[rgr331]

What about the light source in the FE model causes the edges of the light on the Flat Earth to be red?

[rgr331]

also, the sun moon model on the wiki page showed northern greenland continuously lit by sunlight, but yesterday in northern greenland, the sun was only up for 4 hours & 22 minutes. 

what explaines the 19 hour 38 minute discrepancy.

[rgr331]

also, while i don’t have a picture that I took, I am certain that on several occasions I have gone outside during the day and seen the moon in the sky.  the wiki sun-moon model only showed the moon in the night portion. why?

[Curious Squirrel]

Firstly, please use the edit post function if you wish to add more questions to a new post.

also, while i don’t have a picture that I took, I am certain that on several occasions I have gone outside during the day and seen the moon in the sky.  the wiki sun-moon model only showed the moon in the night portion. why?

The model I presume you are referring to is not a conclusive model, but a representation to show the idea of their motions.

also, the sun moon model on the wiki page showed northern greenland continuously lit by sunlight, but yesterday in northern greenland, the sun was only up for 4 hours & 22 minutes. 

what explaines the 19 hour 38 minute discrepancy.

As above. It's not meant to be an accurate representation of reality, but something to show the general route of their movement above the Earth.

What about the light source in the FE model causes the edges of the light on the Flat Earth to be red?

Tom said something about this before. Can't recall it right now though, but in essence it's basically the same reason it happens on a round Earth, just with the help of perspective.

[rgr331]

also, the sun moon model on the wiki page showed northern greenland continuously lit by sunlight, but yesterday in northern greenland, the sun was only up for 4 hours & 22 minutes. 

what explaines the 19 hour 38 minute discrepancy.

As above. It's not meant to be an accurate representation of reality, but something to show the general route of their movement above the Earth.

Okay, so the flat earth sun-moon model doesn’t accurately represent reality.  Does it come close to representing reality?  It shows Northern Greenland continuously bathed in sunlight, but we know the sun was set for 19 hours and 22 minutes yesterday in Northern Greenland. Shouldn’t the model be at a least close approximation of reality if it’s to be believed?

So the thing about the round earth model, it PERFECTLY represents the reality of why it is currently dusk in Northern Greenland and the sun is about to set for approximately 20 hours.

[Curious Squirrel]

also, the sun moon model on the wiki page showed northern greenland continuously lit by sunlight, but yesterday in northern greenland, the sun was only up for 4 hours & 22 minutes. 

what explaines the 19 hour 38 minute discrepancy.

As above. It's not meant to be an accurate representation of reality, but something to show the general route of their movement above the Earth.

Okay, so the flat earth sun-moon model doesn’t accurately represent reality.  Does it come close to representing reality?  It shows Northern Greenland continuously bathed in sunlight, but we know the sun was set for 19 hours and 22 minutes yesterday in Northern Greenland. Shouldn’t the model be at a least close approximation of reality if it’s to be believed?

So the thing about the round earth model, it PERFECTLY represents the reality of why it is currently dusk in Northern Greenland and the sun is about to set for approximately 20 hours.

There is no flat Earth map. The animated model shows only a single day of motion. Between those two it could possibly be correct for one day at some point.

[rgr331]

also, the sun moon model on the wiki page showed northern greenland continuously lit by sunlight, but yesterday in northern greenland, the sun was only up for 4 hours & 22 minutes. 

what explaines the 19 hour 38 minute discrepancy.

As above. It's not meant to be an accurate representation of reality, but something to show the general route of their movement above the Earth.

Okay, so the flat earth sun-moon model doesn’t accurately represent reality.  Does it come close to representing reality?  It shows Northern Greenland continuously bathed in sunlight, but we know the sun was set for 19 hours and 22 minutes yesterday in Northern Greenland. Shouldn’t the model be at a least close approximation of reality if it’s to be believed?

So the thing about the round earth model, it PERFECTLY represents the reality of why it is currently dusk in Northern Greenland and the sun is about to set for approximately 20 hours.

There is no flat Earth map. The animated model shows only a single day of motion. Between those two it could possibly be correct for one day at some point.

Okay, so the earth is flat, but there is no map of it.

How do trains, planes & automobiles get from Point A to Point B?


PS: Tom I saw your comment about why the sunlight turns reddish orange. I saw how you said it had to do with the amount of atmosphere the light travels through. I saw how you compared to to looking out across blue water vs looking straight down at clear water.  I also see that your comment was deleted. Most likely it was deleted because that phenomenon proves the earth is round.

A flat disk that is accelerating straight up would have a uniformly thick atmosphere, and the only perspective the sun would have is that similar to the person looking straight down at the clear water.

[Rounder]

A flat disk that is accelerating straight up would have a uniformly thick atmosphere, and the only perspective the sun would have is that similar to the person looking straight down at the clear water.

I think you misunderstand their model.  Their atmosphere is still a thin layer of air on the flat disc, and at sunrise/sunset you are still looking at the sun diagonally through more air than at noon when you look more vertically.

[rgr331]

A flat disk that is accelerating straight up would have a uniformly thick atmosphere, and the only perspective the sun would have is that similar to the person looking straight down at the clear water.

I think you misunderstand their model.  Their atmosphere is still a thin layer of air on the flat disc, and at sunrise/sunset you are still looking at the sun diagonally through more air than at noon when you look more vertically.

No, I understand it perfectly.  The angle described would only increase the amount of atmosphere light travels through very slightly.  That total distance would be on the order of 125,000 feet total. Not enough to filter out the blue spectrum of light.

In reality, when the sun drops to the horizon, the light travels through hundreds of miles of atmosphere before reaching my eye. I say hundreds of miles, because I am a pilot, and when I typically see these sunsets/sunrises, I’m at 40,000 feet above sea level.


Another note. As a pilot I often see the sun set, then raise, then set again all within a 60 to 90 minute time frame. You see, as we approach a destination at the time of dusk, we descend toward the earth. This brings the visible round earth horizon closer to my eye causing the sun to drop behind the horizon (sunset). Then, we offload our passengers, load new passengers up, and take off again.  As we climb, the visible round earth horizon moves further from my eye and drops below the sun (sunrise). Ultimately the sun sets for good during that flight.

This setting, then raising, then setting again is not possible on a flat earth.

[Tom Haws]

Another note. As a pilot I often see the sun set, then raise, then set again all within a 60 to 90 minute time frame. You see, as we approach a destination at the time of dusk, we descend toward the earth. This brings the visible round earth horizon closer to my eye causing the sun to drop behind the horizon (sunset). Then, we offload our passengers, load new passengers up, and take off again.  As we climb, the visible round earth horizon moves further from my eye and drops below the sun (sunrise). Ultimately the sun sets for good during that flight.

This setting, then raising, then setting again is not possible on a flat earth.

The above is every bit as rigorous an experiment as the Bishop Experiment described at https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence. I would like to know what further would be required or how the experiment above would need to be modified to be acceptable evidence, because I am starting to despair of ever understanding what sort of observational evidence would be acceptable to Tom Bishop, who keeps saying "Provide evidence. Provide observations."

[Tom Bishop]

Another note. As a pilot I often see the sun set, then raise, then set again all within a 60 to 90 minute time frame. You see, as we approach a destination at the time of dusk, we descend toward the earth. This brings the visible round earth horizon closer to my eye causing the sun to drop behind the horizon (sunset). Then, we offload our passengers, load new passengers up, and take off again.  As we climb, the visible round earth horizon moves further from my eye and drops below the sun (sunrise). Ultimately the sun sets for good during that flight.

This setting, then raising, then setting again is not possible on a flat earth.

The above is every bit as rigorous an experiment as the Bishop Experiment described at https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence. I would like to know what further would be required or how the experiment above would need to be modified to be acceptable evidence, because I am starting to despair of ever understanding what sort of observational evidence would be acceptable to Tom Bishop, who keeps saying "Provide evidence. Provide observations."

When one increases in altitude, one is broadening his perspective lines and pushing the vanishing point further into the distance, revealing new lands. This is what causes the restoration event.

[rgr331]

Another note. As a pilot I often see the sun set, then raise, then set again all within a 60 to 90 minute time frame. You see, as we approach a destination at the time of dusk, we descend toward the earth. This brings the visible round earth horizon closer to my eye causing the sun to drop behind the horizon (sunset). Then, we offload our passengers, load new passengers up, and take off again.  As we climb, the visible round earth horizon moves further from my eye and drops below the sun (sunrise). Ultimately the sun sets for good during that flight.

This setting, then raising, then setting again is not possible on a flat earth.

The above is every bit as rigorous an experiment as the Bishop Experiment described at https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence. I would like to know what further would be required or how the experiment above would need to be modified to be acceptable evidence, because I am starting to despair of ever understanding what sort of observational evidence would be acceptable to Tom Bishop, who keeps saying "Provide evidence. Provide observations."

When one increases in altitude, one is broadening his perspective lines and pushing the vanishing point further into the distance, revealing new lands. This is what causes the restoration event.

No, as I assend, I climb back up into the light that is not blocked by the horizon.  I am not speaking of seeing “New lands” I’m speaking of seeing “The Sun”. I can see it because it is no longer behind the horizon from my position (which by the way didn’t necessarily change horizontally, but just vertically, like a helicopter).

I wonder what would cause this “broadening” of perspective and “pushing” of the “vanishing point”.  Is it that the air is less dense?  The atmosphere gets significantly less dense toward the high altitudes, but the same thing (sunset, sunrise, sunset) is seen with a radio controlled drone going up and down only a few hundred feet where there is no measurable change in atmospheric conditions.

[Tom Haws]

When one increases in altitude, one is broadening his perspective lines and pushing the vanishing point further into the distance, revealing new lands. This is what causes the restoration event.

I do not believe that. And I bet very few people of high intelligence do. What evidence do you have for what you are asserting?

[Curious Squirrel]

When one increases in altitude, one is broadening his perspective lines and pushing the vanishing point further into the distance, revealing new lands. This is what causes the restoration event.

I do not believe that. And I bet very few people of high intelligence do. What evidence do you have for what you are asserting?

The same he has for everything. "The Earth is flat. This happens. This is then a reason why it could happen on the flat Earth, based upon Rowbotham's writing or similar." 90% of their evidence for things is based on the presumption that the Earth is presently flat. So they need to figure out how to explain away high school level math.

[Tom Haws]

Sure, CS. But I am going to start calling it what it is. It's nonsense. The whole statement below is nonsense. Perspective is all about a simple projection of a spherical view from my eyes onto a 2D conceptual canvas. The math may get tedious, but the concept is not complex. Hand-waving statements that induce brain fog are a huckster's trick.

When one increases in altitude, one is broadening his perspective lines and pushing the vanishing point further into the distance, revealing new lands. This is what causes the restoration event.

[BiggayAL]

It's because the sunlight has to be refracted through more air, due to the earth's curvature. Best explanation is round earth

[Tom Bishop]

I wonder what would cause this “broadening” of perspective and “pushing” of the “vanishing point”.  Is it that the air is less dense?  The atmosphere gets significantly less dense toward the high altitudes, but the same thing (sunset, sunrise, sunset) is seen with a radio controlled drone going up and down only a few hundred feet where there is no measurable change in atmospheric conditions.

When you are standing on the earth at sea level and look at the earth's eye level horizon you are creating a right angled triangle with the hypotenuse laying upon the surface of the earth. The Angle A is the right angle at your eye, Angle B is at the horizon/vanishing point, and Angle C is straight down at your feet.  The Vanishing Point is created where the perspective lines at Angle B approach each other at less than a minute of a degree.

When you increase in altitude, the angle of the triangle change and it takes a greater distance to create the requirement for the Vanishing Point, and so it is pushed backwards further into the distance to where the perspective lines are once again separated less than a minute of a degree. The Vanishing Point is now a greater distance away and new lands have been revealed.

[Curious Squirrel]

I wonder what would cause this “broadening” of perspective and “pushing” of the “vanishing point”.  Is it that the air is less dense?  The atmosphere gets significantly less dense toward the high altitudes, but the same thing (sunset, sunrise, sunset) is seen with a radio controlled drone going up and down only a few hundred feet where there is no measurable change in atmospheric conditions.

When you are standing on the earth at sea level and look at the earth's eye level horizon you are creating a right angled triangle with the hypotenuse laying upon the surface of the earth. The Angle A is the right angle at your eye, Angle B is at the horizon/vanishing point, and Angle C is straight down at your feet.  The Vanishing Point is created where the perspective lines at Angle B approach each other at less than a minute of a degree.

When you increase in altitude, the angle of the triangle change and it takes a greater distance to create the requirement for the Vanishing Point, and so it is pushed backwards further into the distance to where the perspective lines are once again separated less than a minute of a degree. The Vanishing Point is now a greater distance away and new lands have been revealed.

So, first off your eyes don't form a 90 degree angle. BUT, let's disregard that for a moment, as you've now given us some rules for how perspective works to create the horizon. Shall we put them to the test?

Let's take the Bishop experiment, where you claim to see a beach 23 miles away with your naked eye. Let's see how high you have to be in order to see this distance using the information just given.

Angle A: 90°
Side C: 23 miles
Angle B: 0.01666° (roughly a minute of a degree.)
https://www.triangle-calculator.com/?what=asa&a1=90&c=23&b1=.016666&submit=Solve Solved for side B (observer's height)

Looks here like you would need to be about 0.007 miles above sea level, or roughly 36 feet in order to see that far. Were you 36 feet above sea level Tom? Because otherwise your own experiment is proving you wrong here.

[rgr331]

[quote
 author=rgr331 link=topic=8005.msg134938#msg134938 date=1513051593]
I wonder what would cause this “broadening” of perspective and “pushing” of the “vanishing point”.  Is it that the air is less dense?  The atmosphere gets significantly less dense toward the high altitudes, but the same thing (sunset, sunrise, sunset) is seen with a radio controlled drone going up and down only a few hundred feet where there is no measurable change in atmospheric conditions.

When you are standing on the earth at sea level and look at the earth's eye level horizon you are creating a right angled triangle with the hypotenuse laying upon the surface of the earth. The Angle A is the right angle at your eye, Angle B is at the horizon/vanishing point, and Angle C is straight down at your feet.  The Vanishing Point is created where the perspective lines at Angle B approach each other at less than a minute of a degree.

When you increase in altitude, the angle of the triangle change and it takes a greater distance to create the requirement for the Vanishing Point, and so it is pushed backwards further into the distance to where the perspective lines are once again separated less than a minute of a degree. The Vanishing Point is now a greater distance away and new lands have been revealed.

So you must be leaning forward rather than standing straight up?  When standing straight up, your feet would also form a 90 degree angle. So now we have two 90 degree angles (one at eve level & one at ground level). This means we have a rectangle, not a triangle. Which means that I could see the Eiffel Tower from Long Island.

Interesting though how you just described the geometry explaining the horizon of a round earth.

[Tom Bishop]

I wonder what would cause this “broadening” of perspective and “pushing” of the “vanishing point”.  Is it that the air is less dense?  The atmosphere gets significantly less dense toward the high altitudes, but the same thing (sunset, sunrise, sunset) is seen with a radio controlled drone going up and down only a few hundred feet where there is no measurable change in atmospheric conditions.

When you are standing on the earth at sea level and look at the earth's eye level horizon you are creating a right angled triangle with the hypotenuse laying upon the surface of the earth. The Angle A is the right angle at your eye, Angle B is at the horizon/vanishing point, and Angle C is straight down at your feet.  The Vanishing Point is created where the perspective lines at Angle B approach each other at less than a minute of a degree.

When you increase in altitude, the angle of the triangle change and it takes a greater distance to create the requirement for the Vanishing Point, and so it is pushed backwards further into the distance to where the perspective lines are once again separated less than a minute of a degree. The Vanishing Point is now a greater distance away and new lands have been revealed.

So, first off your eyes don't form a 90 degree angle. BUT, let's disregard that for a moment, as you've now given us some rules for how perspective works to create the horizon. Shall we put them to the test?

Let's take the Bishop experiment, where you claim to see a beach 23 miles away with your naked eye. Let's see how high you have to be in order to see this distance using the information just given.

Angle A: 90°
Side C: 23 miles
Angle B: 0.01666° (roughly a minute of a degree.)
https://www.triangle-calculator.com/?what=asa&a1=90&c=23&b1=.016666&submit=Solve Solved for side B (observer's height)

Looks here like you would need to be about 0.007 miles above sea level, or roughly 36 feet in order to see that far. Were you 36 feet above sea level Tom? Because otherwise your own experiment is proving you wrong here.

Correct. 0.01666.. degrees is a minute of a degree. However, if we scroll up we will find that I said less than a minute of a degree, and this is echoed in Earth Not a Globe. A minute of a degree is around the limit.