[Dices]

Hi all,

Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?

How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.

[LoopTheory]

Maybe it is behind something that is blocking it from our sight!

[SeaCritique]

Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?

How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.

The apparent rising and setting of the Sun is caused by perspective and, as the Sun grows increasingly farther away, it'll be hidden from sight by the atmosphere and limits of our eyes.

The Sun is perhaps 3000 miles high. It is almost-definitely spherical.

We have a wonderful Wiki. Please take some time to do some research.

[Bad Puppy]

Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?

How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.

The apparent rising and setting of the Sun is caused by perspective and, as the Sun grows increasingly farther away, it'll be hidden from sight by the atmosphere and limits of our eyes.

The Sun is perhaps 3000 miles high. It is almost-definitely spherical.

We have a wonderful Wiki. Please take some time to do some research.

Evidently the stars don't follow the same rules, because they're clearly visible at night right up to the horizon.

[iamcpc]

Hi all,

Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?

How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.

There are many different answers to this question depending on what flat earth model you believe in.

Even if you believe in a very specific flat earth model (like the one where the earth is shaped like a flat circle with the north pole in the middle) there are many possible answers.

1. You are unable to see the sun during the night because of refraction from the dome.
2. You are unable to see the sun during the night because of refraction from the firmament.
3. You are unable to see the sun during the night because of refraction from the atmosphere.

Here is a video demonstrating how a refractive element (glass in this case) could prevent light from reaching all of the earth.



4. There is a limit to how far light can travel through the atmosphere. When you don't see the sun it is outside of that range.
5. The sun shines down like a spotlight. If you are not in the spotlight area you don't see the sun.
6. Some unknown thing/force/substance is blocking/bending the light.
7. The sun has set behind a part of the earth.
8. Gravity is bending the light from the sun preventing it from reaching your eye.
9. The sun has set behind the earth.

[Nick428]

Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?

How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.

The apparent rising and setting of the Sun is caused by perspective and, as the Sun grows increasingly farther away, it'll be hidden from sight by the atmosphere and limits of our eyes.

The Sun is perhaps 3000 miles high. It is almost-definitely spherical.

We have a wonderful Wiki. Please take some time to do some research.

If the sun were to be small and local, then:
a) we would see the angular size of the sun constantly change
b) we would see the sun get smaller as it sets
c) Barrow, Alaska (the most northern city in Alaska) would not be dark all day, and wouldn't rise at around 1 am
d) wouldn't have the ability to watch 2 sunsets if you quickly ascend in altitude
e) wouldn't see a semicircle as it sets

[iamcpc]

If the sun were to be small and local, then:

first off not all flat earth models have a small local sun. The model supported by the wiki is definitely incomplete and struggles with answering many questions.

a) we would see the angular size of the sun constantly change]
b) we would see the sun get smaller as it sets

There are several responses to these. They all kinda touch on both topics.

1. We do see the size of the sun change (or change as it sets):
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. I would link you to tom's post about it by i'm lazy. Basically oncoming headlights appear much larger than they are.

notice how on some of the headlights which are futher away appear much larger light sources than ones up close?

c) Barrow, Alaska (the most northern city in Alaska) would not be dark all day, and wouldn't rise at around 1 am

1. There are many flat earth models which function differently that the flat disk model in the wiki. There are flat earth models in which this happens.
2. The video below demonstrates how a refractive material such as a dome, firmament, or atmosphere can prevent the light from hitting the center in the flat disk model

d) wouldn't have the ability to watch 2 sunsets if you quickly ascend in altitude
e) wouldn't see a semicircle as it sets

The most common explanation for these phenomenon is chaotic atmospheric/visual/optical conditions or some sort of atmospheric refraction.
If you watch this video and pretend the opposite buildings are light from the setting sun you will notice that, because of the optical/visual/and atmospheric conditions just above the water you are unable to see them. If you went to a higher altitude the light hitting your eye would not be passing through the chaotic optical/visual/and atmospheric conditions just above the water thus letting you see further or seeing two sunsets.



Another explanation is that as you increase in altitude the air is less dense therefore light is refracted less before hitting your eye letting you see further.

[stack]

If the sun were to be small and local, then:

first off not all flat earth models have a small local sun. The model supported by the wiki is definitely incomplete and struggles with answering many questions.

a) we would see the angular size of the sun constantly change]
b) we would see the sun get smaller as it sets

There are several responses to these. They all kinda touch on both topics.

1. We do see the size of the sun change (or change as it sets):
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. I would link you to tom's post about it by i'm lazy. Basically oncoming headlights appear much larger than they are.

notice how on some of the headlights which are futher away appear much larger light sources than ones up close?

If you poke around for sunsets/sunrises timelapse with a solar filter, you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Like this:

[iamcpc]

If you poke around for sunsets/sunrises timelapse with a solar filter, you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Like this:

This really does not affect the responses.

1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter.

[stack]

If you poke around for sunsets/sunrises timelapse with a solar filter, you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Like this:

This really does not affect the responses.

1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter

Sure it does, it points to 2.

1. We don't see the sun change size.
3. I don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on, just a crisp, clear orb in the sky.
4. There's no scattering of light otherwise we would see it all blurry, not like the crisp image we see here.

[iamcpc]

1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter


Sure it does, it points to 2.

Drawing a line through a point does not magically invalidate it.

1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
1. We don't see the sun change size

 I've already presented evidence which shows that it DOES change size. I will present it again:



Notice how the sun DOES change size?

3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
3. I don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on, just a crisp, clear orb in the sky.

This claim was made based you seeing a video. Lets understand what's going on here:

Photons going from the sun, through the atmosphere, through a solar filter and hitting a camera. The Camera then makes it's best attempt to turn those collections of photons into a digital image/video.
That digital image being loaded onto a computer to a monitor which generates photons which hit your eye, your eye then tries it's very best to turn those new set of photons into an electrical signal and sends it to your visual cortex.

Now your visual cortex has this huge cloud of electrons and it tries it's very best to create some sort of an image out of it.


Just because you don't see it does not mean that it does not exist. It just means that your eye's limited ability to turn photons into a cloud of electrical signals and your visual cortex's limited  ability to translate that cloud of signals are both easily fooled. Allow me to give an example:

In the video below I see an arrow change direction and i don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on. Just because you SEE the arrow facing right does not mean that the arrow is facing right.

4. There's no scattering of light otherwise we would see it all blurry, not like the crisp image we see here.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter

First off you didn't present any evidence that light scattering causes things to appear blurry. Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that the atmosphere does not cause any light from the sun to scatter?
Do you have any evidence that supports your claim that ANY time ANY light is scattered it will appear blurry in such a way that is perceivable to naked human eye?

Second off yes there is scattering of light. Allow me to present my evidence:

"When light from the Sun passes through the atmosphere, it gets scattered by the large number of particles in the atmosphere".

Unless the entire path the light took from the sun to the camera was in a vacuum (which I highly doubt it was) then light was scattered.

[stack]

1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter


Sure it does, it points to 2.

Drawing a line through a point does not magically invalidate it.

I didn't mean any offense buy striking, just visually teasing out #2 as presented.

1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
1. We don't see the sun change size

 I've already presented evidence which shows that it DOES change size. I will present it again:



Notice how the sun DOES change size?

Sure, and I presented evidence which shows that it DOESN'T change size. But like I said, find sunsets/sunrises timelapses with a solar filter, (yours is not) you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Find one of those where it does and let's chat.

3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
3. I don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on, just a crisp, clear orb in the sky.

This claim was made based you seeing a video.

And so was yours.

Lets understand what's going on here:

Photons going from the sun, through the atmosphere, through a solar filter and hitting a camera. The Camera then makes it's best attempt to turn those collections of photons into a digital image/video.
That digital image being loaded onto a computer to a monitor which generates photons which hit your eye, your eye then tries it's very best to turn those new set of photons into an electrical signal and sends it to your visual cortex.

Now your visual cortex has this huge cloud of electrons and it tries it's very best to create some sort of an image out of it.

Just because you don't see it does not mean that it does not exist. It just means that your eye's limited ability to turn photons into a cloud of electrical signals and your visual cortex's limited  ability to translate that cloud of signals are both easily fooled. Allow me to give an example:

In the video below I see an arrow change direction and i don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on. Just because you SEE the arrow facing right does not mean that the arrow is facing right.

We don't live in a glass of water. Cool trick though.

4. There's no scattering of light otherwise we would see it all blurry, not like the crisp image we see here.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter

First off you didn't present any evidence that light scattering causes things to appear blurry. Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that the atmosphere does not cause any light from the sun to scatter?

I didn't present evidence, you did, with your car lights image, look blurry to me. Not defined like the orb in the video I presented. I never claimed the atmosphere does not scatter light. Just saying that a crisp clean seemingly low atmospherically interactive event like in the video I presented, the light didn't appear 'scattered' to me. I'm sure it is scattered, to what degree, I don't know, but the sun seemed crisp in the image/video.

Do you have any evidence that supports your claim that ANY time ANY light is scattered it will appear blurry in such a way that is perceivable to naked human eye?

Nope, and never said I did, just referencing you car light image. Again, just saying the image looks crisp, minimally 'scattered' and minimally subject to some perhaps more than usual refraction like miraging.

Second off yes there is scattering of light. Allow me to present my evidence:

"When light from the Sun passes through the atmosphere, it gets scattered by the large number of particles in the atmosphere".

Unless the entire path the light took from the sun to the camera was in a vacuum (which I highly doubt it was) then light was scattered.

Cool, obviously there is scattering, that's what light generally does. How much is dependent upon the given situation I suppose. All kinds of environmental factors.

[markjo]

If perspective and atmoplanic scattering are the main reasons for sunset, then it stands to reason that if you get high enough, then you should be able to push the vanishing point further back and virtually eliminate the scattering so that the sun should still be visible during what should otherwise be night.  Does anyone have any idea of what that altitude might be?

[iamcpc]

Cool, obviously there is scattering, that's what light generally does. How much is dependent upon the given situation I suppose. All kinds of environmental factors.

Well since we both agree that there is light scattering to a degree depending on all kinds of environmental factors then you can see the FE points. This light scattering happens in both the RE models and the FE models.

If perspective and atmoplanic scattering are the main reasons for sunset, then it stands to reason that if you get high enough, then you should be able to push the vanishing point further back and virtually eliminate the scattering so that the sun should still be visible during what should otherwise be night.  Does anyone have any idea of what that altitude might be?

This depends largely on the flat earth model.

1. 30 miles
2. Less than 30 miles
3. between 30-90 miles.
4.  infinite
5. Only heaven is beyond the atmosphere (immeasurable i guess)
6. You can't reach that altitude because you're being blocked by a dome/firmament.

[stack]

Cool, obviously there is scattering, that's what light generally does. How much is dependent upon the given situation I suppose. All kinds of environmental factors.

Well since we both agree that there is light scattering to a degree depending on all kinds of environmental factors then you can see the FE points. This light scattering happens in both the RE models and the FE models.

Light scattering happens in any model, essentially it just happens on earth, light does that around these parts. But when a solar filter is put on your camera (or face), essentially on a clear eve or dawn, you basically remove this scatter=change in size business. So, no, I don't see FE's points.

No scatter, no size change (These are beautiful, btw) shots with sun filters - This one is insanely crisp and stunningly gorgeous:



Another crisp one:



This is a good one b/c it does a side by side w/filter and without, about halfway through:

[iamcpc]

Light scattering happens in any model, essentially it just happens on earth, light does that around these parts. But when a solar filter is put on your camera (or face), essentially on a clear eve or dawn, you basically remove this scatter=change in size business. So, no, I don't see FE's points.

No scatter, no size change (These are beautiful, btw) shots with sun filters - This one is insanely crisp and stunningly gorgeous:

I presented evidence which suggested that light from the sun scatters upon contact with the atmosphere and you agreed that this scattering took place. Now it's your claim that light viewed through a solar filter was not scattered by the atmosphere? Do you have any evidence to support your claim.

Or is your claim that light viewed through a solar filter was scattered by the atmosphere and that the solar filter somehow reverses that? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?


I already presented evidence that strongly suggested that light from the sun that passed through the solar filter was already scattered by the atmosphere.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Here is a DIY solar filter being used on a light bulb at home. Hmm...seems to me it works properly as described, revealing the true shape of an object.

[iamcpc]

Here is a DIY solar filter being used on a light bulb at home. Hmm...seems to me it works properly as described, revealing the true shape of an object.

I have a lot of issues with that statement.

1. There is a HUGE difference between these things:

Light which is generated under optical conditions of an indoor room, spending 100% of it's time traveling through optical conditions of an indoor room, and  hitting a light detector in the optical conditions of an indoor room

Light which is generated under the optical conditions A  the vacuum of space, passes through optical conditions B the exosphere, passes through optical conditions C the thermoshpere, then D the mesosphere, then E the stratosphere, then F the mesosphere, then hitting a light detector in the chaotic surface level optical conditions.




notice this video.

Scenario 1:

let A = indoor air optical conditions
let B = glass optical conditions
let C = water optical conditions

path of light
A -> arrow -> A -> light detector = arrow facing left
A -> arrow -> A -> B -> A -> B -> A -> light detector = arrow facing left
A -> arrow -> A -> B -> C -> B -> A -> light detector = arrow facing RIGHT

Notice how passing through multiple different types of optical conditions DRAMATICALLY changes your perception?

2. You are using limited human perception here. Saying it looks like the true shape is like a doctor saying I don't need to wash my hands they look clean. Or like a physicist saying that the glass is not made of atoms because I don't see them.

Just because the limited abilities of the human eye and visual cortex are unable to perceive something does not mean that it does not exist.

We don't live in a glass of water. Cool trick though.

It's true we don't live in a glass of water. Yet the logic still applies.


The logic that still applies is this:
That video demonstrates that under conditions where the light that hits our eye has gone through multiple refractive mediums with different refractive indexes the electrical signal sent to the visual cortex, and the visual cortex's attempt to create a perception of said cloud of electrical signals can be grossly inaccurate to reality.

 Light from the sun has gone through multiple different refractive mediums with different refractive indexes such as the vacuum of space,  the exosphere,  the thermoshpere, the mesosphere,  the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, and finally the complex different layers of your eye.

All you have done is added another variable to the equation by adding another set refractive medium transitions

 New light path:

The vacuum of space,  the exosphere,  the thermoshpere, the mesosphere,  the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, a solar filter, more surface level chaotic atmospheric conditions after exiting the solar filter and finally the complex different layers of your eye.

[stack]

New light path:

The vacuum of space,  the exosphere,  the thermoshpere, the mesosphere,  the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, a solar filter, more surface level chaotic atmospheric conditions after exiting the solar filter and finally the complex different layers of your eye.

Sounds pretty complex indeed. What's the specific point you're trying to make in regard to the topic: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

[WellRoundedIndividual]

I can understand that you may perceive that the atmosphere is causing the light of the sun to do all sorts of crazy things. But no matter what time, location or conditions, a solar produces the same image of the sun. The rest of your arguments are straw men, and red herrings. I could say the same about your observations that the horizon is flat and therefore the earth is flat (in comparison to your physicist rebuttal about perceiving atoms).