[AATW]

Why is the person at D sitting in a ditch? I think that's supposed to represent perspective but the ground doesn't physically rise so that diagram is wrong.
And I guess the S is the sun? That sun is physically touching the earth. In your model it is 3000 miles above the earth, you would easily be able to see it.
Again, long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is PHYSICALLY on the horizon. Not "by perspective", perspective does not change shadow length or angle.

Earth Not a Globe is wrong about perspective.
Remember, it was written by a man who "proved" that the moon is translucent. Why do you continue to have such rock solid confidence in someone who believed that sort of thing?

[HorstFue]

Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.

Sorry, looks someone completely lost sense for dimensions.
Let's say the imperfection is 30m high, that's what about the maximum hight of any wave measured and reported so far.
And what is the something larger that can (should) shrink behind it?
The Sun? No. It's the "gap" between earth surface and the sun, 3,000 miles tall.
So this gives that the setting sun must be (3000*1609/30) 160,900 times farther away than the horizon.

[Tom Bishop]

Why is the person at D sitting in a ditch? I think that's supposed to represent perspective but the ground doesn't physically rise so that diagram is wrong.

The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.

And I guess the S is the sun? That sun is physically touching the earth. In your model it is 3000 miles above the earth, you would easily be able to see it.

Again, the perspective lines meet a finite distance away, and the waves block out the sun at the horizon line.

Again, long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is PHYSICALLY on the horizon. Not "by perspective", perspective does not change shadow length or angle.

No, it does not prove that. If light is coming from the horizon, it is approaching horizontally, and therefore shadows will be created as appropriate.

Remember, it was written by a man who "proved" that the moon is translucent. Why do you continue to have such rock solid confidence in someone who believed that sort of thing?

Actually it was conventional astronomy sources which made observations such as stars occulting the moon. Rowbotham just quoted them.

[Tom Bishop]

Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.

Sorry, looks someone completely lost sense for dimensions.
Let's say the imperfection is 30m high, that's what about the maximum hight of any wave measured and reported so far.
And what is the something larger that can (should) shrink behind it?
The Sun? No. It's the "gap" between earth surface and the sun, 3,000 miles tall.
So this gives that the setting sun must be (3000*1609/30) 160,900 times farther away than the horizon.

At the horizon, which is a finite distance away, the perspective lines meet. The sun has merged with the earth's horizon at that point. The waves merely explain what happens to the photons of the sun after the sun intersects the horizon.

[Tumeni]

The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.

Why? Because you look down at your feet, then raise your eyes to see the horizon?

That's just optical illusion. I'm on the approach flightpath to an airport. Every day I see planes on my horizon, miles away from my house, and they climb in my field of view to go over my house. But I know from online trackers and from details of arrivals at the airport that they're not climbing. They're coming in to land, and descending.

It's the reverse of your feet and horizon illusion

[inquisitive]

Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.

Sorry, looks someone completely lost sense for dimensions.
Let's say the imperfection is 30m high, that's what about the maximum hight of any wave measured and reported so far.
And what is the something larger that can (should) shrink behind it?
The Sun? No. It's the "gap" between earth surface and the sun, 3,000 miles tall.
So this gives that the setting sun must be (3000*1609/30) 160,900 times farther away than the horizon.

At the horizon, which is a finite distance away, the perspective lines meet. The sun has merged with the earth's horizon at that point. The waves merely explain what happens to the photons of the sun after the sun intersects the horizon.

How far is the horizon? Lines of perspective meet at infinity, by definition.

[douglips]

Why is the person at D sitting in a ditch? I think that's supposed to represent perspective but the ground doesn't physically rise so that diagram is wrong.

The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.

I thought you said that the railroad tracks don't ACTUALLY meet, so why does the ground ACTUALLY rise?

There's a difference between it appearing to "rise to eye level" and it actually rising to eye level. Are you saying that the ground at the horizon is my height higher than it is where I'm standing?

[HorstFue]

Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.

Sorry, looks someone completely lost sense for dimensions.
Let's say the imperfection is 30m high, that's what about the maximum hight of any wave measured and reported so far.
And what is the something larger that can (should) shrink behind it?
The Sun? No. It's the "gap" between earth surface and the sun, 3,000 miles tall.
So this gives that the setting sun must be (3000*1609/30) 160,900 times farther away than the horizon.

At the horizon, which is a finite distance away, the perspective lines meet. The sun has merged with the earth's horizon at that point. The waves merely explain what happens to the photons of the sun after the sun intersects the horizon.

Please Tom, explain this again with "Law of Perspective" from http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

I would see the Sun path at line A B

the Observer at E and his horizon at H.
But as E-C (2m) is significant smaller than E-A (3000miles!)

Therefore the line A, B, cannot possibly have its vanishing point on the line E, H, unless it is carried forward towards W. Hence the line A, W, is the true perspective line of A, B, forming an angle of one minute at W, which is the true vanishing point of A, B,

"forming an angle of one minute at W"? This gives a distance E-W of 3000*3000miles = 9,000,000 miles.

[AATW]

The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.

It does rise. Not to eye level, but close enough that it is hard to notice. But there is a measurable dip and that dip increases with altitude.
I never understand why you guys, who say you place so much importance on empirical measurements, don't just do some proper experiments.
There are some instructions here if you want to have a go:
https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/

And actually, there would actually be a dip even if the earth was flat. Here is a brilliant diagram to show why:



On a spherical earth the curve dips away from you, so you can only see as far as that. That is why the horizon gets further away with height and the angle of dip gets larger. The higher you are the further you can see round the curve.
This diagram is clearly exaggerated, in real life the earth is much bigger and the curve much more subtle which is why the angle is hard to notice - but it is measurable.
On a flat earth the same is true. I've assumed you can only see a finite distance but even if you could see all the way to the edge of the earth you'd still be looking down at an angle because your eye, the ground and the limit of your vision (or "the edge") form a triangle. Again, the higher you are the larger angle that would be.
This is one of those strange flat earth "proofs" because
a) It's not true, and demonstrably not true.
b) A dip of horizon does not prove a flat earth or a globe, you'd get a dip either way.

I think I've finally understood what your fundamental mistake is around all this. You don't understand what the horizon IS.
I'll add this to the growing list of things I've realised you don't understand.
The horizon is simply the line between the earth and the sky. If it was "where perspective lines meet" then it would all merge into a dot.
Why would vertical perspective lines meet and not horizontal ones? .

And if sunset is just perspective lines meeting then you wouldn't see the sun slowly sinking behind the horizon with a consistent angular velocity. If an aircraft goes over your head and away from you it seems to get slower as it gets further away. The sun doesn't, it has a consistent angular velocity because the earth rotates at a consistent speed. And sunset happens quicker the closer to the equator you get for the same reason, that's where the circumference is biggest so that's where the speed is biggest.
When train tracks appear to (note the appear to) merge it is simply a limit of your visual acuity. Things which are close together can become hard to distinguish at a distance. They don't really merge together though and one certainly doesn't appear to sink into the other.

I'll do another diagram about waves blocking things out later but basically, unless the waves are higher than your viewing position then they wouldn't block out anything higher than that. If you're looking out to sea then there is nothing physically blocking out photons from a sun 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high.

If light is coming from the horizon, it is approaching horizontally, and therefore shadows will be created as appropriate.

Correct. For the wrong reason, but you are actually correct. The light is approaching horizontally, hence the long shadows.
Now all you need to do is explain how light from a sun 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high can be doing that. (Spoiler: it can't).
Horizontal means: "parallel to the plane of the horizon; at right angles to the vertical". So light coming at me horizontally is either:
1) Coming from a light source which is physically at the same level of my eye or
2) Bending somehow so it appears to be.

Pick one. Those are the only two options.

Actually it was conventional astronomy sources which made observations such as stars occulting the moon. Rowbotham just quoted them.

“During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with ‘explanations,’ often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body to light on the other side.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham

He's not quoting anyone there. And I thought he was concerned with empirical observations? Here he's what, just taking someone's word for it?
Like all his "proofs", he is just saying "this is what has been observed". That isn't a proof.

[Curious Squirrel]

The ground does rise to eye level. Look at the horizon. The ground there is higher than the ground beneath your feet.

It does rise. Not to eye level, but close enough that it is hard to notice. But there is a measurable dip and that dip increases with altitude.
I never understand why you guys, who say you place so much importance on empirical measurements, don't just do some proper experiments.
There are some instructions here if you want to have a go:
https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/

I just wanted to note here quick, Rowbotham has 'proven' that a theodolite is inaccurate to the point it's measurements can't be trusted. Along with this, the same location contains his 'proof' that when viewed with the eye the horizon does indeed rise to eye level, and thus there is no dip. It's somewhere in ENaG, and I've attempted to point out the flaws in this particular piece before to little avail.

[HorstFue]

At the horizon, which is a finite distance away, the perspective lines meet. The sun has merged with the earth's horizon at that point.

I agree with the first part, perspective lines appear to meet at the horizon. But not the second, the sun will not merge with the horizon.

Let's look at this most cited "railway tracks". Ok, if these railway tracks are very, very long, they appear to meet at the horizon. But if now someone decided to make a brown field and removes the railway tracks at a distance of 400m and further on. Will these railway tracks still appear to meet at the horizon, No. The end of the track is now near enough, so that both rails are still distinguishable.
The same with the sun. For a while the sun will follow that imaginary perspective line, that will meet the horizon. But the sun will not be able to (appear to) follow the complete perspective line, because the distance between the sun and the observer is limited. Else the sun would have to leave the track above the equator or even the circumference of the earth.

[AATW]

If sunset was literally the sun reaching the vanishing point then, as the name suggests, the sun would get smaller and smaller until it vanished.
That is literally what the vanishing point is, it's the point beyond something can't be seen but that is because of limits of visual acuity, not because the object has literally vanished.
Optical zoom will allow you to see the object again so long as there is a clear line of sight.
This demonstrably doesn't match observations of sunset.

[Scroogie]

If sunset was literally the sun reaching the vanishing point then, as the name suggests, the sun would get smaller and smaller until it vanished.
That is literally what the vanishing point is, it's the point beyond something can't be seen but that is because of limits of visual acuity, not because the object has literally vanished.
Optical zoom will allow you to see the object again so long as there is a clear line of sight.
This demonstrably doesn't match observations of sunset.

Did someone actually say that the sun reaches its vanishing point? If they did, indeed, say that, then I feel it is my duty to point out that, according to a passage in the "Sacred Texts" the vanishing point for any given object is equal to 3,000 times its diameter.
Sun's diameter = 32 miles
Vanishing point = 32 X 3,000 = 96,000 miles

Does anyone see something amiss with that number, or it is just me?

[Bobby Shafto]

Did you see the sun go below the horizon, or did you see the sun intersect the horizon?

[Bobby Shafto]

Instead of that ^, I would expect to see this kind of sunset, if the sun intersects the horizon on its way to a vanishing point:

[iamcpc]

Did you see the sun go below the horizon, or did you see the sun intersect the horizon?

It looks like, to me, that there ocean is blocking the view of the bottom half of the sun. In the flat earth model does the ocean have hills that can block the sun?