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.
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?
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?
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!
but still can't answer the simplest questions on perspective... psst Tom! This way! There are threads eagerly waiting for your input on the subject ;D
That's funny. Seeing that I have talked about this subject across this forum and the other one for the last 9 years and have written a wiki article on the subject, I think you have not looked hard enough.
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.
RULE #1 of Flat Earth Perspective:
Perspective can do anything that Tom wants it to do - without further explanation or clarification being needed.
Honestly, Tom is unable (or more likely, unwilling) to answer the two simplest possible questions:
* At sunset, where is the sun physically located?
* What path do the photons take to get from the Sun into our Eyes at sunset?
If he can't answer even those two simple things - and not a single one of the other FE'ers will step up to the plate to answer them...then why would you assume that they'd be anything other than utterly clueless about the size of the sun at sunset?
As for the Wiki...it's a chaotic mess in this regard.
The summary of https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun) says that "The perspective lines nearly merge, causing the receding body to appear to collapse in on itself."...Ah! So the sun should get smaller at the horizon! Urh...but it doesn't.
Then right below that is a Rowbotham quote that basically claims that it's refraction that causes this effect (I've debunked that one - and Tom says he doesn't believe it).
Then, in https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) it again quotes Rowbotham - only this time he's claiming that the sun's image is magnified by water droplets in the air (in the manner that street lamps appear to get larger into the distance on a foggy day). I debunked this one too...plus see photos of sunset over death valley or the sahara desert - where the humidity is nearly zero and there ARE no water droplets.
Then, in https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator) it says that the suns rays are bent according to some funky equation containing the "Bishop Constant". Tom says this one isn't true...which is a wise decision because it's stupidly easy to debunk.
Then, in https://wiki.tfes.org/Optics (https://wiki.tfes.org/Optics) is quotes Rowbotham AGAIN, only now he's saying that "the angular limits of the human eye" are involved in the whole sorry mess. Evidently, Mr Rowbotham had never taken a photograph to see whether the human eye truly was the issue here.
Truly - reading the Wiki about this is a complete waste of time.
The FE'ers are totally all over the map about sunsets - and this should come as no surprise. Short of magic, no set of optical effects can explain the position *AND* the roundness *AND* the size of the setting sun. Any prediction based on any of their ideas breaks one of those three self-evident properties. And that's before we ask how the setting sun can illuminate the undersides of clouds and airplanes...even AFTER it's gone away (I want to say "gone below the horizon" - but FET can't make THAT happen either...so for chrissakes don't even try to ask what happens when the sun sets into a notch in the horizon caused by a deep valley!
Look - FET is busted.
So long as nobody has the guts to tell us the path of the photons...their entire tissue of nonsensical junk theories has collapsed around them. Tom has CLEARLY decided to "chicken out" of this one!
RULE #1 of Flat Earth Perspective:
Perspective can do anything that Tom wants it to do - without further explanation or clarification being needed.
Honestly, Tom is unable (or more likely, unwilling) to answer the two simplest possible questions:
* At sunset, where is the sun physically located?
* What path do the photons take to get from the Sun into our Eyes at sunset?
If he can't answer even those two simple things - and not a single one of the other FE'ers will step up to the plate to answer them...then why would you assume that they'd be anything other than utterly clueless about the size of the sun at sunset?
As for the Wiki...it's a chaotic mess in this regard.
The summary of https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun) says that "The perspective lines nearly merge, causing the receding body to appear to collapse in on itself."...Ah! So the sun should get smaller at the horizon! Urh...but it doesn't.
Then right below that is a Rowbotham quote that basically claims that it's refraction that causes this effect (I've debunked that one - and Tom says he doesn't believe it).
Then, in https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) it again quotes Rowbotham - only this time he's claiming that the sun's image is magnified by water droplets in the air (in the manner that street lamps appear to get larger into the distance on a foggy day). I debunked this one too...plus see photos of sunset over death valley or the sahara desert - where the humidity is nearly zero and there ARE no water droplets.
Then, in https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator) it says that the suns rays are bent according to some funky equation containing the "Bishop Constant". Tom says this one isn't true...which is a wise decision because it's stupidly easy to debunk.
Then, in https://wiki.tfes.org/Optics (https://wiki.tfes.org/Optics) is quotes Rowbotham AGAIN, only now he's saying that "the angular limits of the human eye" are involved in the whole sorry mess. Evidently, Mr Rowbotham had never taken a photograph to see whether the human eye truly was the issue here.
Truly - reading the Wiki about this is a complete waste of time.
The FE'ers are totally all over the map about sunsets - and this should come as no surprise. Short of magic, no set of optical effects can explain the position *AND* the roundness *AND* the size of the setting sun. Any prediction based on any of their ideas breaks one of those three self-evident properties. And that's before we ask how the setting sun can illuminate the undersides of clouds and airplanes...even AFTER it's gone away (I want to say "gone below the horizon" - but FET can't make THAT happen either...so for chrissakes don't even try to ask what happens when the sun sets into a notch in the horizon caused by a deep valley!
Look - FET is busted.
So long as nobody has the guts to tell us the path of the photons...their entire tissue of nonsensical junk theories has collapsed around them. Tom has CLEARLY decided to "chicken out" of this one!
Please stay on topic. Most of your post is talking about sun set and not sun size. There is another thread on that topic for you to post your rants to.
They are NOT unrelated. Perspective changes the apparent SIZE of things as well as their apparent position. The fact that you don't seem to understand this actually underpins one of the major ways we know that your theory is broken.
If perspective is somehow able to bring something from 3,000 miles up down to zero - then it must also bring something 3,015 and something 2,985 miles to very nearly zero - which would result in the sun being far, far smaller than it seems at noon.
He who lives by perspective also dies by perspective.
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.
I mean, you've told us practically half the wiki is actually wrong by this point. Becomes difficult to keep track of what's up to date and what isn't you know.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?
I mean, you've told us practically half the wiki is actually wrong by this point. Becomes difficult to keep track of what's up to date and what isn't you know.
The problem with it though is that it does a piss poor job of explaining how it happens in exactly the same way, every single night, across every location on Earth. That's what's wrong with it.
Too tired of your shit to go quote mining right now. All of EA for starters though. Neither map is actually a map. Sleepy or I would have more.I mean, you've told us practically half the wiki is actually wrong by this point. Becomes difficult to keep track of what's up to date and what isn't you know.
Where have I said that?QuoteThe problem with it though is that it does a piss poor job of explaining how it happens in exactly the same way, every single night, across every location on Earth. That's what's wrong with it.
Why? Does the atmosphere not exist at other parts on earth?
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?
I mean, you've told us practically half the wiki is actually wrong by this point. Becomes difficult to keep track of what's up to date and what isn't you know.
Where have I said that?QuoteThe problem with it though is that it does a piss poor job of explaining how it happens in exactly the same way, every single night, across every location on Earth. That's what's wrong with it.
Why? Does the atmosphere not exist at other parts on earth?
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?
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.'
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?
Quoted post moved here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6541.msg127204#msg127204
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?
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.'
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?
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.'
Why would we give a different explanation other than the one published in the Wiki and our Flat Earth literature?
OK Tom. Let me explain why it's incorrect. I'll try to use simple words and no math for your benefit.
What is wrong with this claim is that if only objects with "intense" light remain the same size - then this doesn't explain how the Moon also sets over the horizon without getting smaller.
And if you claim that the moon is sufficiently intense - how about (for example) Jupiter? It certainly sets over the horizon when it's in the Northern hemisphere skies (as it has been for many months).
Jupiter is a rather dim object. It's easy to show that the disk of Jupiter remains the same size as it crosses the horizon - just as the sun does.
You can see Jupiter's disk quite well with a 200x telescope. Tom claims to own a 500x scope - so he can go out tonight and observe this for himself quite easily.
So if "intense rays of light" are the cause of constant sizes of objects as the cross the sky - then objects that are clearly not "intense" should get smaller. We know that airplanes get smaller - so anything that's no brighter than an airplane should get smaller. Jupiter is MUCH dimmer than an airplane.
(http://Also, what about this picture? It's a photo of the recent solar eclipse at sunset:
[img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ff/3b/2b/ff3b2b7171ec408072a88157479bb940.jpg)
The sun is pretty dim at this point - yet it's still a perfect circle. (Google "solar eclipse at sunset" and you'll find a bunch more).
Your logic is fallacious. Jupiter is not seen at the horizon.
QuoteAlso, what about this picture? It's a photo of the recent solar eclipse at sunset:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ff/3b/2b/ff3b2b7171ec408072a88157479bb940.jpg)
The sun is pretty dim at this point - yet it's still a perfect circle. (Google "solar eclipse at sunset" and you'll find a bunch more).
The absolute intensity of the sun is the same. The sun is bright enough to project onto the atmosphere. From that point it may dim with increased distance. The same may be true of the stars or the moon.
Your logic that the sun should follow the same rules as a less luminous object is not equatable. The sun exists as a bright object and we are seeing it when it is diluted after it has passed through a lot of atmosphere. The situations is not comparable to bodies which are non-luminous or of less luminosity.
The absolute intensity of the sun is the same.
The sun is bright enough to project onto the atmosphere.
From that point it may dim with increased distance. The same may be true of the stars or the moon.
Er..no...the world around you goes DARK during a solar eclipse. It's like midnight...there is no way the intensity is the same. The moon is blocking almost all of the light from it.
How can anything project onto something that's transparent?!? This is just babble.
But the Wiki says that only INTENSE light does this. There are stars that are extremely dim.
2) For Jupiter - they fade out before reaching the horizon (clearly, demonstrably, untrue).
3) For stars and moon...which are dim...something else?!? (We can easily see the moon set without the moon getting smaller - that's a naked eye test!)
Tom - your explanations are spiralling away into confusion here.
Could you perhaps take the time to write a simple description about how sunsets/moonsets/planetsets and starsets happen - checking first your facts about what can and cannot be seen - and accounting both for the depression of the object onto the horizon AND the surprising fact that these things don't get smaller with range - no matter the brightness.
(Oh...and DO tell us how the photons get from the physical location of the sun/moon into my eyes at sunset! We're all sitting on the edges of our seats waiting for your pronouncement on this one!)
Your logic is fallacious. Jupiter is not seen at the horizon.
WHAT?!?! How can you simply guess - or barefacedly lie about such things?
Here is a photo of the moon and Jupiter on the horizon:
(https://astrojourney.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/moon_jupiter_22.jpg)
Quote(Oh...and DO tell us how the photons get from the physical location of the sun/moon into my eyes at sunset! We're all sitting on the edges of our seats waiting for your pronouncement on this one!)
This was already explained to you.
Your logic is fallacious. Jupiter is not seen at the horizon.
WHAT?!?! How can you simply guess - or barefacedly lie about such things?
Here is a photo of the moon and Jupiter on the horizon:
(https://astrojourney.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/moon_jupiter_22.jpg)
You are wrong. This is not a photograph.
Look at where the image appears on this website: https://astrojourney.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/events-for-september-2010-center-stage-for-the-georgian-star-as-introduced-by-jupiter/
Notice the caption beneath it: "This shows where the Moon and Jupiter will be at sunset, but you probably won't be bale to pick Jupiter out for another half hour or more. It will tag along with the Moon as they both rise. (Prepared from Starry Nights Pro screen shot.)"
Oh...my bad! I picked one of the MANY from Google images. Here is a better one - along with an article that describes how and when the picture was taken:
https://www.space.com/14875-venus-jupiter-skywatcher-photos-march-2012.html
Quote(Oh...and DO tell us how the photons get from the physical location of the sun/moon into my eyes at sunset! We're all sitting on the edges of our seats waiting for your pronouncement on this one!)
This was already explained to you.
No you most certainly have not - and you KNOW it. You've never once told us exactly what path a photon takes as it travels from the PHYSICAL location of the sun (3000 miles above someplace on Earth where it's Noon right now) into my eye when I'm looking at the sun at sunset.
You've dodged and avoided and answered entirely different questions - but you have NOT answered this one. PANTS...ON...FIRE!!!
I have explained this to you on multiple occasions. I will can make a thread specifically for you when I have time, but you will have to wait. In the meantime you should go back and review our past conversations. This is not really on topic to this thread.