I have to see some evidence of this "Sun looking twice as big near the horizon" claim. If anything, the Sun is either the same exact size near the horizon as it was in the middle of the sky, or slightly smaller or slightly squished vertically, based on what I've seen. I don't know if a spotlight sun is widely accepted by the FE community. I certainly don't think it is a spotlight, and from what I see, there is a gradual transition from day to night. The further the light travels, its color changes due to interaction with the atmosphere. Shortly after the red wavelength, it becomes invisible. The atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, it's opacity, and the distance to the light source, is what causes the darkness of night.
As for why it appears to go under the horizon seems to be chalked up to not knowing what a 300mi diameter object looks like as it goes overhead. If you watch a plane fly out over an ocean, even though it may be maintaining its altitude, it appears to be heading down to interact with the horizon before it becomes invisible due to the atmosphere. The assertion is we simply don't know how an object like the Sun would appear if it is beyond the vanishing point.
I have to see some evidence of this "Sun looking twice as big near the horizon" claim. If anything, the Sun is either the same exact size near the horizon as it was in the middle of the sky, or slightly smaller or slightly squished vertically, based on what I've seen. I don't know if a spotlight sun is widely accepted by the FE community. I certainly don't think it is a spotlight, and from what I see, there is a gradual transition from day to night. The further the light travels, its color changes due to interaction with the atmosphere. Shortly after the red wavelength, it becomes invisible. The atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, it's opacity, and the distance to the light source, is what causes the darkness of night.
As for why it appears to go under the horizon seems to be chalked up to not knowing what a 300mi diameter object looks like as it goes overhead. If you watch a plane fly out over an ocean, even though it may be maintaining its altitude, it appears to be heading down to interact with the horizon before it becomes invisible due to the atmosphere. The assertion is we simply don't know how an object like the Sun would appear if it is beyond the vanishing point.
If that's the case for the sun to appear going "down the horizon", then why is the sun and therefore its light colored with a redish-orange hue during sunsets?
As the sun moves away from it's upper most position in the sky and closest point to us, it should get slower and slower as it descends. Based on a flat plane perspective, as it reaches the horizon it should basically come to a stop since it is traveling almost perfectly away from us at that point.
Above us it is traveling perpendicular to us - so it appears to move it's fastest.
at the horizon, it's moving parallel away from us so we shouldn't see it move at all.
If the the earth is a spinning sphere, it should basically look the same size as it plots across the sky most of the sky until it shines through our atmosphere - which is does.
And besides, how utterly convenient that this new heretofore undiscovered and unproven property of the atmosphere has the exact effect of magnifying the receding sun just enough throughout every moment of the day that it appears exactly the same size in the sky all day long as the sunlight travels through ever changing amounts of atmosphere.
And besides, how utterly convenient that this new heretofore undiscovered and unproven property of the atmosphere has the exact effect of magnifying the receding sun just enough throughout every moment of the day that it appears exactly the same size in the sky all day long as the sunlight travels through ever changing amounts of atmosphere.
About as much as RE proposition that the Sun and the Moon only appear to be the same size because they just happen to be the exact size and distance from Earth to do so. Also pretty much every other happy convenience used to rectify the improbability of a big bang origin of life and common sense and logic.
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.
But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.
But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.
But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.
Is easy, we accept he ones that hold to scrutiny
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.
But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.
Is easy, we accept he ones that hold to scrutiny
You accept the ones that are shielded from scrutiny. In fact the entire Flat Earth Theory is literally scrutiny of the currently accepted model, if there wasn't more than enough chinks in the armor of said model, the FES wouldn't exist.
The way people react so violently and incredulously to FET actually shows they aren't open to scrutiny or honest debate.
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.
But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.
Yes, I tend to find it easier to accept an explanation that does not violate any known physical laws and is consistent with all other observations relevant to the explanation than it is to accept an explanation that depends on a completely new and unproven physical property of the atmosphere that has never been observed independent of the context in which it is being claimed.
For example, I downloaded the picture from the Wiki that supposedly is evidence for this effect, and yet when I zoom the picture to 400% of original size, I can easily determine that the distant streetlights appear to be about half of the size in the photo as the closer streetlights. That is what perspective does (make distant objects appear smaller) and it is doing it to the globes of light formed by each streetlight in that picture, which is also attached to this post. So the evidence offered for this magnification effect is in actual fact evidence that perspective works the same for a source of bright light as it does for everything else. There is no magnification effect.
And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.
But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.
Yes, I tend to find it easier to accept an explanation that does not violate any known physical laws and is consistent with all other observations relevant to the explanation than it is to accept an explanation that depends on a completely new and unproven physical property of the atmosphere that has never been observed independent of the context in which it is being claimed.
For example, I downloaded the picture from the Wiki that supposedly is evidence for this effect, and yet when I zoom the picture to 400% of original size, I can easily determine that the distant streetlights appear to be about half of the size in the photo as the closer streetlights. That is what perspective does (make distant objects appear smaller) and it is doing it to the globes of light formed by each streetlight in that picture, which is also attached to this post. So the evidence offered for this magnification effect is in actual fact evidence that perspective works the same for a source of bright light as it does for everything else. There is no magnification effect.
As the wiki describes, the lights in the distance are not consistently shrinking. They should be little points, but they are not. At a certain distance they appear to stop shrinking altogether.
The lights very close to the camera are bigger, certainly, but that could be because the bulb size is bigger than the projection upon the atmosphere. This is described in the Wiki.
I have to see some evidence of this "Sun looking twice as big near the horizon" claim. If anything, the Sun is either the same exact size near the horizon as it was in the middle of the sky, or slightly smaller or slightly squished vertically, based on what I've seen. I don't know if a spotlight sun is widely accepted by the FE community. I certainly don't think it is a spotlight, and from what I see, there is a gradual transition from day to night. The further the light travels, its color changes due to interaction with the atmosphere. Shortly after the red wavelength, it becomes invisible. The atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, it's opacity, and the distance to the light source, is what causes the darkness of night.
As for why it appears to go under the horizon seems to be chalked up to not knowing what a 300mi diameter object looks like as it goes overhead. If you watch a plane fly out over an ocean, even though it may be maintaining its altitude, it appears to be heading down to interact with the horizon before it becomes invisible due to the atmosphere. The assertion is we simply don't know how an object like the Sun would appear if it is beyond the vanishing point.
Your results are consistent with the Flat Earth model. The apparent magnification of the Sun is nullified by the real change in distance between the observer and the Sun. The very fact that you can't perceive a difference attests to that.Yes - as I explained - the results of my "coin-at-arms-length" experiment are identical for FE and RE. Neither is proved nor disproved.
Your results are consistent with the Flat Earth model. The apparent magnification of the Sun is nullified by the real change in distance between the observer and the Sun. The very fact that you can't perceive a difference attests to that.Yes - as I explained - the results of my "coin-at-arms-length" experiment are identical for FE and RE. Neither is proved nor disproved.
All I'm saying is that the vociferous debates about "How does the sun get bigger if it's setting" are entirely, 100% incorrect on both sides of the debate here...because the sun doesn't get bigger when it's setting - and you can do the experiment to prove it, yourself, tonight, very easily.
It is however, a very strong optical illusion and nearly everyone believes it's a real effect until they do the experiment for themselves.
I would claim that the "magnification effect" is simply glare and can be removed with a suitable filter that can show the sharp disk of the sun.Your results are consistent with the Flat Earth model. The apparent magnification of the Sun is nullified by the real change in distance between the observer and the Sun. The very fact that you can't perceive a difference attests to that.Yes - as I explained - the results of my "coin-at-arms-length" experiment are identical for FE and RE. Neither is proved nor disproved.
All I'm saying is that the vociferous debates about "How does the sun get bigger if it's setting" are entirely, 100% incorrect on both sides of the debate here...because the sun doesn't get bigger when it's setting - and you can do the experiment to prove it, yourself, tonight, very easily.
It is however, a very strong optical illusion and nearly everyone believes it's a real effect until they do the experiment for themselves.
However, the fact that the sun does not get smaller disproves the flat earth model, as there is no such thing as a magnification effect due to the greater amount of atmosphere between us and the sun at sunrise and sunset.
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%20%2009.30%2048xZoom_zpscotyaspw.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2010.00%2048xZoom_zps77dhvy0p.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2011.00%2048xZoom_zpspfb3vsiz.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2012.00%2048xZoom_zpsb3rppgyf.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom_zpsfpcdnvky.jpg) | |||||||
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2014.00%2048xZoom_zps1cshxmbj.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2015.00%2048xZoom_zpsgk51nozr.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2017.00%2048xZoom_zps3wayd4qo.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom_zpsvaiszxhy.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom_zpsewsphkoz.jpg) |
Here is another picture of streetlights receding into the distance:
(http://www.hetecled.com/UploadFile/projects/outdoor/1.jpg)
This picture is even clearer as each successive streetlight is smaller in the image until the smallest ones are about 10% of the size of the largest and closest light. Once again there is clearly a lens effect making all of the lights appear larger than they are, as the first light is about the same size in diameter as the height of the woman in the foreground. There are no streetlights with 5 foot diameter lightbulbs. But in the meantime, the lights get progressively smaller as they recede into the distance, just as the mechanism of perspective suggests will happen. There is clearly no magnification effect happening to the lights in the distance as each light is smaller than the next closer light.
The best way to measure this is to download the picture and then zoom the picture to 400% on your computer screen. At that level of zoom, the differences are obvious to the naked eye, and can also be easily measured with a ruler.
Here is another picture of streetlights receding into the distance:
(http://www.hetecled.com/UploadFile/projects/outdoor/1.jpg)
This picture is even clearer as each successive streetlight is smaller in the image until the smallest ones are about 10% of the size of the largest and closest light. Once again there is clearly a lens effect making all of the lights appear larger than they are, as the first light is about the same size in diameter as the height of the woman in the foreground. There are no streetlights with 5 foot diameter lightbulbs. But in the meantime, the lights get progressively smaller as they recede into the distance, just as the mechanism of perspective suggests will happen. There is clearly no magnification effect happening to the lights in the distance as each light is smaller than the next closer light.
The best way to measure this is to download the picture and then zoom the picture to 400% on your computer screen. At that level of zoom, the differences are obvious to the naked eye, and can also be easily measured with a ruler.
The final 7 or so lights in that sequence look pretty similar in size, despite being as far away from each other than the first four lights.
Lights very near to you are going to look bigger if they are also angled more directly at you, or because their light is physically bigger than its projection. In these discussions we are really looking at very distant lights. We can see that the very distant lights in that scene are not consistently shrinking. The shrinking seems to slow significantly as the distance increases.
You know Tom, it would help your case if you posted something that was actually true. If you followed my suggestion and blew the picture up to 400%, and then measured the lights with a ruler, you would have quickly discovered that the the final 7 or so lights are not similar in size. In fact, they decrease consistently as they get further away.
You suggestion that the closer lights are somehow angled at the viewer is ridiculous. Why would someone install a series of streetlights at different angles? And why would they angle some of them to effectively blind someone driving down the street?
As for the closer lights being physically bigger than their "projection", this is also ridiculous. The first light in the series is almost as big as the woman walking beneath it. Have you ever seen a 4 foot diameter lightbulb on a regular streetlight? The reason all of the lights look bigger than their physical bulbs is lens flare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare Again, in one of the earlier pictures, the headlights of a car appear to be about 5 feet in diameter. That is not due to the car having huge headlights. It is due to lens flare, which in that case is increased by the headlights being angled directly at the lens of the camera.
You know Tom, it would help your case if you posted something that was actually true. If you followed my suggestion and blew the picture up to 400%, and then measured the lights with a ruler, you would have quickly discovered that the the final 7 or so lights are not similar in size. In fact, they decrease consistently as they get further away.
The shrinking is not consistent, and appears to slow significantly when compared to the closest lights.QuoteYou suggestion that the closer lights are somehow angled at the viewer is ridiculous. Why would someone install a series of streetlights at different angles? And why would they angle some of them to effectively blind someone driving down the street?
Is a streetlight directly overhead of you pointing at you with the same angle as a streetlight at the eye level horizon? No, it is not.QuoteAs for the closer lights being physically bigger than their "projection", this is also ridiculous. The first light in the series is almost as big as the woman walking beneath it. Have you ever seen a 4 foot diameter lightbulb on a regular streetlight? The reason all of the lights look bigger than their physical bulbs is lens flare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare Again, in one of the earlier pictures, the headlights of a car appear to be about 5 feet in diameter. That is not due to the car having huge headlights. It is due to lens flare, which in that case is increased by the headlights being angled directly at the lens of the camera.
There is your explanation then, you admitted that the light sizes in your image are tainted by lens flare.
You know Tom, it would help your case if you posted something that was actually true. If you followed my suggestion and blew the picture up to 400%, and then measured the lights with a ruler, you would have quickly discovered that the the final 7 or so lights are not similar in size. In fact, they decrease consistently as they get further away.
The shrinking is not consistent, and appears to slow significantly when compared to the closest lights.QuoteYou suggestion that the closer lights are somehow angled at the viewer is ridiculous. Why would someone install a series of streetlights at different angles? And why would they angle some of them to effectively blind someone driving down the street?
Is a streetlight directly overhead of you pointing at you with the same angle as a streetlight at the eye level horizon? No, it is not.QuoteAs for the closer lights being physically bigger than their "projection", this is also ridiculous. The first light in the series is almost as big as the woman walking beneath it. Have you ever seen a 4 foot diameter lightbulb on a regular streetlight? The reason all of the lights look bigger than their physical bulbs is lens flare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare Again, in one of the earlier pictures, the headlights of a car appear to be about 5 feet in diameter. That is not due to the car having huge headlights. It is due to lens flare, which in that case is increased by the headlights being angled directly at the lens of the camera.
There is your explanation then, you admitted that the light sizes in your image are tainted by lens flare.