[MCToon]

Since my analysis concluded that sunsets could never happen, the analysis is wrong in your view, why would you want my analysis?

Presumably for the same reason you're trying to solicit an analysis from FE'ers. After all, we disagree with you, therefore we're wrong, so why would you want our position?

I was told I didn't understand the flat earth position.  So I went looking for an explanation.  Nobody other than you and Tom has anything resembling an effort at analysis.  Everyone else's response is "perspective" or refusing to provide anything.

This has been a very informative exercise.  Nobody that thinks perspective causes sunsets actually tested perspective.  No exceptions.

[Pete Svarrior]

This has been a very informative exercise.  Nobody that thinks perspective causes sunsets actually tested perspective.  No exceptions.

I don't think that conclusion is even remotely close to valid, nor will announcing it here help your endeavour. Most FE'ers approach you with open aggression. Part of that is just bias, sure, but antagonising them severely limits your chances at meaningful communication.

You may be thinking that you're going for the double-dog-dare approach. "Pah, nobody can take my challenge, try it, you won't!" It really doesn't work tho.

[AATW]

There is no empirical evidence light does as he proposes, so it gets no farther.

FE always seems to employ circular reasoning with things like this. If light bend upwards then sunset could occur on a FE.
How do we know light bends upwards? We get sunsets.

The empirical evidence for EA seems to be the observations it is used to explain.

[Tumeni]

I am not going to engage in any of your research projects.

My time is too valuable to surrender for free.

Yes, I have a basis for stating the atmoplane is a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question.

I am relatively confident you and everyone else has heard of mirages, for instance.

To my mind, the next step would be for you to engage with my "project", and demonstrate how the "atmoplane" has affected it. But you won't. Vague hints in the direction of "mirages" do not make for a sound basis.

[Pete Svarrior]

The empirical evidence for EA seems to be the observations it is used to explain.

The idea that anyone should be "explaining observations" rather than drawing conclusions from them is at the core of the disagreement here. We're not trying to "explain sunsets", despite the repeated cries of those who claim to support science, but whose actions betray them. We observe, hypothesise, verify, and conclude.

EA is partially hypothesised, and at no point did verification suggest that there's any reason to stop developing the theory.

[Action80]

I am not going to engage in any of your research projects.

My time is too valuable to surrender for free.

Yes, I have a basis for stating the atmoplane is a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question.

I am relatively confident you and everyone else has heard of mirages, for instance.

To my mind, the next step would be for you to engage with my "project", and demonstrate how the "atmoplane" has affected it. But you won't. Vague hints in the direction of "mirages" do not make for a sound basis.

What project?

You have no project.

There is nothing conceptually vague about mirages.

[GoldCashew]

MCToon,

You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)


Action80     

In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:

1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause the sun (or a ship) to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When the sun (or a ship) moves away from an observer, why does the sun (or a ship) always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?

- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first. And, the sun appears to set and rise because the Earth is rotating.

[Action80]

MCToon,

You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)


Action80     

In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:

1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause a ship to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When a ship moves away from an observer, why does a ship always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?

- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first.
- I think MCToon is asking you to explain the physics or science regarding why/how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause the sun to appear to "sink down" on a flat plane.

This thread is about explanations of sunsets, not about ships.

MCToon claims sunsets cannot happen on a flat earth, based on an extremely comprehensive analyis he performed regarding two issues, those being perspective and refraction.

Quiet please, while he gathers the data as to provide the particulars...

[GoldCashew]

MCToon,

You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)


Action80     

In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:

1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause a ship to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When a ship moves away from an observer, why does a ship always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?

- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first.
- I think MCToon is asking you to explain the physics or science regarding why/how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause the sun to appear to "sink down" on a flat plane.

This thread is about explanations of sunsets, not about ships.

MCToon claims sunsets cannot happen on a flat earth, based on an extremely comprehensive analyis he performed regarding two issues, those being perspective and refraction.

Quiet please, while he gathers the data as to provide the particulars...

My above post included the sun (i.e. sun setting) and a question as to why the sun always sets "down" but never sets "up" on a flat earth.

As MCToon is gathering his data would you be able to provide some clarity as to how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause a sun to set down vs. up?

[Action80]

MCToon,

You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)


Action80     

In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:

1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause a ship to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When a ship moves away from an observer, why does a ship always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?

- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first.
- I think MCToon is asking you to explain the physics or science regarding why/how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause the sun to appear to "sink down" on a flat plane.

This thread is about explanations of sunsets, not about ships.

MCToon claims sunsets cannot happen on a flat earth, based on an extremely comprehensive analyis he performed regarding two issues, those being perspective and refraction.

Quiet please, while he gathers the data as to provide the particulars...

My above post included the sun (i.e. sun setting) and a question as to why the sun always sets "down" but never sets "up" on a flat earth.

As MCToon is gathering his data would you be able to provide some clarity as to how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause a sun to set down vs. up?

It only included the word sun after I pointed out your off-topic contribution.

I am not going to entertain your off-topic original contribution/only to later revise game.

[GoldCashew]

MCToon,

You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)


Action80     

In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:

1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause a ship to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When a ship moves away from an observer, why does a ship always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?

- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first.
- I think MCToon is asking you to explain the physics or science regarding why/how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause the sun to appear to "sink down" on a flat plane.

This thread is about explanations of sunsets, not about ships.

MCToon claims sunsets cannot happen on a flat earth, based on an extremely comprehensive analyis he performed regarding two issues, those being perspective and refraction.

Quiet please, while he gathers the data as to provide the particulars...

My above post included the sun (i.e. sun setting) and a question as to why the sun always sets "down" but never sets "up" on a flat earth.

As MCToon is gathering his data would you be able to provide some clarity as to how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause a sun to set down vs. up?

It only included the word sun after I pointed out your off-topic contribution.

I am not going to entertain your off-topic original contribution/only to later revise game.

I indeed sent my original post out and noticed it did not include mention of the sun. When I noticed this, I was in the process of editing my post just as you sent your reply.

The timestamp of my edit shows this.

Anyways, in good faith and now with sun added, would you be able to answer the question as to how mirages, perspective, and atmoplane always cause the sun to appear to set down vs. set up on a flat earth?

[Tumeni]

I am not going to engage in any of your research projects.

To my mind, the next step would be for you to engage with my "project", and demonstrate how the "atmoplane" has affected it. But you won't. Vague hints in the direction of "mirages" do not make for a sound basis.

What project? You have no project.

I never claimed to have something named as a project. I invited you to examine my observations and conclusions, all on YouTube (here and in other threads), and you declined, referring to this here as my "research project". I put it in quotes because I was quoting you. You were the first to refer to me having a "project".

Again, I invite you to view my observations and conclusions, and indicate what I should be looking for in terms of these "atmoplane" effects that would have any significant effect on either.

If you're not going to engage in review of my work, and you refuse to engage with others, and you provide no observations, projects or experimentation of your own, then ... why are you here?

[Action80]

I am not going to engage in any of your research projects.

To my mind, the next step would be for you to engage with my "project", and demonstrate how the "atmoplane" has affected it. But you won't. Vague hints in the direction of "mirages" do not make for a sound basis.

What project? You have no project.

I never claimed to have something named as a project. I invited you to examine my observations and conclusions, all on YouTube (here and in other threads), and you declined, referring to this here as my "research project". I put it in quotes because I was quoting you. You were the first to refer to me having a "project".

Again, I invite you to view my observations and conclusions, and indicate what I should be looking for in terms of these "atmoplane" effects that would have any significant effect on either.

If you're not going to engage in review of my work, and you refuse to engage with others, and you provide no observations, projects or experimentation of your own, then ... why are you here?

As always, crystal clear statements from you, Tumeni [/sarcasm]

You have stuff on YouTube? Where?

[Tumeni]

You have stuff on YouTube? Where?

Told you already in a previous thread. PM me for links. Last time I posted them in threads, Pete slapped me down for "spamming" my own channel

PM me, and I'll link you.

[AATW]

The empirical evidence for EA seems to be the observations it is used to explain.

The idea that anyone should be "explaining observations" rather than drawing conclusions from them is at the core of the disagreement here. We're not trying to "explain sunsets", despite the repeated cries of those who claim to support science, but whose actions betray them. We observe, hypothesise, verify, and conclude.

EA is partially hypothesised, and at no point did verification suggest that there's any reason to stop developing the theory.

Maybe "understanding" is a better word that "explaining"? That's what science has sought to do - to understand.
The sun clearly goes across the sky and sets - the ancients believed that it was the sun that moved, their flat earth model had the sun above the earth during day and below it during night. Day was day everywhere, night was night everywhere. We now know that isn't true. So we need a different explanation or understanding of how the sun moves and why it sets.

Your page on Zeteticism says:

in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed to testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment

But how does one do that? What's the experiment? We know the sun sets. Let's say that a rotating globe earth and your FE model with EA yield identical results. Why would you conclude one of those rather than the other?

You have said that you believe you can "see too low", so I guess that's a test you've done - making observations of distant objects. But I think you accept that you can't see all of distant objects. So now what? Conventional science would say that you can't see the bottom of distant objects because the earth is a sphere and the bottom is hidden behind the curve of the earth. And if you can see more than your trusty curve calculator tells you that you should, then it's because refraction is a thing - a thing one can easily demonstrate. But now we're back to the same problem. If FE+EA would also yield the same results then why is one conclusion preferable to the other?

What's the test that makes you favour FE+EA over a globe earth?

[Tron]

McTOON -

Here is another FE theory about Sunsets.  In the first image, you can see a light bulb hovering over a flat earth map with a glass magnifying dome on top.  You can see how half the earth is covered with light and the other half in darkness (night).



To explain sunsets, you need to understand how light is seen from earth through an atmospheric dome... In this short video, I placed a camera beneath the dome pictured above and slowly walked away to simulate the sun moving away from observers during a sunset.  As you can see, the glass dome slowly fades the image of the light bulb into darkness...

[Pete Svarrior]

Could you tell us more about that dome? Is it hollow or solid inside, like a paperweight? I assume the latter, but would appreciate if you could confirm

[Tron]

Yes solid..

[GoldCashew]

Yes solid..

The Earth's atmosphere isn't a solid glass dome. Your experimental approach with a solid glass dome is not accurate.   

It also appears that the size of the Sun you are using (via the light bulb) is much larger in scale as compared to the solid glass dome you are using to represent the Earth. The diameter of the small spotlight Sun should be as close in scale to the size of the flat earth you are simulating. So, this would need to be scale relative to the diameter of the flat Earth plane.

[Tron]

It's not, but the atmosphere has water vapor which can add to refraction...