# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2016, 03:26:27 AM

Title: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2016, 03:26:27 AM
I came across a video by Youtube author p-brane which seems to bring up a lot of good points, showing that the diagrams which are routinely paraded as examples for why the sun cannot set do not accurately demonstrate perspective.

Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: rabinoz on May 28, 2016, 04:19:52 AM
I came across a video by Youtube author p-brane which seems to bring up a lot of good points, showing that the diagrams which are routinely paraded as examples for why the sun cannot set do not accurately demonstrate perspective.

I'm trying to do this on a tablet, so it might not be too successful!
I believe even "Parallax" would not swallow that argument. In "Zetetic Astronomy, CHAPTER XIV." we find:
Quote
"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."

The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.
Now in the video at about 5:00 he states "notice how all the lines converge the same point, the vanishing point."

Now the height of these lines at the observer is 5,000 km (near enough to 3,000 miles). According to "Parallax" this vanishing point is at 3,000 times the size of the object, which is 5,000 km. So sure the video is largely quite correct, but just draws absolutely the wrong conclusion by taking the vanishing point at about 10,000 km (6,000 miles).

I'll let you take it from there!

Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2016, 04:58:47 AM
Yes, the sun shrinks to perspective. The size of the sun at sunset is another topic entirely, and is answered in Earth Not a Globe and on the Magnification of the Sun at Sunset page in the Wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset).
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 28, 2016, 05:11:03 AM
I came across a video by Youtube author p-brane which seems to bring up a lot of good points, showing that the diagrams which are routinely paraded as examples for why the sun cannot set do not accurately demonstrate perspective.

First of all, I just want to say that the guy in the video is flat out wrong. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. A big hint is that he doesn't try to show the correct way to calculate the angle (because he has no idea what the correct way is). I know you won't take my word on this, so....

Let's test who is right! We have the technology!

Proposed experiment:

Supplies:

3 Thumbtacks. A role of string. A protractor. A camera. A tape measure. Two straws. Sticky tac.

Steps:

1. Stick the thumbtacks in the wall like so: (Try to make the angle A relatively small so it will easily fit in the FOV of a camera.)

C *

B *                                                  * A

2. Tie the string between thumbtacks B and A, and C and A. Make sure the string is tight and straight.

3. Measure the angle between A-B and A-C as seen from the side using two different methods:
a. Use a protractor to measure the angle between the pieces of string leaving point A.
b. Use trigonometry to measure the angle based on the distances between each point. If you don't have a perfectly right angle at point B, then you can use the law of cosines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_cosines).

4. Measure the angle from the perspective of A using two methods:
a. Take a picture of B and C from the perspective of point A with a camera. Make sure you know the field of view of the camera. Make sure the camera has minimal barrel distortion. Measure the distance between the points in the picture, and convert it to an angle based on the camera's FOV.
b. Spot point B from point A with one eye through a straw. Once you have it spotted, carefully fix it to the wall with sticky tac (or tape, or something). Do the same with point C. Measure the angle between the straws with a protractor.

Interpretation:

The angles measured in step 3 represent the angle from the "side view" diagram.
The angles measured in step 4 represent the "perspective" angle, which is supposedly different from the side view.

If I am correct, the angles measured in steps 3 and 4 will all be the SAME.
If Tom Bishop and the video are correct, the angles measured in steps 3 and 4 will be DIFFERENT.

Any takers?
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: rabinoz on May 28, 2016, 07:45:58 AM
Yes, the sun shrinks to perspective. The size of the sun at sunset is another topic entirely, and is answered in Earth Not a Globe and on the Magnification of the Sun at Sunset page in the Wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset).
I was not talking about the sun's size - I was applying Parallax's "Law of Perspective" to the apparent height of the sun.

Yes, I have seen
Quote
Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
my highlight.
I have massive problems with this:
• The sun's apparent size stays exactly the same right through the day, not just near the horizon.
• The sun's apparent size is exactly the same at all latitudes, right from the equator when overhead to near the poles when it is on the horizon.
• If the sun was magnified by the "glare effect" it would not appear as a sharp circular shape on the horizon, as it often does when the air is very clear.
 (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/03-Setting%20Sun_zpsjh3haemo.jpg) (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/26%20-%20Sunset%20to%20North_zpsytujy348.jpg)
• The moon also stays the same size (within a percent or so) and Parallax's "known magnification effect caused by the intense rays" is patently ridiculous as an explanation for this. When the air is clear we can see the details of the moon's face right from rising to setting. Yes, I know the moon stays the same size, I have measured it myself! And, yes the size did come out very close to that expected.
Really, it's about time you updated your "SacredTexts", so many explanations simply do not wash!
It's 2016 now, not 1885!
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 28, 2016, 04:27:08 PM
I was not talking about the sun's size - I was applying Parallax's "Law of Perspective" to the apparent height of the sun.

You're going to have to rephrase your point, then. I have no idea what you were talking about.
Quote
Yes, I have seen
Quote
Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
my highlight.
I have massive problems with this:
• The sun's apparent size stays exactly the same right through the day, not just near the horizon.

The headlights of the cars along the highway in the headlight example (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Headlight_Example) also stay the same size into the distance. They should be little pinpricks of light in the distance.

Quote
• The sun's apparent size is exactly the same at all latitudes, right from the equator when overhead to near the poles when it is on the horizon.

The more distance which allows it to shrink gives it the atmosphere it needs to enlarge.

In fact, the phenomena are the same. Consider a light projector. An image from a projecting source can cover more of a screen's surface area when the projector is further away from the screen because the surface area of the screen has shrunk to perspective. The enlargement ratio of a picture enlarged from a projecting light source is exactly the same as the ratio which causes an object to shrink when it recedes into the distance.

So it is no amazement that the phenomena of light projection and the phenomena of shrinking to perspective can be so tightly correlated.

Quote
If the sun was magnified by the "glare effect" it would not appear as a sharp circular shape on the horizon, as it often does when the air is very clear.

The sun is not sharp and circular at the horizon. It is often rather hazy and indistinct compared to the noonday sun.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: model 29 on May 28, 2016, 05:13:29 PM
I came across a video by Youtube author p-brane which seems to bring up a lot of good points, showing that the diagrams which are routinely paraded as examples for why the sun cannot set do not accurately demonstrate perspective.

This can easily be tested with a protractor, a string, tape measure, an object of sufficient height, and something to tie the string off to.

The headlights of the cars along the highway in the headlight example (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Headlight_Example) also stay the same size into the distance. They should be little pinpricks of light in the distance.

No, the headlights of the cars further away are pointed more directly at the low resolution camera.  As they get closer, the headlights start to point away.  Headlights always appear as tiny points of light that grow larger the closer they get when viewed head-on.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: rabinoz on May 29, 2016, 04:41:28 AM
I was not talking about the sun's size - I was applying Parallax's "Law of Perspective" to the apparent height of the sun.

You're going to have to rephrase your point, then. I have no idea what you were talking about.
Quote
Yes, I have seen
Quote
Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
my highlight.
I have massive problems with this:
• The sun's apparent size stays exactly the same right through the day, not just near the horizon.

The headlights of the cars along the highway in the headlight example (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Headlight_Example) also stay the same size into the distance. They should be little pinpricks of light in the distance.

Quote
• The sun's apparent size is exactly the same at all latitudes, right from the equator when overhead to near the poles when it is on the horizon.

The more distance which allows it to shrink gives it the atmosphere it needs to enlarge.

In fact, the phenomena are the same. Consider a light projector. An image from a projecting source can cover more of a screen's surface area when the projector is further away from the screen because the surface area of the screen has shrunk to perspective. The enlargement ratio of a picture enlarged from a projecting light source is exactly the same as the ratio which causes an object to shrink when it recedes into the distance.

So it is no amazement that the phenomena of light projection and the phenomena of shrinking to perspective can be so tightly correlated.

Quote
"They should be little pinpricks of light in the distance.", yes, but all we are seeing is the glare in the misty air, see the photos below - no sigh of glare there!
In any case, the sun shows much more glare at midday, especially if seen through haze.

If the sun was magnified by the "glare effect" it would not appear as a sharp circular shape on the horizon, as it often does when the air is very clear.

The sun is not sharp and circular at the horizon. It is often rather hazy and indistinct compared to the noonday sun.
Yes, I quite agree! "The enlargement ratio of a picture enlarged from a projecting light source is exactly the same as the ratio which causes an object to shrink when it recedes into the distance. "

So if the sun did recede to a distance of 3 or more times its distance when overhead it would appear 1/3 or less the size it does when overhead. That is exactly what "Parallax" states in his "Law of Perspective" and there is no magic magnification in the layers of atmosphere.

In any case, the moon behaves in exactly the same way and when the air is clear (possibly a rarity in Ca, but common enough here) the features of the moon are clearly visible when the moon is on the horizon.

You idea of hazy and indistinct and mine are quite different:
 (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/03-Setting%20Sun_zpsjh3haemo.jpg) (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/26%20-%20Sunset%20to%20North_zpsytujy348.jpg)
That sun in the left photo does not look "hazy" to me!
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2016, 05:10:06 AM
The sun and moon are very hazy when they set. Photographers go to great lengths to capture them at the right moment when they are perfect circles. I encourage you to watch them set sometime.

(https://i1.wp.com/autourduciel.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2013/12/2014LeMondeleverPleineLune.jpg)
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: rabinoz on May 29, 2016, 07:57:40 AM
The sun and moon are very hazy when they set. Photographers go to great lengths to capture them at the right moment when they are perfect circles. I encourage you to watch them set sometime.

(https://i1.wp.com/autourduciel.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2013/12/2014LeMondeleverPleineLune.jpg)
Well, I was the photographer, and went to no particular lengths.
And, I know the moon does not significantly change size through the night.
It is not just while setting that the distance changes, but even for overhead to an elevation of 30° the distance on the flat earth model doubles, but there is virtually no change in observed size and no change in "roundness" or detail visible!

But maybe you have a different moon over there in California - mind you when I was there last it looked pretty much like it does here, just upside down and in the southern part of the sky. Still that was 44 years ago, maybe you have a new one now!
Title: Human eye-ball has limits
Post by: Charming Anarchist on May 29, 2016, 07:20:13 PM
I came across a video by Youtube author p-brane which seems to bring up a lot of good points,
It misses the most important point:  the laws of perspective are a consequence of the size and biology of man's retina.

Human eye-balls have limits.
The size of the internal spherical surface of the retina is a limit.
The density of cones and rods on the retina is a limit.
The abilities of the cones and rods on the retina are limits.

SHORT VERSION:  The retreating sun appears to meet the horizon because from that distance/angle, the sun's rays can not be discerned accurately enough with MAN's retina.
SHORTER VERSION:  Man can not see forever.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 30, 2016, 01:31:37 AM
The limits of our eyeballs determines our resolving power. It doesn't magically negate line-of-sight. In the flat earth model, we maintain line-of-sight with the sun at all times.

If the sun disappears due to distance, wouldn't you expect it to get smaller and smaller until it finally disappears? That's how literally everything else works. Why make an exception for the sun and moon?

The sun and moon maintain the same size and shape throughout the day/night, until reaching the horizon and disappearing from the bottom up. Exactly as if it was dropping behind the horizon. Coincidence?
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2016, 01:37:11 AM
If the sun disappears due to distance, wouldn't you expect it to get smaller and smaller until it finally disappears? That's how literally everything else works. Why make an exception for the sun and moon?

http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 30, 2016, 01:49:01 AM
If the sun disappears due to distance, wouldn't you expect it to get smaller and smaller until it finally disappears? That's how literally everything else works. Why make an exception for the sun and moon?

http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I can't believe you are actually sticking to this argument, despite it completely flying in the face of all observation. What happened to the precious Zetetic method, with its emphasis on observation?

Fine, let's nip this in the bud. I'll start a debate thread specifically for this topic.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 30, 2016, 03:19:35 AM
I just started a debate thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5058.0) to discuss the size of the sun. I would like to extend personal invitations to Charming Anarchist and Tom Bishop. BYOB.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2016, 03:30:59 AM
I can't believe you are actually sticking to this argument, despite it completely flying in the face of all observation. What happened to the precious Zetetic method, with its emphasis on observation?

An observation was provided:

Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 30, 2016, 04:08:27 AM
I can't believe you are actually sticking to this argument, despite it completely flying in the face of all observation. What happened to the precious Zetetic method, with its emphasis on observation?

An observation was provided:

Your interpretation of that image leaves something to be desired.

1. Yes, glare can behave strangely in images. When looking at the sun, we can eliminate glare. We can see distinct features. (See my debate thread)
2. The traffic is not evenly spaced. There are more cars in the back. It gets brighter where the traffic is thicker.
3. You can't see individual headlights in the back. It is one long line of glare.
4. The headlights in the front aren't pointing at the camera. They are pointing to the left of the camera.
5. If you look carefully, starting where the traffic becomes dense in the middle of the image, the thickness of the line of glare actually decreases as it gets farther away. So even if you ignore all the other points, this image STILL doesn't support your argument.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: garygreen on May 30, 2016, 02:19:20 PM
I can't believe you are actually sticking to this argument, despite it completely flying in the face of all observation. What happened to the precious Zetetic method, with its emphasis on observation?

An observation was provided:

this is the only photo i have ever seen you use to demonstrate your absurd point that things somehow appear brighter and larger as they move away from us.

i know it has been pointed out to you (perhaps dozens of times) that the photo you show is of directional lights that are traveling along a path oriented at an angle away from the viewer.

why do you always use the exact same photo?  if the phenomena you're describing is real, then can you provide another example?
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: model 29 on May 30, 2016, 03:56:00 PM
An observation was provided:
Real-world observations prove otherwise.  Viewed head-on the entire time they appear tiny and grow larger.  As stated already, your picture does not show what you are claiming.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2016, 05:34:31 PM
An observation was provided:
Real-world observations prove otherwise.  Viewed head-on the entire time they appear tiny and grow larger.

Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: model 29 on May 30, 2016, 06:14:49 PM
An observation was provided:
Real-world observations prove otherwise.  Viewed head-on the entire time they appear tiny and grow larger.

Driving at night on a straight stretch with oncoming traffic.  I guess you have never done this.  You should try it sometime.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2016, 11:49:28 PM
An observation was provided:
Real-world observations prove otherwise.  Viewed head-on the entire time they appear tiny and grow larger.

Driving at night on a straight stretch with oncoming traffic.  I guess you have never done this.  You should try it sometime.

I provided evidence. You did not.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: garygreen on May 31, 2016, 12:20:00 AM
An observation was provided:
Real-world observations prove otherwise.  Viewed head-on the entire time they appear tiny and grow larger.

Driving at night on a straight stretch with oncoming traffic.  I guess you have never done this.  You should try it sometime.

I provided evidence. You did not.

you have provided excellent evidence that a directional light source appears brighter when viewed head-on rather than at an angle.

good work.  however, this does nothing to support your absurd claim that light sources appear brighter and larger as they recede from an observer.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2016, 12:27:57 AM
you have provided excellent evidence that a directional light source appears brighter when viewed head-on rather than at an angle.

good work.  however, this does nothing to support your absurd claim that light sources appear brighter and larger as they recede from an observer.

The entire highway is at an angle to the observer, they are not approaching head on.

If headlights really shrink appropriately into the distance, where are all of the pictures which show headlights as pinpricks in the distance?

Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 31, 2016, 01:15:57 AM
you have provided excellent evidence that a directional light source appears brighter when viewed head-on rather than at an angle.
The entire highway is at an angle to the observer, they are not approaching head on.

I made a simple diagram to explain his point. Car #2 is closer, but the camera isn't being directly illuminated by the headlights. Car #1 is farther, but is directly illuminating the camera.

(http://i.imgur.com/mV1pzZs.png)

If headlights really shrink appropriately into the distance, where are all of the pictures which show headlights as pinpricks in the distance?

That picture is a perfect example. Did you not look at it before you posted it? The headlights in the front are about 7 to 9 pixels in diameter. The headlights in the middle are about 3-5 pixels in diameter. The headlights in the back are about 2 pixels in diameter.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: garygreen on May 31, 2016, 01:29:26 AM
it's genuinely stunning how obtuse you are, tom.  this isn't that hard to get.
(http://i.imgur.com/C1jC4qc.png)

If headlights really shrink appropriately into the distance, where are all of the pictures which show headlights as pinpricks in the distance?

look at the many tiny and dim lights at the back of the line of traffic.

the inverse square law is extremely well-understood: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9120/47/2/174/meta#ped398200non5
https://youtu.be/f3BhH0VosRc

it's super important to photographers, for example

https://youtu.be/2qCw0q11tEQ
https://youtu.be/PAjHb-o2WzQ
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2016, 01:33:52 AM
you have provided excellent evidence that a directional light source appears brighter when viewed head-on rather than at an angle.
The entire highway is at an angle to the observer, they are not approaching head on.

I made a simple diagram to explain his point. Car #2 is closer, but the camera isn't being directly illuminated by the headlights. Car #1 is farther, but is directly illuminating the camera.

When the sun is visible it is always directly illuminating your eyes. So it is bigger.

If headlights really shrink appropriately into the distance, where are all of the pictures which show headlights as pinpricks in the distance?

The headlights in the back are clearly larger than they should be.

Look at the tail lights. They are all the same size down the highway for as far as the eye can see. In the distance they grow to huge proportions!

Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2016, 01:34:52 AM
it's genuinely stunning how obtuse you are, tom.  this isn't that hard to get.
(http://i.imgur.com/C1jC4qc.png)

The sun doesn't have that problem. Therefore the enlarging effect applies.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 31, 2016, 01:58:01 AM
I made a simple diagram to explain his point. Car #2 is closer, but the camera isn't being directly illuminated by the headlights. Car #1 is farther, but is directly illuminating the camera.
When the sun is visible it is always directly illuminating your eyes. So it is bigger.

That diagram had nothing to do with the sun. It was used to explain why the cars in front look dimmer in the photograph.

Imagine you have 2 flashlights. One is very close, but pointed away from you. The other one is farther away, but pointed directly at you.

Tom Bishop: Wow! the farther flashlight is brighter!!! Lights must get brighter as they get further away!!!
Everyone else: Umm... the closer flashlight isn't even pointed at you. Of course it looks dimmer.
Tom Bishop: But the sun is always pointed at you!! Therefore my point is proven!!
Everyone else: ???

The headlights in the back are clearly larger than they should be.

How large do you think they "should be"? My point is that they do actually get smaller, by a significant amount. 9 pixels -> 2 pixels.

I will concede one point: the headlights appear bigger relative to the cars they are attached to. This is due to glare. When photographing the sun, we can eliminate glare from the equation. See my post in the debate thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5058.0) for further details.

Quote
Look at the tail lights. They are all the same size down the highway for as far as the eye can see. In the distance they grow to huge proportions!

Those are called break lights. The cars in the back are going into a turn. Most cars press their breaks when they are about to turn.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 31, 2016, 02:10:18 AM
The bottom line is that you really need to learn to control outside variables when testing a theory. All these pictures of highways have a lot of outside variables that can influence the result. (And yet they STILL don't support your theory!)

To prove a theory, you need to design an experiment that keeps all variables the same except the one you want to test.

For example, if you want to prove that "lights stay the same size regardless of distance", you need to make sure all variables remain the same except distance.

Experiment: Grab a flashlight. Walk outside. Stick the flashlight on a table/chair/tree/bush at eye level. Make sure it is pointing towards you. Walk backwards. Observe the size of the flashlight at various distances.

I guarantee that the flashlight will not appear to stay the same size. Case closed.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2016, 02:11:30 AM
That diagram had nothing to do with the sun. It was used to explain why the cars in front look dimmer in the photograph.

Imagine you have 2 flashlights. One is very close, but pointed away from you. The other one is farther away, but pointed directly at you.

Tom Bishop: Wow! the farther flashlight is brighter!!! Lights must get brighter as they get further away!!!
Everyone else: Umm... the closer flashlight isn't even pointed at you. Of course it looks dimmer.
Tom Bishop: But the sun is always pointed at you!! Therefore my point is proven!!
Everyone else: ???/

The sun doesn't have the problem of unidirectional bulbs.

Quote
How large do you think they "should be"? My point is that they do actually get smaller, by a significant amount. 9 pixels -> 2 pixels.

I will concede one point: the headlights appear bigger relative to the cars they are attached to. This is due to glare. When photographing the sun, we can eliminate glare from the equation. See my post in the debate thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5058.0) for further details.

Whatever you want to call it, it is an effect which magnifies the light.

Quote
Quote
Look at the tail lights. They are all the same size down the highway for as far as the eye can see. In the distance they grow to huge proportions!

Those are called break lights. The cars going in the back are going into a turn. Most cars press their breaks when they are about to turn.

The tail lights are clearly about the same size down the entirety of highway, even if the headlights are not due to angles. This shows that the effect is possible.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2016, 02:16:34 AM
The bottom line is that you really need to learn to control outside variables when testing a theory. All these pictures of highways have a lot of outside variables that can influence the result. (And yet they STILL don't support your theory!)

To prove a theory, you need to design an experiment that keeps all variables the same except the one you want to test.

For example, if you want to prove that "lights stay the same size regardless of distance", you need to make sure all variables remain the same except distance.

Experiment: Grab a flashlight. Walk outside. Stick the flashlight on a table/chair/tree/bush at eye level. Make sure it is pointing towards you. Walk backwards. Observe the size of the flashlight at various distances.

I guarantee that the flashlight will not appear to stay the same size. Case closed.

I provided evidence of the odd effect which allows light sources to remain the same size into the distance. We have two pictures which demonstrate the effect. The first picture show headlights that remain the same size, and the second picture shows tail lights that remain the same size. You have not provided any evidence for your position.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: garygreen on May 31, 2016, 02:28:08 AM
it's genuinely stunning how obtuse you are, tom.  this isn't that hard to get.
(http://i.imgur.com/C1jC4qc.png)

The sun doesn't have that problem. Therefore the enlarging effect applies.

right.  the sun isn't a headlight.  it shines light in all directions.  the angle from which you view it makes no difference.

the reason the headlights appear brighter in the distance is that they are pointed more directly at the camera.  i thought my diagram was quite clear.  i don't get how you are failing to grasp that a directional light will appear brighter if it is pointing at you rather than away from you.

you could post literally thousands of images taken from cameras tens of feet above curvy roads, but that doesn't demonstrate your point since those cameras are tens of feet above curvy roads.  the angles are what invalidate the thing you call evidence.  if you want to conduct an experiment this way, then you must keep your orientation to the light source constant.

All measurements are experiments. Your experiment does not control for the angle of orientation of the light source. It does not conform to the scientific method, which demands that trials are controlled. Trying to pass off something uncontrolled and unscientific as scientific is reprehensible. I would suggest that you go back to middle school and learn some science. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=683.msg9074;topicseen#msg9074)

also i posted several empirical demonstrations of the inverse square law.  it's not an open question.  it's a very, very well-understood fact.  it's an important fact for people who use it literally every single day of their lives, like photographers.

just saying "no this photo proves that i am right" over and over again isn't persuasive.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2016, 02:41:52 AM
I have provided evidence showing that it is possible for a light source to remain the same size as it goes into the distance. Two examples were provided. The lights in the distance are clearly larger than they should be.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: garygreen on May 31, 2016, 02:46:41 AM
I have provided evidence showing that it is possible for a light source to remain the same size as it goes into the distance. Two examples were provided. The lights in the distance are clearly larger than they should be.

as i stated already, you have provided excellent evidence that a directional light source appears brighter when viewed head-on rather than at an angle.

the sun is not a directional source of light.  you have not provided any evidence that it should behave like headlights viewed from above a curved road.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 31, 2016, 02:55:28 AM
The bottom line is that you really need to learn to control outside variables when testing a theory. All these pictures of highways have a lot of outside variables that can influence the result. (And yet they STILL don't support your theory!)

To prove a theory, you need to design an experiment that keeps all variables the same except the one you want to test.

For example, if you want to prove that "lights stay the same size regardless of distance", you need to make sure all variables remain the same except distance.

Experiment: Grab a flashlight. Walk outside. Stick the flashlight on a table/chair/tree/bush at eye level. Make sure it is pointing towards you. Walk backwards. Observe the size of the flashlight at various distances.

I guarantee that the flashlight will not appear to stay the same size. Case closed.

I provided evidence of the odd effect which allows light sources to remain the same size into the distance. We have two pictures which demonstrate the effect. The first picture show headlights that remain the same size, and the second picture shows tail lights that remain the same size. You have not provided any evidence for your position.

As has been stated numerous times, neither image supports your theory. The headlights in BOTH images get smaller. The tail lights in the second image start off so small that it is hard to tell either way. They start off at about 3 pixels. Decrease to about 2 pixels. Increase back to 3 pixels when the break lights come on. Then decrease back to about 2 pixels. The color of the taillights also gets darker. Literally nothing you stated about those images was true.

Please reread my post. I highlighted the important parts that you seemed to ignore.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 31, 2016, 03:07:38 AM
The sun doesn't have the problem of unidirectional bulbs.

You are using the photos as proof of your theory. Not the sun. The fact that some of the lights in the photos aren't even pointed at the camera invalidates them as useful proof.

Quote
Whatever you want to call it, it is an effect which magnifies the light.

No. Glare does not magnify light. (See garygreen's video on the inverse square law).

Glare effects how cameras capture the light in an image, and it effects how we perceive light with our eyes. However, when taking a picture of the sun we can eliminate glare. I have stated this multiple times, and you still continue to ignore it.
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: model 29 on May 31, 2016, 03:12:17 AM
The headlights in the back are clearly larger than they should be.
In the second picture, they still appear smaller in the distance.  Does the light from the individual headlights appear a little larger than their actual size?  Yes.  Do you know how camera exposure affects these kinds of things?

Quote
Look at the tail lights. They are all the same size down the highway for as far as the eye can see. In the distance they grow to huge proportions!
Nope, those also appear smaller than the taillights closer to the camera.  Look closer.

The sun doesn't have that problem. Therefore the enlarging effect applies.
Does the sun act like a spotlight, or does it act like (or is) a sphere shining in all directions?
Title: Re: How the Sun sets on a Flat Earth
Post by: rabinoz on May 31, 2016, 07:19:20 AM
you have provided excellent evidence that a directional light source appears brighter when viewed head-on rather than at an angle.

good work.  however, this does nothing to support your absurd claim that light sources appear brighter and larger as they recede from an observer.

The entire highway is at an angle to the observer, they are not approaching head on.

If headlights really shrink appropriately into the distance, where are all of the pictures which show headlights as pinpricks in the distance?
The closest headlights do not show much glare as they are dipped and are considerably below the camera.
At first the lights appear not to change in size much as the glare gets worse,
but from middle distance to the farthest the apparent size of the lights does definitely get much smaller, without some calculation it is impossible to guess if is appropriate.

But, the moon behaves in exactly the same way! I have taken a series of photos of the moon with quite a "long lens" (1,600 mm) of the moon at various elevations from quite near the horizon to around 70° and the apparent size stays nearly the same apparent size (at a bit over 0.5°) over the whole range.

I can't post them yet, as I am in hospital at present (nothing to worry about), just that I don't have access to the photos or data.

But definitely, the moon stays the same size excluding the tiny increase expected from being slightly closer when overhead.
Not only that, the detail of craters is just as obvious near the horizon as overhead. There is no glare to obscure things as with the sun.
I did not take the following so I have no scales.
 (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/Full_Moon_bw_RTF_l.jpg)On Thursday, December 15, 2005, the full Moon will bejust about at the most northerly declination it can ever attain.S&T: Rick Fienberg.From: The Highest Full-frontal Overhead (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/observing-news/the-highest-full-moon-overhead/) (https://magoism.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/moon-at-night-public-domain.jpg)Moon near horizon from Moon at Night (https://magoism.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/moon-at-night-public-domain.jpg)

I can't vouch for these photos, but I am sure you have seen enough like this in real lifelife.