[AATW]

Why do people keep talking about EAT? Has any flat earther proposed it as an explanation for this video?

I mentioned it because the original post asked how these shadows were cast. Obviously in the real world we know how they are, but from a FE point of view the only way it could happen is if the light from the sun was bent upwards which is what EA claims. I don’t think there’s any experimental evidence for that effect actually existing and I have no idea how the equation on that Wiki page was derived or tested.

[Max_Almond]

It puzzles me a bit. Imagine you're a lurker on the fence. You come to this thread and see that video. Maybe think, bloody, hell that's impossible if the earth were flat and go away troubled by it.

But now the whole thing's bogged down and clogged up with unnecessary words and ideas.

Flat earthers don't need to smokescreen discrepancies anymore, globers do it for them!

[George Jetson]

This happens because as an object (like the sun) becomes more distant it drops in apparent height.

Not so on both counts. Whether an object drops in 'apparent height' depends on where the observer is, it's not a concrete law. And, in any case, "apparent height" is not "height". If you take a photo of me from a quarter of a mile away, it might appear than I'm only a few inches tall, but I assure you I'm not.

It depends upon the angles at which the light from the object are coming in which depends upon distance between object and observer, so there is a concrete physical basis for drop in apparent height.

Trying to use that to explain this video is confusing perspective with reality (see Dougal and the cows for a good explanation of this).

Edby's diagram sums it up perfectly:



If anyone thinks it's possible for the Everest shadow video to work on a flat earth, I would suggest they either draw a profile diagram of how this would work, or better still, make a scale model. All they need is a light and two objects of different sizes.

It's possible because as the sun moves away from the mountain perspective and atmospheric refraction work together to decrease the angle of the light rays coming from the sun, as those angles become shallower and shallower the shorter mountain peak can serve to block those rays.  You can't easily make a scale model because it requires vast differences in distance between light sources, observers and objects.

[JCM]

It's possible because as the sun moves away from the mountain perspective and atmospheric refraction work together to decrease the angle of the light rays coming from the sun, as those angles become shallower and shallower the shorter mountain peak can serve to block those rays.  You can't easily make a scale model because it requires vast differences in distance between light sources, observers and objects.

1. The Sun is a sphere.... you have to show how it works as a spotlight... until you can show the sun is not a sphere with light emanating in all directions from every point on its surface then all of the rest of this is just nonsense.
2. Why would refraction cause light to bend Up?  I was under the impression light is bending down in order to explain the sinking ship and the sunset itself in FEH.. Please make up your mind which direction sunlight needs to bend to make various FET work.
3.  Shadows require a direct line to the light source, this is how shadows work, in order for a lower mountain to shadow the higher Everest, the light source must be even lower.
4. EAT has not been shown to exist.  Its properties and mode of action are not even well described.  Zero experimental evidence.  What’s so special about UP?  Why would EAT only act in the upwards direction?  If EAT acts this way, then it goes against what we see every day with actual measurable refraction and mirages.

[Max_Almond]

It's possible because as the sun moves away from the mountain perspective and atmospheric refraction work together to decrease the angle of the light rays coming from the sun, as those angles become shallower and shallower the shorter mountain peak can serve to block those rays.  You can't easily make a scale model because it requires vast differences in distance between light sources, observers and objects.

You're a bit confused, George, about what perspective is.

How is perspective working, for example, in Edby's diagram?

And why would the properties of light change depending on distance? (If you say 'refraction' - refraction can be demonstrated at very short distances too. Plus you're bending the wrong way, as pointed out above.)

Funny how we can make scale models of the actual planet, globe, moon, sun, etc that match reality perfectly - but the flat earth idea is apparently 'unmodelable'.

[stack]

Here's an FEH model, albeit very crude. If the sun does not set like in the globe earth model, the constant height FE sun will only cast a shadow as high as the lower mountain, no matter perspective or distance.

[Max_Almond]

Here's an FEH model, albeit very crude. If the sun does not set like in the globe earth model, the constant height FE sun will only cast a shadow as high as the lower mountain, no matter perspective or distance.

And that's with the sun only around 2-3 times as high as the tallest mountain - rather than the 546 times higher that they claim it is.

[Max_Almond]

Here's a picture of a man walking along a street at night:



The nearby lamps are clearly a lot taller than he is, and I think we can assume that the lamps are all about the same size.

The ones in the distance appear at a lower 'apparent height' than the man, because of the law of perspective. But they're not actually smaller than him, or lower than him, they're just far away.

This is what the scene would look like for an observer from the side (aka, reality):



Question is: will the distant lamps shine on the underside of his chin? That's what flat earthers are proposing will happen when they try and explain videos such as the Everest sunset one.

[AATW]

Question is: will the distant lamps shine on the underside of his chin?

To which the answer is “No, clearly not”.
Shadow angle depends solely on the relationship between the physical positions of light source and object which the shadow is cast of.
The FE claim (from Tom and GJ at least) is that because the distant light appears to be below the man’s chin by perspective the shadow is cast upwards. But that is obviously not true. Were that so then the person taking that photo would observe the shadow of the man cast upwards because from his perspective the lamp seems to be below the man’s chin. An observer from the side would observe the shadow cast downwards because from that perspective the lamp appears to be above the man’s chin. This makes no sense, the shadow is either angled upwards or downwards, that can’t change because of anyone’s perspective.
While we are here, the man in that photo would see the lamp above his chin because the lamp IS above his chin. Distant objects which are taller than you may appear shorter than closer ones but the top of them will never go below eye level. If the FE claim is that they do then that contradicts the claim that the horizon rises to eye level. Claiming that distant lights which are physically above you go below eye level would be equivalent to claiming that the horizon rises to above eye level.
In that photo the lamp only looks lower than the man’s head because the photo is taken from below the level of his head.

[Spingo]

As with all these discussions what appears to be forgotten is reality.

Imagine you were able to position people at regular intervals, say one every hundred miles along a line of latitude.
Each person in a comfy chair looking at the sky for 24 hours. Ok some may have to be in boats....but let’s go with it. For everyone it’s a bright blue sky with no clouds. What are they going to see?

A few facts.
Every person will see the same sun.
Every person will see it rise and then set.
Not everyone will see the sun at the same time.
For some it will be full sunshine while for others it will be pitch blackstrap the same time.

The question is what is accounting for the changing levels of illumination that each observer experience during the 24 hour period?

(a) the brightness of the sun varies during the 24 hour period
(b) the relative position of the observer in relation to the sun accounts for changes in perceived light levels

All those who selected (a), that’s John and Rowbotham have unfortunately failed!

As for the Mount Everest question, get out more and go look at some mountains at sun rise or sun set.

[stack]

I'm still hung up on Everest. It seems to me that Rowbotham's ENAG Chapter IX with his "Law of Perspective" as the cause for the observable sunrise/sunset is, well, null and void.

Just simply messing around with the visuals/vectors, no matter the distance of the constant height FE sun, the resulting shadow from a lower peak than Everest will never rise higher than it's own height. Yet we see the shadow rise up to the top of Everest. I think we're in the realm of the sun actually "sets" and we can put an 'X' through chapter IX.

[Max_Almond]

All good, you guys - though one question:

Imagine you were able to position people at regular intervals, say one every hundred miles along a line of latitude.

How will they know where the line of latitude is?

[inquisitive]

All good, you guys - though one question:

Imagine you were able to position people at regular intervals, say one every hundred miles along a line of latitude.

How will they know where the line of latitude is?

Using GPS on their smartphone.

[Spingo]

All good, you guys - though one question:

Imagine you were able to position people at regular intervals, say one every hundred miles along a line of latitude.

How will they know where the line of latitude is?

It’s just a thought experiment! Though your phone would do it, as to who would supply the chairs and boats, that I’m not sure, though we could ask people to bring their own.

[Max_Almond]

Problem is, they don't believe in GPS, information from phones, lines of latitude, or distances, etc.

Though I'm pretty sure they do believe in chairs.

[Curiosity File]

Matter of perspective, the "shrinking effect" as things get further away, half the equation seems to be left out here. That is everything shrinks equally, all edges all angle. Not just top to bottom.
As the top of the lamp comes down the bottom goes up equally the father away it gets. As does the side to side perspective of the shrinking sidewalk or train track.

If you are 6' tall, a wall across the street is 4' high, a lamp post 10' tall 1/2 mile down the street, the 4' high wall will never obscure your sight of the lamp. Nor will the wall cast a shadow that reaches you and definitely not onto the building that's behind you.
You could easily reproduced this effect on any street with similar obstacles, or on a beach with cliffs behind you at sunset.

The idea that light bends has been thoroughly tested and experimented with. The results are conclusive and well documented of the where, when and how light bends. I'm pretty sure there's no experiments that prove there are light bending effects on the sun that causes shadows to be casting that oppose the laws of physics when it pertains to the sun, or any light source for that matter. You have to have something like maybe water that distorts the reflective light, or image of a solid object. This is simply NOT what we're seeing with the sun shins on an object that casts a shadow on a taller object behind it as in the OP Everest video shows.