[Tom Bishop]

Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?

For this query see the wiki article on that topic.

Viewed through a welder's mask or dark UV filter, the sun still remains the same size.

The explanation is describing a projection upon the atmosphere. A welder's mask would make as much difference as wearing sunglasses in a movie theater to block out the movie.

I showed you how the math allows your railroad tracks to meet using human perception limits (perspective) just up above. The math doesn't allow them to meet (as they don't)

Your math is just that -- math. Where in reality is there an example of perspective lines never touching each other for infinity?

You've also never shown anywhere that the model actually breaks down, only your repeated claims that it must because it 'doesn't represent reality'. But the reality you are referring to are conditions that you are claiming exist.

Your model must reflect things which occur in reality, not the mind of an ancient person who believed that perspective lines would approach each other for infinity. Where is the evidence that would happen?

IF the Earth is flat, the math is indeed wrong (and you now need to show where the math is measurably wrong using things that do not depend upon a flat Earth). If the math is correct, the Earth cannot be flat.

No. You need to show that the math is based on SOMETHING in reality. You must demonstrate reason for us to believe that the nature of perspective lines act in the ways you describe.

"Prove me wrong" is a terrible debating strategy. You are claiming that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity, and that is your claim to demonstrate in some way.

So you REQUIRE basic geometry to fall apart at some indeterminate distance.

That geometry for perspective lines and long distances has never been demonstrated to be based on anything in reality. It is your duty to provide evidence for it.

If no evidence can be provided, why should we assume it to be true?

[Tom Bishop]

you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?

EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!

EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high

Perspective changes the orientation of bodies around you. Perspective has has oriented the man to be 90 degrees from zenith for the sun. A photon leaving the sun at 90 degrees is pointed at the man, and that is the straight line path it will take.

[Revel]

you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?

EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!

EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high

Enough about perspective! Interpret it!

Perspective changes the orientation of bodies around you. Perspective has has oriented the man to be 90 degrees from zenith for the sun. A photon leaving the sun at 90 degrees is pointed at the man, and that is the straight line path it will take.

[Curious Squirrel]

I showed you how the math allows your railroad tracks to meet using human perception limits (perspective) just up above. The math doesn't allow them to meet (as they don't)

Your math is just that -- math. Where in reality is there an example of perspective lines never touching each other for infinity?

Which is why the angular limit of the human eye comes into importance, as I showed you.

You've also never shown anywhere that the model actually breaks down, only your repeated claims that it must because it 'doesn't represent reality'. But the reality you are referring to are conditions that you are claiming exist.

Your model must reflect things which occur in reality, not the mind of an ancient person who believed that perspective lines would approach each other for infinity. Where is the evidence that would happen?

Because two parallel lines will never touch. Not perspective lines, actual parallel lines. The angular limit of the human eye is what creates the perspective effect and I accounted for that and it matched reality.

IF the Earth is flat, the math is indeed wrong (and you now need to show where the math is measurably wrong using things that do not depend upon a flat Earth). If the math is correct, the Earth cannot be flat.

No. You need to show that the math is based on SOMETHING in reality. You must demonstrate reason for us to believe that the nature of perspective lines act in the ways you describe.

"Prove me wrong" is a terrible debating strategy. You are claiming that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity, and that is your claim to demonstrate in some way.

No, I'm claiming that two *parallel lines* will never meet. Which is correct. Perspective lines meet at the point their angular distance becomes too small. 0.02 degrees. Which I showed matches up very nicely with where the horizon is, giving the appearance of railroad tracks meeting just over it or at it.

So you REQUIRE basic geometry to fall apart at some indeterminate distance.

That geometry for perspective lines and long distances has never been demonstrated to be based on anything in reality. It is your duty to provide evidence for it.

If no evidence can be provided, why should we assume it to be true?

Irrelevant. They work at all easily measurable distances. That means it's on YOU to show they stop working at some distance, and how and why they do. Not just claim "Oh well you've never measured at this distance, so I can claim whatever I want about it here." No. That's not how it works. It works correctly for all testable distances. This means it's on the claimant (you) to show it works as they claim it does, and NOT as it's shown to work in the real world. Do I need to link Engineering projects and math homework that relies on this to prove this point? Or can you just accept the rules for triangles work at all real world testable distances? I'd be happy to see what I can dig up if you're going to be petulant on this point, but will you actually admit you can't accept a staple of geometry as fact just to get me to do it? *grabs popcorn*

You need to show that a diagram such as the one 3D has provided for the sun, breaks down at long distance in such a way that what should be an angle of 25 degrees, becomes one of 0.02 or less (I'll give you a break here, show me an angle of less than 5 degrees). The angular limit of the eye accounts for perspective, as I just showed you. Thus the math accounts for perspective, as I just showed you. Now either show us what's wrong with the math, or show us how you know it breaks down at some distance, and how. Or admit sunsets can't happen on a flat Earth of this rough size.

[Ga_x2]

you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?

EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!

EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high

Perspective changes the orientation of bodies around you. Perspective has has oriented the man to be 90 degrees from zenith for the sun. A photon leaving the sun at 90 degrees is pointed at the man, and that is the straight line path it will take.

this is a meaningless sentence. Does the earth literally raises? Is the sun torching it at sunset?
In your model the sun is 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high. The photons cannot be emitted at ground level. There is nothing there to do it. They have to cover the vertical distance somehow.
The cases are two: either the earth literally raises, and the sun is leaving smouldering craters around the world at sunset
Or, the light bends somewhere, getting down in altitude before realigning parallel to the ground.
There is no way around it. Which is it?

Also, in your diagrams you have a paradoxical situation in which you can't conserve the orientation of the line of sight with respect to the ground. The direction is radically different. You have to address this too.

EDIT: I've read this now:

At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.

So, let's go through this. Assuming a flat earth with no obstacles... a sunset in the desert.
I point a laser beam at eye level, 6' , parallel to the ground. What happens?
Basic geometry suggests that after a mile, it will still be at 6' height. The same after 100 miles. After 6000 miles, if the earth is flat and the light goes straight, it will pass at 6' height, below a sun  which is 3000 miles high.
You are saying that, instead, it's going to hit the sun.
How?! Walk me through the path of that laser. Tell me how to cross that 3000 miles divide without bending the light or without incinerating the earth

[gizmo910]

Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?

For this query see the wiki article on that topic.

Viewed through a welder's mask or dark UV filter, the sun still remains the same size.

The explanation is describing a projection upon the atmosphere. A welder's mask would make as much difference as wearing sunglasses in a movie theater to block out the movie.

Can you expound on this further?

Wouldn't the sun also appear to be getting brighter as in the example photo on the wiki, the headlights on the horizon are distorted coming through a fog, appearing not only "larger" but brighter than their counterparts in the foreground.
From the wiki:

[3DGeek]

Woah - busy 24 hours since I was last here!

OK - so I'm going to concentrate on replying to Tom's multiple posts:

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective.

We'll move on to perspective once we know how the photons get from the sun, past the tree on the horizon and into the person's eye while still (somehow) travelling in a straight line...as you claim they do.

This isn't about perspective AT ALL.   This is about what it would be like to follow the path of a little bundle of light from the surface of the sun, past the tree on the horizon and into the guy's eyeball.

Answer THIS question...that's the one that separates the men from the boys here.

If that's too hard, imagine a long rope tied to the sun at one end and to the man's head at the other and pulled tight so it's a straight line.  How would this touch the tree on the horizon?

Once you can follow the path of the photons, your "perspective" explanation will either become crystal clear to everyone here - or it'll become equally clear to you that you're not able to explain sunsets and sunrises adequately.

But you're continual "mumble, mumble PERSPECTIVE mumble mumble" postings are not making your position clear.

Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all.

To be 100% accurate:  "Under the model I am referencing, the horizon could not exist at all IN A FLAT EARTH"...which is correct - I believe that if the earth was flat, then there would be no horizon, just a distant blur due to atmospheric effects.   But the horizon clearly is there, and often as a crisp, hard line - which is because light travels in a straight line and the Earth is curved.

So - you're essentially saying "3DGeek must be wrong because in the flat earth system there would be no horizon - hence he must be wrong and the earth is flat"...but that's a logic flaw.   You're assuming the answer in order to prove the answer.   In formal logic, you're making the error of petitio principii...or in common English "begging the question".

It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

No - it's only wrong if the earth is flat...which it's not...again, you're using petitio principii.  You're saying that IF THE EARTH IS FLAT...then 3Dgeek cannot prove that the earth is not flat.   Which doesn't mean that I can't prove that the earth isn't flat.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level.

I deny this claim.  It does not.   You're a confirmed Zetetic - you can only have come to this conclusion as a result of experimental evidence.  Where is this evidence?

Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

That seems undeniable...IF there is a horizon.  But in FET, the horizon doesn't exist - it's just atmospheric attenuation.   Your very own Wiki says so:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Viewing_Distance says...

It has been noted that although the earth is flat, distant continents thousands of miles away remain unseen. This is due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. There is a limit to human sight before all lands are faded and obscured by the thickness of the atmosphere.

Atoms and molecules are not transparent and so distant objects will be faded with distance. For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance. That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. When you look through the atmosphere you are looking through a fog of atoms and molecules. If the earth had no atmosphere those distant mountains would be as clear and sharp as the foreground.

So you're getting confused about your own information here!

OK - so in Tom's second recent post we see:

The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.

So in the top image, a GIGANTIC man looks past a tiny tree and the land slopes uphill to a point where it literally touches the sun.  I'm not sure what this is supposed to convey.  If the sun was touching the ground in Morocco when it's sunrise in Texas (see my diagram) then it would leave gigantic scorchmarks in the ground...it doesn't...so the sun isn't LITERALLY on the ground - it's only SUBJECTIVELY so.

We need to understand the LITERAL path of the photons - and as my diagram clearly shows, if they travel in a straight line - then there is no sunset.

Your second diagram conveniently proves this.   You have placed the sun way too low though...it's altitude at sunset/rise should be about half of the distance to it...so let me fix that for you:



But there is a more fundamental problem here - the angles don't add up.   A tree that's (say) 20 meters tall and 20 km away on the horizon would not subtend the same angle at the person's eye as the sun at 3000 miles up and 6000 miles away.  That's a massive angular difference.

The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality.

The principle of similar triangles says that I can halve all of the distances and the angles and ratios stay the same.  I can divide them by 10,000 and the same applies.   So if light travels in straight lines - the rules will be the same at all distances.

Your claim that my model is contradictory to reality is 100% correct - and that is the ENTIRE point of it.  That's because my diagram assumes that the world is flat.   If I draw you a diagram with the earth correctly curved - then everything works out perfectly.  (HINT: THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT!)

Your model of an infinite-distant and impossible-to-reach horizon is entirely theoretical and based on an ancient concept of a continuous universe. There is nothing to say that your model would hold up in reality.

The concept of a "continuous universe" seems irrelevant here - that's the Greek idea from around 330BC that there are no such things as atoms...they bounced around a bit on that one.  But it seems to have no bearing whatever on this debate.  Maybe you're thinking of some other concept?

Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away. Rail road tracks travel a finite distance before meeting the horizon -- not an infinite distance as predicted by your model. Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of reality and perspective which have never been observed.

Indeed, the distance to the horizon is finite - but that's because the Earth is round.   As is said in the Wiki - the flat earth horizon is claimed to be there because the air isn't clear enough to see further.

Train tracks don't meet at the horizon - they only look that way because human vision isn't good enough to resolve the gap.  Grab a pair of binoculars and you can see a separation quite easily.   Don't guess...do the experiment!

The PURPOSE of my diagram is to show that YOUR flat earth theory (not mine!) doesn't match with reality.  That's what we're arguing about here.  Again, you're being guilty of petitio principii - you're saying "The world is flat,  3Dgeek's diagram doesn't match that the world is flat, therefore the diagram is incorrect."...but you're ASSUMING that the world is flat and using that to argue that the diagram cannot be right because it proves the world isn't flat!!

[3DGeek]

3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.

I still don't know what you're talking about "continuous universe theory" for - that's the theory that there are no atoms...it has no bearing on this.

My diagram uses no math whatever - it's just a diagram.

However, I've shown previously that your ideas of perspective are incorrect using the pinhole camera approach - and then I did use some ancient greek math...the law of "Similar Triangles".

Just because math is old doesn't mean that it's wrong.   The law of similar triangles is one of Euclid's theorems and it's ever bit as valid today as it was when Euclid wrote it down.

Euclid also wrote a book on perspective - which you should probably read.

He starts with eight axioms - which are things that we can all agree upon...EXCEPT ONE!!  Euclid believed (as did many people) that light rays emanated from the eye rather than from the object you're looking at!  Fortunately, this assumption doesn't affect any of his conclusions - which are logically determined with step-by-step rigor.   If you reverse the direction of the light rays in all of his work - it doesn't change the outcome.

Euclid has NEVER been disproven - even after 2,350 years.

So if you're saying he's wrong - then you REALLY need to look at his work first - so you at least know what you're disproving.

Simply saying "It doesn't match reality" isn't a valid logical argument because it DOES match reality if the Earth is round.   So (again) you can't say "Euclidean Perspective doesn't match the flat earth therefore euclidean perspective is incorrect and therefore the earth is flat"...you're assuming the consequent...begging the question.

[Curious Squirrel]

3DGeek, you brought up:

I deny this claim.  It does not.   You're a confirmed Zetetic - you can only have come to this conclusion as a result of experimental evidence.  Where is this evidence?

Seemed only fitting to inform you it's been covered by Rowbotham, you've likely just forgotten. I can't place where it is right now, but he essentially stated: "The devices used to sight long distance angles show a dip below the horizontal when looked through at the horizon. Upon removing the glass from them though, the horizon was once again right at the level of the eye. Thus, the way the glass is used is defective." Or something to that effect. Basically claiming that his eyes are a better instrument for measuring it, than the instrument we created to help us measure it. I'm certain Tom will bring it up though, as it fits the idea of evidence for 'horizon rises to eye level' as well as a similar story I recall in ENaG about him going on a balloon ride. Sorry I can't find the pages right now, recall it being somewhat early on in ENaG though.

[mtnman]

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.

What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?

Any tiny waves or swells that breach the flat surface.

The perspective lines may be perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. In Earth Not a Globe the author points out that the sunset happens sooner than expected if the conditions of the oceans are more disturbed.

Just to be sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.

Example scenario. I am standing on the coast of California, looking west, watching the sun set. Just using rough approximations for the sake of discussion only. If the sun is at its highest point at noon, it would be at the opposite side 12 hours later, so that would mean it would about 1/4 of the way around at sunset, let's say 6 pm. Based on your unipolar map that would be around eastern Australia.

You are saying the sun is at so low of an angle above the Earth, that tiny waves and swells are what block us from seeing the sun after it sets from out perspective.

Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.

I would like to get back to Tom's statement about vanishing points existing because things (waves, swells, trees, etc.) block the view.

If this is the case, then there should be a definable height above which there are no obstacles. This also implies that on a flat Earth the sun should always be visible given proper height. For example, from an airplane or the world's tallest building. 

[mtnman]

Any reply to my previous question from the FE faithful?

[xenotolerance]

Adding on: that height at which you can always see the sun should not be much higher than, say, sea level.

This is one more failed prediction of a flat Earth model - the Earth is not flat!

[mtnman]

Agreed. With Tom's explanation of the vanishing point being caused by things blocking the view, would only make sense that a few thousand feet up, the sun should be visible 24 hours a day. If the Earth was flat.

[mtnman]

So we are into November now and still no FE comment on Tom's statement about vanishing points existing because things (waves, swells, trees, etc.) block the view. Most disappointing.