Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Serious_Lee

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why doesn't the sun get smaller with perspective?
« on: September 27, 2017, 09:06:30 AM »
Or maybe i have Tom. Your 'Magnification at Sunset' explanation makes ZERO sense when measured against real world testing. Was hoping for a different explanation as to why we don't see any change in the suns size as the law of perspective would dictate but obviously there is none.

Why would we give a different explanation other than the one published in the Wiki and our Flat Earth literature?

What is wrong with the explanation?


These are some statements from your wiki. There are a few things that I want to point out here that is contradictory to what i've posted.

1. From Wiki - '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.'

Yes, I agree that LIGHT passing through a denser medium can distort to some degree the size of the object. Like a car's headlights shining through fog will create a haze effect around the headlight itself. However, in the video I posted with the sun viewed through a welders glass, the LIGHT of the sun is filtered out which leaves us with only the sun itself moving towards the horizon. The video clearly shows that the sun itself does not change in size as would be expected on a flat earth.


2. From Wiki - "IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour."
—"Earth Not a Globe", Samuel Birley Rowbotham


Here Rowbotham confirms that LIGHT itself causes the object to appear larger. Not that the object itself increases in size. So if it's only the LIGHT of the sun which makes it appear larger than what it is, then why does the video show the sun not shrinking with perspective as its moving towards the horizon?

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why doesn't the sun get smaller with perspective?
« on: September 26, 2017, 03:22:31 PM »
This question keeps coming up throughout the forum but i haven't seen/read any reasonable explanation for the sun staying the same size as it moves further away towards the horizon.

What research have you done to determine our views on this?

I've searched the site and found no explanation why the law of perspective doesn't apply to the sun on a flat earth!

That's funny. Seeing that I have have participated in numerous discussions about this subject across this forum and the other one over the last 9 years and have written a wiki article on the subject, that Flat Earth authors have written about the subject for the last 150 years, and a chapter is dedicated to it in Earth Not a Globe, I think you have not looked hard enough.

Or maybe i have Tom. Your 'Magnification at Sunset' explanation makes ZERO sense when measured against real world testing. Was hoping for a different explanation as to why we don't see any change in the suns size as the law of perspective would dictate but obviously there is none. So here is the hard evidence:



**Edit** I should mention that this video was created by a FE'er. He's managed to disprove the flat earth model which should show the sun getting considerably smaller due to perspective as it moves along its path.

3
Below is a link to a blog with text from hindu scriptures regarding the sun, earth and moon. Interesting stuff.

http://www.mallstuffs.com/Blogs/BlogDetails.aspx?BlogId=158&BlogType=Spiritual&Topic=Science%20in%20Hinduism-Motion%20of%20earth%20around%20sun

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why doesn't the sun get smaller with perspective?
« on: September 26, 2017, 02:33:48 PM »
This question keeps coming up throughout the forum but i haven't seen/read any reasonable explanation for the sun staying the same size as it moves further away towards the horizon.

What research have you done to determine our views on this?

I've searched the site and found no explanation why the law of perspective doesn't apply to the sun on a flat earth!


5
Flat Earth Theory / Why doesn't the sun get smaller with perspective?
« on: September 26, 2017, 02:06:08 PM »
This question keeps coming up throughout the forum but i haven't seen/read any reasonable explanation for the sun staying the same size as it moves further away towards the horizon. So i've done a very simple sketchup drawing highlighting what should be seen if we were on a flat earth but which we don't actually see in reality. FET puts the sun at 32 miles in diameter and the earth at 25 000 miles in diameter. So comparatively we have a very very small sun which should be getting smaller and smaller as its moving along its path horizontal to the earth.

This is a good video of a sunset in Hawaii which clearly shows that the sun remains the same size as its setting. 



Can any FE'ers provide an explanation for this?

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« on: September 04, 2017, 08:51:11 AM »
If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?
If perspective lines converge at X distance, why would we be able to see past that distance no matter what height one is at? Perspective has caused the sun to vanish behind the line of the Earth we stand upon. How does going higher change this fact?

If you ascend in height you are changing (broadening) your perspective lines and revealing more distant lands from the vanishing point. It is for this reason you can see further when you are higher.

If you are looking at a railroad perspective scene with the tracks going into the horizon, when you increase your height you will see more lands and the track would need to continue onwards for a further distance to reach into the new vanishing point.

Tom, you are correct that we see further as we go higher up.

But what i think is being questioned is why or how can we see the sun if it's already past a vanishing point?

Think of an aircraft flying away from you. It gets smaller and smaller as it moves further away. An increase in viewing height would not bring it back into view.

So if the sun, according to the FE model, is 'flying' away from us like an aircraft then how can we bring it back into view by increasing our height?

Also, why doesn't the sun get smaller in size as its 'flying' away form you?


7
Hey FE'ers,

Here's more proof for you guys or anyone interested in this whole FE vs RE debate on whether the earth is a Globe or Flat Disc.
According to the FE map, the distance from South Africa to Australia is much further away (almost twice the distance) than what is experienced by people travelling this route.
There are direct flights between these countries via Qantas Airlines but the FE'ers dispute the distance between these 2 countries.

So below is more proof or evidence of people sailing this route (Clipper Round the World Race). It's the only yacht race of its kind in the world and a great test of human endurance.

Feel free to check out the links below:

1. Info on the race which is broken up into various legs - https://clipperroundtheworld.com/race/leg/leg-3

2. Article on a local lad who sailed on a South African sponsored yacht - http://sailing.co.za/clipper-race-young-limpopo-man-celebrates-sailing-from-south-africa-to-australia/

The 3rd leg of the race, Cape Town to Freemantle Port (West Australia), is 4845 nautical miles (nm) which converts to roughly 8972Km. This verifies the recorded flight distance between JHB and PERTH (also on west coast of AUS) at 8325Km.

So any explanation from FE'ers regarding the above and why the huge variation on distances according to the FE map is welcome.

Great find.   But be ready for the reply... "there is no map"

Thanks, but i'm a bit disappointed i must say. Where are all the FE'ers? There seems to be a million of them commenting and spewing hate on YouTube but its almost 'crickets' in here! 

8
I remember a guy by the name jacque mackroln or something like that who sailed this and came up with 8-9,000 miles.

I'll see if I can find it in my briefs file.

Well, there's approx. 700 crew that sail this race. Why would they fake the distances they travel? Are they also in on this RE conspiracy?

But send me your info nevertheless.



9
Hey FE'ers,

Here's more proof for you guys or anyone interested in this whole FE vs RE debate on whether the earth is a Globe or Flat Disc.
According to the FE map, the distance from South Africa to Australia is much further away (almost twice the distance) than what is experienced by people travelling this route.
There are direct flights between these countries via Qantas Airlines but the FE'ers dispute the distance between these 2 countries.

So below is more proof or evidence of people sailing this route (Clipper Round the World Race). It's the only yacht race of its kind in the world and a great test of human endurance.

Feel free to check out the links below:

1. Info on the race which is broken up into various legs - https://clipperroundtheworld.com/race/leg/leg-3

2. Article on a local lad who sailed on a South African sponsored yacht - http://sailing.co.za/clipper-race-young-limpopo-man-celebrates-sailing-from-south-africa-to-australia/

The 3rd leg of the race, Cape Town to Freemantle Port (West Australia), is 4845 nautical miles (nm) which converts to roughly 8972Km. This verifies the recorded flight distance between JHB and PERTH (also on west coast of AUS) at 8325Km.

So any explanation from FE'ers regarding the above and why the huge variation on distances according to the FE map is welcome.








10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance debate based on poll results
« on: August 31, 2017, 08:43:48 AM »
Hey FE'ers

Can anyone provide me with the distance between the following cities, according to the proposed FE map:

1. Johannesburg to Perth
2. Johannesburg to Frankfurt

Thank you and much appreciated!!!

Pages: [1]