris becaue it gives a crap about depth of field, it's just trying to control the amount of light on your sensitive retina. Depth of field is a side effect.

Or put another way: different rays from the same point enter the eye while "diverging" (spreading out)), different rays from DIFFERENT points enter the eye while "converging" (joining together)... The lens will deform to bend diverging rays in to a single point (focus) but the converging rays will enter the eye, cross over, and hit the retina at different spots to tell the brain that those points are in different spots. Similarly, if something is out of focus, the diverging rays fail to be bent back to converge perfectly, end up hitting "different spots" and our brain tells us this is one object out of focus rather than different objects or a blurry object (and gives us an option to try to bring those things in to focus). Staring at a blurry photo of something can strain our eyes, because our brain tells us it's something is out of focus but our lens fails to deform to bring it back in to focus.


https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/biology-the-living-environment/physiology/vision-how-do-our-eyes-work/

[xasop]

If two light rays intersect at a point, and you place an eye at that point, both of those rays are going to enter the eye. The eye can't magically "focus" two light rays that originate from the same point but different directions

*shrug* don't tell it to me, tell it to science

Yes, I understand how focus works. This isn't at all the scenario we're talking about. If you really can't see that there is a huge difference between light rays diverging from a point and getting focused back to another point, and light rays getting bent so that they appear to come from completely different directions, then I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain the self-evident.

I don't know why we're even having this conversation. You already conceded the point that your diagrams show the curvature of light incorrectly. Why is the burden of proof still on me to show that an incorrect model would make incorrect predictions?

[SiDawg]

The eye can't magically "focus" two light rays that originate from the same point but different directions

So you DON'T understand how focus works...

Yes, I understand how focus works. This isn't at all the scenario we're talking about

So the scenario is NOT two light rays that originate from the same point?

If you really can't see that there is a huge difference between light rays diverging from a point and getting focused back to another point, and light rays getting bent so that they appear to come from completely different directions, then I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain the self-evident.

If you don't understand that "divergence" implies "different directions" then I don't know how to explain the self evident.

But I think I get what you're trying to say, I apologise if i misunderstood. The way I've drawn/calculated the curved light causes an issue because diverging rays will become converging rays. And yes, this would result in blur. i.e. top two pairs of diverging rays in image below = no problem.... bottom where diverging then becomes converging = huge problem: i.e. the eye will think they're rays from two different points. I agree this causes a problem, and provides an additional piece of useful information for EA: if rays of light starting in different directions must not converge, then the effect of the "pull" must be relative to the distance from that light ray. You said earlier the curve for each light ray would be more or less the same: I think it's an important distinction to make. If they were EXACTLY the same curve, the they would eventually converge. If you imagine two light rays that have turned so they're now travelling parallel to the earth (one above the other) then the upwards pull must effect the the higher ray less than the lower ray, otherwise they would converge.

[xasop]

There is no problem if the rays converge at some point high above the Earth where nobody is ever going to see them. What's important is that there is no noticeable convergence at altitudes people actually visit.

None of this is getting us any closer to a foundation for your claims in the OP.

[SiDawg]

True. Let's put this to bed. We've learnt new information about a) the nature of the "force" curving the light rays and b) the initial direction of those light rays.  The OP conjecture doesn't hold under those conditions.