The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Jimmy McGill on January 09, 2019, 07:21:33 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXtT21fE2os
This is a relatively easy experiment to do for anyone with a halfway decent camera and a few extra dollars laying around for a solar filter.
The apparent size of the sun is constant, meaning that the flat earth's explanation of a (relatively) close sun moving in a circle above the earth is flawed, and it backs up the idea of a sun being anywhere from 91 to 94.5 million miles away.
He also does the moon in this video for which you do not need a filter. Even better! I think everyone has a camera laying around somewhere!
Having done it myself with my telescope, I can vouch for the validity of the video. Still, I encourage everyone to perform the experiment who has the means to do so... Perhaps it will open your eyes.
-
There is some material in the wiki about this. I am not saying it makes any sense, but it is there.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
-
This whole apparent size schtick is getting rather old.
The Sun obviously looks larger to the naked eye at daily appearance and disappearance, as does the moon when it appears and disappears.
-
This whole apparent size schtick is getting rather old.
The Sun obviously looks larger to the naked eye at daily appearance and disappearance, as does the moon when it appears and disappears.
The naked eye is prone to being tricked. The moon may APPEAR larger at the horizon for various reasons, and the sun sometimes looks smaller at the horizon due to less “flare”.
This experiment is designed to get rid of all the illusion. A simple time lapse will show you that the sun and moon have a constant size through the sky.
This contradicts the flat earth “theory” (technically a failed hypothesis) explanation of a nearby sun circling above the plane of the earth, where the sun would become larger until local moon and then get smaller until sunset.
I’d love to see a flat earther’s explanation for this discrepancy.
-
There is some material in the wiki about this. I am not saying it makes any sense, but it is there.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
That article is very wrong.
As one of the examples, they take a picture of street lamps. It says the streetlights in the distance “appear” the same size as the closer ones. If you were to focus on the source of the light, and not the flare caused by fog, smoke, or any other atmospheric disturbances, you’d see the filaments of the exposed light bulbs or the covering over the bulb, and they would be shrinking linearly with distance.
Failed explanation.
-
The Sun obviously looks larger to the naked eye at daily appearance and disappearance, as does the moon when it appears and disappears.
So that is a statement describing your observation. What do you think makes the Sun (and Moon) look larger when it appears (rises) and disappears (sets)?
-
There is some material in the wiki about this. I am not saying it makes any sense, but it is there.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
That article is very wrong.
As one of the examples, they take a picture of street lamps. It says the streetlights in the distance “appear” the same size as the closer ones. If you were to focus on the source of the light, and not the flare caused by fog, smoke, or any other atmospheric disturbances, you’d see the filaments of the exposed light bulbs or the covering over the bulb, and they would be shrinking linearly with distance.
Failed explanation.
Prove that the flare is in the camera lens and that it's not an enlargement in the sky. The article also includes versions of the effect as seen in polarized lenses.
It appears that the article has provided evidence, while you have provided none. A massive failure to persuade or to support your argument on your part.
-
Anything not using a filter to visibly see the actual size of the sun and moon, flat earth or round earth, is not evidence. The suns flare does not count toward size. This is common sense as you do not observe the sun without a filter (that would be stupid anyway)
the round earth explanation for the sun getting bigger on dusk and dawn is explained, what about flat earth? From what I understand of flat earth is that the sun would get small to the point of non existent then get bigger again. At least that is one flat earth hypothesis based around the explanation they have of perspective. If the sun gets to the horizon without shrinking to nothing, then expanding again, I have no reason to believe this reasoning.
My understanding of perspective if that that the closer something is to you, the more percentage of your view it covers. Thus, the further something is, the smaller percentage of your view it takes and will then look smaller. I understand that not every flat earther believes perspective works the same way so that's why I give the above challenge. If you cannot prove the sun shrinks to nothing then back again, then my understanding of perspective is correct.
-
Prove that the flare is in the camera lens and that it's not an enlargement in the sky. The article also includes versions of the effect as seen in polarized lenses.
It appears that the article has provided evidence, while you have provided none. A massive failure to persuade or to support your argument on your part.
[/quote]
Polarized lenses on headlights?
Try a solar filter on the actual sun:
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/1-09-2019/w4HT3H.gif)
Actual sun not changing size, seen through a solar filter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pvzfCDFyYw
There's some proof. And it's not a flawed analogy of headlights and polarized glasses.
-
A solar filter only reduces the glare in your eyes, for eye protection, it wouldn't eliminate an external projection on the atmosphere.
Does wearing sunglasses in a movie theatre shrink or eliminate the projection of the movie on the screen?
-
A solar filter only reduces the glare in your eyes, for eye protection, it wouldn't eliminate an external projection on the atmosphere.
Does wearing sunglasses in a movie theatre shrink or eliminate the projection of the movie on the screen?
What does, "external projection on the atmosphere." mean?
Sunglasses are not to be confused with solar filters:
"The only safe way to look directly at the uneclipsed or partially eclipsed Sun is through special-purpose solar filters, such as “eclipse glasses”... or handheld solar viewers. Homemade filters or ordinary sunglasses, even very dark ones, are not safe for looking at the Sun; they transmit thousands of times too much sunlight."
https://eclipse.aas.org/eye-safety
-
Sunglasses are a form of solar filter in that they reduce the intensity of light entering the eye. What else would they be used for? They also serve to prevent dangerous levels of UV light entering the eye where sunlight is particularly strong.
I agree re the eclipse glasses. I have several sets myself. They are essentially the same as 'white light' filters that we attach to the front end of telescopes for direct solar observation.
-
Sunglasses are a form of solar filter in that they reduce the intensity of light entering the eye. What else would they be used for? They also serve to prevent dangerous levels of UV light entering the eye where sunlight is particularly strong.
I agree re the eclipse glasses. I have several sets myself. They are essentially the same as 'white light' filters that we attach to the front end of telescopes for direct solar observation.
True. What I meant by 'solar filters' is what you call 'white light' filters and how they are different than the sunglasses Tom apparently wears at the movies.
-
A solar filter only reduces the glare in your eyes, for eye protection, it wouldn't eliminate an external projection on the atmosphere.
Again with the unexplained assertion about "projection on an atmosphere." Are we ever going to get an explanation of how that phenomenon works or how it can make the sun appear laterally displaced from where it is "projecting" from? (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11694.msg178385#msg178385)
Does wearing sunglasses in a movie theatre shrink or eliminate the projection of the movie on the screen?
Is the movie on the screen so bright that you can't see what's on the screen and the whole front wall is lit up too bright to look at?
When I apply my solar filter to the lens of my camera, the sun doesn't keep shrinking the more I limit exposure. The outline of the orb "shrinks" to its actual size and that's the end of the "shrinking." I can get it dimmer and redder, but with the filter applied, I now see the actual sun and not the burst of white light that exceeds the dynamic range of my sensor and hus occupying an inordinately large area in the field of view.
Simply applying polarized filtering doesn't do the trick. Headlamps and polarized glasses are not the analogy for knocking down the gain of the sun so that you can view its actual shape and size. Properly filteredt, you can track the sun (or its "projection" if you insist) and it doesn't magnify or shrink as it moves toward setting.
That can be shown zetetically. It's contrary to zeteticism to draw conclusions based on ad hoc speculation, and use flawed analogies or illustrations to bolster such speculation.
To remind you of your previous insistence on the burden of proof for a positive claim, the sun being a projection on the atmoplane is false until you prove it.
You have asserted a claim without proof. You've tried to explain it via a bad analogy. But despite my challenge to you to explain it, how the mechanism works, and how it can explain phenomenon we can observe, you persist on dodging in favor of simply repeating the ad hoc assertion in a new thread.
If it were me doing that, you know what would happen. All I can do is pester you.
-
A solar filter only reduces the glare in your eyes, for eye protection, it wouldn't eliminate an external projection on the atmosphere.
Does wearing sunglasses in a movie theatre shrink or eliminate the projection of the movie on the screen?
I love when tom acknowledges we have an atmoSPHERE.
What are you talking about when you say "external projection on the atmosphere"?
If the sun is merely a projection from outside the dome or what have you, then the solar filter would still work the same way, and as the projection moves across the sky thousands of miles toward and away from you, you would expect the size of the projection to increase then decrease after local noon.
Where is your evidence for an external projection, anyway? If you have none, I submit that the projection is from an extraterrestrial fairy race, shining a large flashlight on our atmosphere. I have the same amount of supporting evidence, problem?
Does wearing sunglasses in a movie theater shrink or eliminate the projection of the movie? No, but if the movie theater screen was putting out an amount of light similar to the sun, from a certain distance, then an appropriate filter would render the rectangular shape of the screen clearly and sharply visible, without glare.
Sunglasses analogy.... my goodness. Is this an attempt to misdirect us from the main experiment?
Why doesn't the sun shrink to a vanishing point at sunset, and enlarge to a blazing inferno at noon?
-
Prove that the flare is in the camera lens and that it's not an enlargement in the sky. The article also includes versions of the effect as seen in polarized lenses.
It appears that the article has provided evidence, while you have provided none. A massive failure to persuade or to support your argument on your part.
So your claim is there is some effect which by pure co-incidence makes the sun appear a constant angular size even though its distance from us varies so much that it should appear less than half the size at sunset as it does when overheard? It's weird how selectively you argue, previously I've seen you argue against big "co-incidences" like this.
-
A solar filter only reduces the glare in your eyes, for eye protection, it wouldn't eliminate an external projection on the atmosphere.
Does wearing sunglasses in a movie theatre shrink or eliminate the projection of the movie on the screen?
when a cinema screen starts emitting the same amount of light as the sun, the screen would definitely look like a large glaring blob of brightness instead of just a rectangle. Add a solar filter in the way and you will see the rectangle again. The same happens with the sun and the suns brightness. it looks like a large blinding blob of light until you either see it through a thin layer of clouds or even during a sunset at the lower point.
Here's a comparison, it doesn't "shrink" the sun when using a filter and the sun does not vanish into the distance, it simply sets below the land at a visibly constant rate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFTWGdR8SiU
-
Prove that the flare is in the camera lens and that it's not an enlargement in the sky. The article also includes versions of the effect as seen in polarized lenses.
It appears that the article has provided evidence, while you have provided none. A massive failure to persuade or to support your argument on your part.
So your claim is there is some effect which by pure co-incidence makes the sun appear a constant angular size even though its distance from us varies so much that it should appear less than half the size at sunset as it does when overheard? It's weird how selectively you argue, previously I've seen you argue against big "co-incidences" like this.
Hardly a coincidence. The article shows that the constant growing effect happens to all intense lights that recede into the distance.
A solar filter only reduces the glare in your eyes, for eye protection, it wouldn't eliminate an external projection on the atmosphere.
Does wearing sunglasses in a movie theatre shrink or eliminate the projection of the movie on the screen?
when a cinema screen starts emitting the same amount of light as the sun, the screen would definitely look like a large glaring blob of brightness instead of just a rectangle. Add a solar filter in the way and you will see the rectangle again.
Then you must agree that if the sun were a projection upon the medium of the atmolayer that a solar filter would do nothing to get rid of it except to reduce glare in the eye or the camera lens.
-
Hardly a coincidence. The article shows that the constant growing effect happens to all intense lights that recede into the distance.
No, the article merely claims it and shows some photos with glare.
What experiments have you done with the appropriate filters to demonstrate the effect?
In other threads you have demanded demonstration. This is your claim. Demonstrate it.
-
Hardly a coincidence. The article shows that the constant growing effect happens to all intense lights that recede into the distance.
No, the article merely claims it and shows some photos with glare.
What experiments have you done with the appropriate filters to demonstrate the effect?
In other threads you have demanded demonstration. This is your claim. Demonstrate it.
Those photos are evidence and demonstration. The "glare" was tested with two brands of polarized glasses, and remained in tact.
-
Hardly a coincidence. The article shows that the constant growing effect happens to all intense lights that recede into the distance.
No, the article merely claims it and shows some photos with glare.
What experiments have you done with the appropriate filters to demonstrate the effect?
In other threads you have demanded demonstration. This is your claim. Demonstrate it.
Those photos are evidence and demonstration. The "glare" was tested with two brands of polarized glasses, and remained in tact.
Ah yes. Polarized glasses.
Which, as was explained to you previously, do not prevent glare, they merely reduce it.
You will need to get a proper filter and try again.
-
Hardly a coincidence. The article shows that the constant growing effect happens to all intense lights that recede into the distance.
No, the article merely claims it and shows some photos with glare.
What experiments have you done with the appropriate filters to demonstrate the effect?
In other threads you have demanded demonstration. This is your claim. Demonstrate it.
Those photos are evidence and demonstration. The "glare" was tested with two brands of polarized glasses, and remained in tact.
Ah yes. Polarized glasses.
Which, as was explained to you previously, do not prevent glare, they merely reduce it.
You will need to get a proper filter and try again.
What proper filters? Solar filters are just doing the same thing as sun glasses, as mentioned earlier.
Polarized lenses are proper filters. They prevent light from coming in horizontally and directly into the eye, which causes bloom and flare in the eye or camera lens. They don't eliminate all effects because all effects are not occuring in the eye or camera lens.
If the sun is reflecting off of the side of a car, no lens is going to make the sun disappear off of that car. It's only going to reduce the glare it causes inside of your eye.
-
Then you must agree that if the sun were a projection upon the medium of the atmolayer that a solar filter would do nothing to get rid of it except to reduce glare in the eye or the camera lens.
I agree it would look similar to a heliocentric sun but I fail to see how you can prove the sun is a projection upon an atmolayer as opposed to the heliocentric sun any more than I can prove Megalodons are still alive in the ocean.
Can you observe the sun being a projection? Can you substantiate that claim with anything at all? This is pure imagination otherwise. It's not that I don't want you to be right though; I think it'd be a fantastic discovery and all the power to you if you do have any real findings.
-
What proper filters? Solar filters are just doing the same thing as sun glasses, as mentioned earlier.
All filters simply eliminate some of the light coming through them. A proper solar filter eliminates enough that you can safely view and photograph the sun through it and when doing so you see just the circle of the sun and not any glare around it.
Polarized lenses do remove some glare but I wouldn't recommend looking at the sun through them and they don't reduce all glare:
https://www.everydayhealth.com/vision/myths-about-polarized-glasses/
On the Wiki page in the stills you can clearly see a halo of light around the lights. That is glare. It stops you accurately measuring the size of the lights.
-
What proper filters? Solar filters are just doing the same thing as sun glasses, as mentioned earlier.
All filters simply eliminate some of the light coming through them. A proper solar filter eliminates enough that you can safely view and photograph the sun through it and when doing so you see just the circle of the sun and not any glare around it.
Polarized lenses do remove some glare but I wouldn't recommend looking at the sun through them and they don't reduce all glare:
https://www.everydayhealth.com/vision/myths-about-polarized-glasses/
On the Wiki page in the stills you can clearly see a halo of light around the lights. That is glare. It stops you accurately measuring the size of the lights.
The sun is reflecting off of the side of a car. Will either a solar filter or a polarized lens, or any filter you choose, make the sun disappear off of the side of that car? If not, then it will do nothing for a reflection or projection and the matter is moot.
-
The sun is reflecting off of the side of a car. Will either a solar filter or a polarized lens, or any filter you choose, make the sun disappear off of the side of that car? If not, then it will do nothing for a reflection or projection and the matter is moot.
Test it.
Or do you want someone else to do it for you?
I'll do it. "Make the sun disappear." What does that mean? Glare of the reflection disappear or the entire reflected light from the sun?
If we have sun today, I'll take photos of the sun reflecting off a car (roof and windshield) through both polarized lens and solar filter. We'll see if either or both does nothing. If either does something, the matter won't be moot.
And while we're on the topic of modeling this "projected sun" notion, does this proposal suggest the sun and observer are on the same side of the projection plane? Or is the sun projection on the other side, like in seeing a movie from the opposite side of the screen. I'm still trying to work out the orienting of the projection on the atmoplane concept.
-
I contest that the glasses shown in the youtube video from the wiki page here is not a good product and possibly a scam.
Here is a video of a visor attachment showing a polarized lens and it reduces the apparent size of the headlights. Go to about 44 second mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fh1lsdhwD4
-
The sun is reflecting off of the side of a car. Will either a solar filter or a polarized lens, or any filter you choose, make the sun disappear off of the side of that car? If not, then it will do nothing for a reflection or projection and the matter is moot.
Test it.
Or do you want someone else to do it for you?
I'll do it. "Make the sun disappear." What does that mean? Glare of the reflection disappear or the entire reflected light from the sun?
If we have sun today, I'll take photos of the sun reflecting off a car (roof and windshield) through both polarized lens and solar filter. We'll see if either or both does nothing. If either does something, the matter won't be moot.
And while we're on the topic of modeling this "projected sun" notion, does this proposal suggest the sun and observer are on the same side of the projection plane? Or is the sun projection on the other side, like in seeing a movie from the opposite side of the screen. I'm still trying to work out the orienting of the projection on the atmoplane concept.
I've tested it. I wore polarized sunglasses and looked at a car. The reflection of the sun did not disappear.
Per your second question, Rowbotham provides an image in Earth Not a Globe.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig66.jpg)
In the above image the sun is projected on 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
One can also imagine the screen of the atmosphere as a "dome" around the observer rather than a plane.
-
I've tested it. I wore polarized sunglasses and looked at a car. The reflection of the sun did not disappear.
I wouldn't expect it to, with polarized sunglasses.
I'm not sure why you are looking for something to disappear or not disappear, but the difference with polarized filtering and full-spectrum light filtering means that you shouldn't expect one to perform the same as the other.
I guarantee you that if you see a reflection of sunlight on a car's surface, using a solar filter will make it completely disappear, along the car and everything else. It will be completely dark.
If you see a reflection of the sun in the windshield, unlike a polarized sunglass lens, a solar filter will knock out everything EXCEPT a small circle of the sun...the actual sun; not the glare, flare and blooming of light that appears around an unfiltered sun. Your polarized filter won't do that. It's not supposed to, which is why you are confused in equating polarization with light filtering.
In a little while, I'll go out and take photos of filtered and unfiltered reflected sun and show you what I mean.
Per your second question, Rowbotham provides an image in Earth Not a Globe.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig66.jpg)
In the above image the sun is projected on 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
One can also imagine the screen of the atmosphere as a "dome" around the observer rather than a plane.
Like the Bat Signal projecting onto clouds or haze in the sky?
Or like a movie being projected onto a screen from behind the screen?
The car reflection model/illustration you proposed is like the former.
ENaG suggests to me the latter.
Which is it?
-
Here's a photo I took of the sun just before the solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017 - 1:47PM
500mm lens
ISO 100
F13
1/1000 sec
-2 step exposure
Taken with a filter that only allows UV A (320-385nm) to pass through.
(https://i.imgur.com/GjJkyyg.jpg)
-
My first contribution to the forum, almost 9 months ago.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9487.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9487.0)