[İntikam]

This graphic shows the mechanism of the refraction:





You see the sun when it's setting or rising on different place like this.



Edit: Second picture. Some of our friends missunderstand what i mean.

[Unsure101]

This graphic shows the mechanism of the refraction:



You see the sun when it's setting or rising on different place like this.

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

[Tom Bishop]

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

* lower refractive index (note that the light in Intikam's diagram bends in the opposite direction of the light in the photo.)

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

That is beside the point. The transition from high refractive index to low refractive index would need to be very close to the surface of the earth in order for the sun to appear close to the horizon.

Clouds are not the answer, because clouds change with the weather, but sunsets happen regardless of the weather.

In general, the change in air pressure with altitude causes light to refract slightly in the OPPOSITE direction, causing the sun to appear slightly higher than it actually is.

[Chris C]

This graphic shows the mechanism of the refraction:



You see the sun when it's setting or rising on different place like this.

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Well technically yes we live under water. Even the Bible say so. But it is not the form of water you would expect. There are 3 properties of water. Solid, liquid and Gas. The sky is made up of water in the form of a gas. Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. As a result depending of the density of the Air, the sun may looks like it is behind glass or water.


Have you ever seen this water on the road?


That is not water that is Heat on the road. Look at the cars relflection. Look at the sun reflection.

[TotesNotReptilian]

There are 3 properties of water. Solid, liquid and Gas.

* phases of water

The sky is made up of water in the form of a gas.

It contains water. It isn't made up entirely of water.

Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. As a result depending of the density of the Air, the sun may looks like it is behind glass or water.

I don't understand your logic here. What the atmosphere is made up of is irrelevant. Changes in composition/density/temperature/etc causes refraction.

You give good examples of refraction, but they are heavily dependent on the weather, and the amount of refraction is still way too small to account for the sun meeting the horizon (the original point of this thread). Sunsets happen regardless of the weather.

[BlueMoon]

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

We do.  We have plenty of reliable space agencies.  I've told you multiple times, with so many people checking the facts, there's no way they couldn't be reliable.  But if you admit that, you're admitting that your pent-up biases and precious flat earth fantasy are wrong.  And of course, you're much too prideful and/or deluded to do such a thing. 

[rabinoz]

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

Aren't we lucky then that we had radiosondes

The first true radiosonde that sent precise encoded telemetry from weather sensors was invented in France by Robert Bureau. Bureau coined the name "radiosonde" and flew the first instrument on January 7, 1929.

From Wikipedia Radiosonde History

You might get a bit of education in this area by reading up a bit. Start with elemantary stuff like: Windows to the Universe, Weather Balloons

These relayed information back about the upper atmosphere, and I do believe that they found that the atmospheric pressure is very low up there. A fact that has been verified by sounding rockets, high flying aircraft and manned balloons.

Since the refractive index of air at Standard Temperature and Pressure is only 1.000277 (and rapidly falls with altitude), you can forget about any magical refraction appering to lower the sun. Besides it is in the wrong direction, it makes the sun appear very slightly higher (up to about 30' of arc).

Your whole attitude seems to be "we don't know these things, so we assume they explains the holes in our theory". Well they do not!

[Tom Bishop]

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

Aren't we lucky then that we had radiosondes

The first true radiosonde that sent precise encoded telemetry from weather sensors was invented in France by Robert Bureau. Bureau coined the name "radiosonde" and flew the first instrument on January 7, 1929.

From Wikipedia Radiosonde History

You might get a bit of education in this area by reading up a bit. Start with elemantary stuff like: Windows to the Universe, Weather Balloons

These relayed information back about the upper atmosphere, and I do believe that they found that the atmospheric pressure is very low up there. A fact that has been verified by sounding rockets, high flying aircraft and manned balloons.

Since the refractive index of air at Standard Temperature and Pressure is only 1.000277 (and rapidly falls with altitude), you can forget about any magical refraction appering to lower the sun. Besides it is in the wrong direction, it makes the sun appear very slightly higher (up to about 30' of arc).

Your whole attitude seems to be "we don't know these things, so we assume they explains the holes in our theory". Well they do not!

High atmosphere != space.

Should we also assume that earth gets infinitely hotter the deeper we go because we've found that mines get hotter with depth?

[BlueMoon]

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

Aren't we lucky then that we had radiosondes

The first true radiosonde that sent precise encoded telemetry from weather sensors was invented in France by Robert Bureau. Bureau coined the name "radiosonde" and flew the first instrument on January 7, 1929.

From Wikipedia Radiosonde History

You might get a bit of education in this area by reading up a bit. Start with elemantary stuff like: Windows to the Universe, Weather Balloons

These relayed information back about the upper atmosphere, and I do believe that they found that the atmospheric pressure is very low up there. A fact that has been verified by sounding rockets, high flying aircraft and manned balloons.

Since the refractive index of air at Standard Temperature and Pressure is only 1.000277 (and rapidly falls with altitude), you can forget about any magical refraction appering to lower the sun. Besides it is in the wrong direction, it makes the sun appear very slightly higher (up to about 30' of arc).

Your whole attitude seems to be "we don't know these things, so we assume they explains the holes in our theory". Well they do not!

High atmosphere != space.

Should we also assume that earth gets infinitely hotter the deeper we go because we've found that mines get hotter with depth?

Of course not, because the earth isn't infinitely deep.  Unless, of course, the earth is flat and doesn't have a known thickness, in which case that's a question you should be asking yourself. 

[TotesNotReptilian]

Hey guys... everyone is missing the point. It doesn't matter what the refractive index of space or the upper atmosphere is. For the sun to appear next to the horizon, the refraction would have to take place very near the surface of the earth. In fact, it would have to take place practically at ground level.

Don't let Tom Bishop lead you off on an irrelevant rabbit trail so that he can dodge the relevant questions.

[rabinoz]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Your whole attitude seems to be "we don't know these things, so we assume they explains the holes in our theory". Well they do not!

High atmosphere != space.

Should we also assume that earth gets infinitely hotter the deeper we go because we've found that mines get hotter with depth?

I was proposing nothing of the sort, but it does appear to get a lot hotter, though no reasonable person would suggest "infinitely hotter".

We of course claim that there is plenty of evidence of what is up there and it was certainly gathered by a lot more agencies that the  DREADED NASA  .

Everything you say is a negative.
So, please just what are YOU proposing? To get the sort of refraction you suggest would need the sun to be embedded in a thick glass dome!
And even that does nothing to help the "magnification" as given in the Wiki:

Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.

Surely you realise how ridiculous "magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer" sounds when you think about it! The "intense rays of light" - did the writer conveniently forget that exactly the same observation (staying the same size from rising to setting) applies to the moon as well! The moon does not have any "intense rays of light"!

The full Moon is about 1,000,000 times fainter than the Sun

From: Wikipedia - Moonlight.

I was nearly going to say "Be reasonable", but the I doubt it's in your vocabulary!

  You might like to do a more little light reading: The History of Sounding Rockets by Günther Seibert.  Likely!

You are just so indoctrinated that anything that goes against your pet theory simply must be suspect.

I don't expect you to ever change you views, but others might be prepared to look further and be a little open minded.

[rabinoz]

Hey guys... everyone is missing the point. It doesn't matter what the refractive index of space or the upper atmosphere is. For the sun to appear next to the horizon, the refraction would have to take place very near the surface of the earth. In fact, it would have to take place practically at ground level.

Don't let Tom Bishop lead you off on an irrelevant rabbit trail so that he can dodge the relevant questions.

Yes, it is a little hard to see the connection between the temperature in mine-shafts and the required massive refraction required of sunlight!

Any spare "Looking Glasses" around of the Charles Lutwidge Dodgson variety.

[Rounder]

Should we also assume that earth gets infinitely hotter the deeper we go because we've found that mines get hotter with depth?

I know you're making a joke here, but I have to refer you now to the great one himself, Rowbotham, who says pretty much exactly what you propose here.  According to Earth not a Globe: the land floats on the seas, the seas hover over a layer of steam, the steam is kept boiling by the region of elemental fire.

I promise you, I'm not making that up, I only WISH to be so creative!

[Woody]

Did anyone notice the light in the diagram bends in an different direction then the light in the picture?

Intikam in the picture you provided it shows the sun would appear higher then it actually is.  In the diagram you show it would appear lower.

Seeing how one is a picture and the other a drawing I think we can conclude the picture is the more compelling evidence.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Did anyone notice the light in the diagram bends in an different direction then the light in the picture?

Intikam in the picture you provided it shows the sun would appear higher then it actually is.  In the diagram you show it would appear lower.

Yes. See my original response to his post. The lower refractive index should be on bottom for it to bend in the correct direction. Water has a high refractive index, air has a low refractive index.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Did anyone notice the light in the diagram bends in an different direction then the light in the picture?

Intikam in the picture you provided it shows the sun would appear higher then it actually is.  In the diagram you show it would appear lower.

Yes. See my original response to his post. The lower refractive index should be on bottom for it to bend in the correct direction. Water has a high refractive index, air has a low refractive index.

Wouldn't air have a higher refractive index than the vacuum of space though?

[TotesNotReptilian]

Did anyone notice the light in the diagram bends in an different direction then the light in the picture?

Intikam in the picture you provided it shows the sun would appear higher then it actually is.  In the diagram you show it would appear lower.

Yes. See my original response to his post. The lower refractive index should be on bottom for it to bend in the correct direction. Water has a high refractive index, air has a low refractive index.

Wouldn't air have a higher refractive index than the vacuum of space though?

Yep! It's a very slight difference though. This also contributes slightly to the sun appearing HIGHER than it actually is. (The opposite of Intikam's diagram)

[Undecided]

Come on guys, the original photo of the water bending / refracting  light is accurate. The second photo, is a drawing and is inacurate.

The light bends the same way, whether through air or water, maybe the angles are a bit different, but it still bends in the same direction.

The sun meets the horizon as it goes below it. The sun actually appears slightly higher in the sky than it really is, as it goes below the horizon it has actually already gone below it, but we see it delayed due to refraction. I'll draw a quick sketch and post it.

[Undecided]