The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Max_Almond on December 01, 2018, 01:09:45 PM
-
The sun is higher than Mount Everest.
Mount Everest is higher than the mountains that surround it.
The sun is higher than the mountains around Mount Everest.
So, flat earthers, in this video, how do think a shadow gets cast onto Mount Everest?
-
The sun is higher than Mount Everest.
Mount Everest is higher than the mountains that surround it.
The sun is higher than the mountains around Mount Everest.
So in this video, how does a shadow get cast onto Mount Everest?
Aha. If light travels in straight lines, then (1) the edge of the shadow on Everest, (2) the tops of the mountains around Everest and (3) the sun, must all lie in a straight line.
But (4) when the edge of the shadow reaches the top of Everest, it follows from the above that the line in question must be angled downwards relative to the surface of the perfectly flat earth. However (6) most FE theory states that celestial bodies are always the same height.
Quite a conundrum, let me think about it.
-
The sun is higher than Mount Everest.
Mount Everest is higher than the mountains that surround it.
The sun is higher than the mountains around Mount Everest.
So in this video, how does a shadow get cast onto Mount Everest?
This happens because as an object (like the sun) becomes more distant it drops in apparent height meaning the light that emanates from said object makes shallower and shallower angles relative to the ground until none of the light is able to be seen from the object at all. This is all pretty simple stuff that logically follows from the basic FE explanation for sunrise/sunset as described in the Wiki.
-
This happens because as an object (like the sun) becomes more distant it drops in apparent height meaning the light that emanates from said object makes shallower and shallower angles relative to the ground until none of the light is able to be seen from the object at all. This is all pretty simple stuff that logically follows from the basic FE explanation for sunrise/sunset as described in the Wiki.
So the real height does not drop?
And yet you agree that when the edge of the shadow reaches the top of Everest, the line in question [top of Everest --- top of lower peaks --- sun] must be angled downwards relative to the surface of the perfectly flat earth?
Or do you think that the sunlight travels in a curved line?
Sometimes a picture is clearer.
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/e/e3/Everest.jpg)
-
This happens because as an object (like the sun) becomes more distant it drops in apparent height meaning the light that emanates from said object makes shallower and shallower angles relative to the ground until none of the light is able to be seen from the object at all. This is all pretty simple stuff that logically follows from the basic FE explanation for sunrise/sunset as described in the Wiki.
It does follow from the FE sunrise explanation, but unfortunately that explanation is wrong. Tom tried to use this explanation in a previous thread about how clouds can be seen lit from below and how shadows are cast upwards by a sun apparently thousands of miles above the surface of the flat earth. This is the image we were talking about at the time
(https://i.ibb.co/QkfDF48/Ranier.jpg)
Tom said that it was perspective which caused this effect, the sun appeared lower in the sky because it was far away horizontally, it looked like it was below the mountain ergo the shadows were cast upwards. But that isn't how shadows work. The angle of a shadow does not depend on your perspective, it depends on the physical relationship between the light source and the object which the shadow is cast of. So a row of lamps may appear like this because of perspective:
(https://image.ibb.co/kCR61m/lampposts.jpg)
But in reality each lamp is the same height. So if I look at the row of lamps and place my hand high enough with respect to my eyes that the lamp appears to be lower than my hand then the shadow my hand casts from the furthest lamp will still be in a downward direction because the light is physically above the level of my hand:
(https://image.ibb.co/bVgpMm/Lamp-Posts2.jpg)
I did a quick experiment to show this. I used a lamp as the light source and a Rubik's cube as the object. You can see the top of the cube is illuminated because the light source is physically above the level of the cube:
(https://image.ibb.co/hQN86b/Perspective2.jpg)
If I change my perspective so the light source appears to be lower than the cube, the lower side of the cube is still in shadow:
(https://image.ibb.co/kQSEew/Perspective1.jpg)
The only way that shadows can be cast by the sun upwards, or objects shorter than Everest can cast shadows on to Everest if light travels in straight lines is that the sun must be physically lower than the level of the object it is casting the shadow of. Which is is with a globe earth, as the earth rotates the sun goes physically below the horizon.
The only other possibility I can think of is that light doesn't travel in straight lines, this is where EA wins as a flat earth theory. The sun would by physically higher than Everest and the mountains beside it but the light would be bending in such a way that the sun would appear to be below it and the light would be bending in such a way that shadows could be cast upwards. I've yet to see any experimental evidence that EA exists, but it would better as an explanation that perspective.
-
I did a quick experiment to show this. I used a lamp as the light source and a Rubik's cube as the object. You can see the top of the cube is illuminated because the light source is physically above the level of the cube:
The only way that shadows can be cast by the sun upwards, or objects shorter than Everest can cast shadows on to Everest if light travels in straight lines is that the sun must be physically lower than the level of the object it is casting the shadow of. Which is is with a globe earth, as the earth rotates the sun goes physically below the horizon.
The only other possibility I can think of is that light doesn't travel in straight lines, this is where EA wins as a flat earth theory. The sun would by physically higher than Everest and the mountains beside it but the light would be bending in such a way that the sun would appear to be below it and the light would be bending in such a way that shadows could be cast upwards. I've yet to see any experimental evidence that EA exists, but it would better as an explanation that perspective.
Your experiment is not analogous to what Flat Earthers hypothesize about sunsets/sunrises because in Flat Earth sunsets the change in the sun's apparent position in the vertical direction is caused by a change in the sun's actual position in the horizontal direction while the change in the apparent position of the light source in your picture is caused by a change in the position of the observer, not a change in the position of the light source, so it is inadequate to demonstrate your claim.
-
I did a quick experiment to show this. I used a lamp as the light source and a Rubik's cube as the object. You can see the top of the cube is illuminated because the light source is physically above the level of the cube:
The only way that shadows can be cast by the sun upwards, or objects shorter than Everest can cast shadows on to Everest if light travels in straight lines is that the sun must be physically lower than the level of the object it is casting the shadow of. Which is is with a globe earth, as the earth rotates the sun goes physically below the horizon.
The only other possibility I can think of is that light doesn't travel in straight lines, this is where EA wins as a flat earth theory. The sun would by physically higher than Everest and the mountains beside it but the light would be bending in such a way that the sun would appear to be below it and the light would be bending in such a way that shadows could be cast upwards. I've yet to see any experimental evidence that EA exists, but it would better as an explanation that perspective.
Your experiment is not analogous to what Flat Earthers hypothesize about sunsets/sunrises because in Flat Earth sunsets the change in the sun's apparent position in the vertical direction is caused by a change in the sun's actual position in the horizontal direction while the change in the apparent position of the light source in your picture is caused by a change in the position of the observer, not a change in the position of the light source, so it is inadequate to demonstrate your claim.
Regardless of the observer perspective, in FET the sun is above the clouds yet when "setting" it casts a shadow of the mountain up on to the underside of the clouds. Either the sun sets or the light is bent - It is not explained by FE law of perspective.
-
The observer moving or the light source moving are equivalent. Both change the relative position of the light source and the observer.
I understand the FE claim about sunset, but photos like the above and the video of Mount Everest prove that the sun is PHYSICALLY below the level of the objects. A light source thousands of miles above a flat plane cannot cast shadows upwards. Again, the angle of a shadow is determined by the relationship of PHYSICAL positions of the light source and the object, not perspective. If you walk down the street at night you will notice your shadow changes direction as you walk past street lights. You are moving so the physical angle between you and the light changes so the shadow does.
So either the sun is physically below the level of the mountains (which it isn’t ever, according to FE theory), or light is bending so it appears to be. Again, that is the claim of EA.
-
The observer moving or the light source moving are equivalent. Both change the relative position of the light source and the observer.
They aren't equivalent in this case because your picture is caused by changing the horizontal position of the observer. If the change in the apparent height of the light source in your picture were caused by increasing the horizontal distance between the camera and the light that would be equivalent.
I understand the FE claim about sunset, but photos like the above and the video of Mount Everest prove that the sun is PHYSICALLY below the level of the objects. A light source thousands of miles above a flat plane cannot cast shadows upwards. Again, the angle of a shadow is determined by the relationship of PHYSICAL positions of the light source and the object, not perspective. If you walk down the street at night you will notice your shadow changes direction as you walk past street lights. You are moving so the physical angle between you and the light changes so the shadow does.
And perspective is itself caused by the physical position of the light source and the object. Imagine the clouds as "observers": in that picture the sun is positioned in such a way that only the bottoms of the clouds are able to "see" the sun because it so far away from them and has thus appeared to sink into the horizon from their perspective. However for the clouds that are situated in back of the mountain, the sun is so far away that their view of the sun is obstructed by the mountain.
-
It was a mistake to bring perspective into the argument at all. The Everest picture is independent of perspective.
The question is whether the peak of Everest, the peak of the lower mountain, and the sun, lie in straight line. Shall we get back on topic?
-
edby, the question was how the shadow gets cast on to Mount Everest. GJ is claiming perspective. I'm trying to explain why that is not the correct explanation.
They aren't equivalent in this case because your picture is caused by changing the horizontal position of the observer.
I think I'll concede this point. My experiment does demonstrate the principle I'm trying to explain but I'll agree it is not exactly equivalent, it's actually quite difficult to do an equivalent experiment as you generally need quite a large space.
perspective is itself caused by the physical position of the light source and the object.
perspective is caused by the physical position of the observer
Imagine the clouds as "observers": in that picture the sun is positioned in such a way that only the bottoms of the clouds are able to "see" the sun because it so far away from them and has thus appeared to sink into the horizon from their perspective. However for the clouds that are situated in back of the mountain, the sun is so far away that their view of the sun is obstructed by the mountain.
OK, this is where your understanding of perspective is all wrong. I'm terrible at drawing but I've had a go at a diagram:
(https://i.ibb.co/yfHvTPv/Shadows.jpg)
In this diagram the sun is physically higher than the cloud but from the observer's perspective the sun will appear to be under the cloud. You can see that from the black lines. But because the sun is still physically above the cloud the shadow, represented roughly by the red line, will still be angled downwards. A shadow can only be angled upwards if the light source is physically below the object the shadow is being cast of.
In broef: shadow angle is determined by the relationship between the physical locations of light source and object. Perspective is not a factor. That cannot be the explanation for shadows being cast on Mount Everest. Bending of light could be, as could a globe earth model where the rotation of the earth means the sun does go physically below the horizon (technically the horizon rotates to occlude the sun, but let's not split hairs).
-
edby, the question was how the shadow gets cast on to Mount Everest. GJ is claiming perspective. I'm trying to explain why that is not the correct explanation.
Actually you were the first person to mention perspective. So you are trying to anticipate an objection that was never made.
The proof underlying Max's simple observation is simple, and depends on geometry plus the assumption that light travels in straight lines.
-
I'll refer you to Sandokhan's model of the sun so that you can understand how this can work on a Flat Earth.
EDIT:
I think I have an answer to your shadow conundrum. I retract my concession, and I'll have my answer fleshed out in due time.
-
This happens because as an object (like the sun) becomes more distant it drops in apparent height.
Not so on both counts. Whether an object drops in 'apparent height' depends on where the observer is, it's not a concrete law. And, in any case, "apparent height" is not "height". If you take a photo of me from a quarter of a mile away, it might appear than I'm only a few inches tall, but I assure you I'm not.
Trying to use that to explain this video is confusing perspective with reality (see Dougal and the cows (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0) for a good explanation of this).
Edby's diagram sums it up perfectly:
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/e/e3/Everest.jpg)
If anyone thinks it's possible for the Everest shadow video to work on a flat earth, I would suggest they either draw a profile diagram of how this would work, or better still, make a scale model. All they need is a light and two objects of different sizes.
-
Right. The killer part of Max's example is the nearby mountains being lower than Everest. If the same height or higher, the Wiki argument works. But if lower, it's a matter of logic.
I.e. if A is higher than B, and ABC is a straight line, then C is lower than A and B.
No assumptions about 'perspective' required.
-
edby, the question was how the shadow gets cast on to Mount Everest. GJ is claiming perspective. I'm trying to explain why that is not the correct explanation.
Actually you were the first person to mention perspective. So you are trying to anticipate an objection that was never made.
Fine. but GJ said this was explained by the Wiki page about this which says
"This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun
I messed up my post above, have corrected it now so the image shows.
An addendum for GJ's benefit is to think of it this way. In my diagram you as the observer see the sun below the cloud, but the cloud will still "see" the sun above itself, because it IS above itself. If an object is physically above you then it can't appear to be below you. As it gets further away horizontally it may appear to get lower but it will never appear below you because the angle above your eye level will always be greater than zero. You may well see the object appear to be below a closer object though which is physically lower than it as shown in my diagram.
EA does explain the shadows though, as the sun gets further away the light is bent more until it is travelling upwards and casts the shadows onto the taller Mount Everest. I'm surprised that the Sunset Wiki page hasn't been amended because the argument on it demonstrably doesn't work. There is a page about EA:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator
But it's all just stated and the equation given, no details of any actual evidence for EA existing or what experiments have been done to demonstrate the effect or derive the equation.
-
Certainly won't disagree with you on any of that - but also can't help but feel that it's slightly complicating the issue.
-
I still think that 'if A is higher than B, and ABC is a straight line, then C is lower than A and B' is a shorter, simpler, and logically valid argument. I may be wrong.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator
But it's all just stated and the equation given, no details of any actual evidence for EA existing or what experiments have been done to demonstrate the effect or derive the equation.
I think the evidence is that the earth is flat. If so, EA is the only assumption consistent with that evidence, ergo EA is correct. A lot of Flat Earth arguments proceed that way.
-
I still think that 'if A is higher than B, and ABC is a straight line, then C is lower than A and B' is a shorter, simpler, and logically valid argument. I may be wrong.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator
But it's all just stated and the equation given, no details of any actual evidence for EA existing or what experiments have been done to demonstrate the effect or derive the equation.
I think the evidence is that the earth is flat. If so, EA is the only assumption consistent with that evidence, ergo EA is correct. A lot of Flat Earth arguments proceed that way.
Sure, EAT could work.. if the sun was a spotlight and if light from that spotlight sun was bending upward due to EA if it existed. Notice the multiple IFs, none of which are testably shown to exist.
1. The sun is not a spotlight, its light comes from all sides of it, not just the bottom. It is clearly rotating and spherical in nature with light generation at every point on its surface. This fact alone negates any impact of EAT if it existed.
2. EAT is just a placeholder for something FE can’t explain. It hasn’t been demonstrated by any experimental evidence.
I would argue if EAT were real, then FEH is in worse shape since the sun is spherical and light goes everywhere in all directions. Wouldn’t the light be curving in all directions as well? As they are attracted somehow somewhere? Why are there even shadows? The light from the sun would have some rays curving everywhere which would negate shadows. Why would EAT only attract upwards away from the surface of the Earth? And not just upwards, but perpendicularly upwards. What is so special about perfectly upwards from the surface of the Earth?
-
Why do people keep talking about EAT? Has any flat earther proposed it as an explanation for this video?
-
Why do people keep talking about EAT? Has any flat earther proposed it as an explanation for this video?
I mentioned it because the original post asked how these shadows were cast. Obviously in the real world we know how they are, but from a FE point of view the only way it could happen is if the light from the sun was bent upwards which is what EA claims. I don’t think there’s any experimental evidence for that effect actually existing and I have no idea how the equation on that Wiki page was derived or tested.
-
It puzzles me a bit. Imagine you're a lurker on the fence. You come to this thread and see that video. Maybe think, bloody, hell that's impossible if the earth were flat and go away troubled by it.
But now the whole thing's bogged down and clogged up with unnecessary words and ideas.
Flat earthers don't need to smokescreen discrepancies anymore, globers do it for them! ;)
-
This happens because as an object (like the sun) becomes more distant it drops in apparent height.
Not so on both counts. Whether an object drops in 'apparent height' depends on where the observer is, it's not a concrete law. And, in any case, "apparent height" is not "height". If you take a photo of me from a quarter of a mile away, it might appear than I'm only a few inches tall, but I assure you I'm not.
It depends upon the angles at which the light from the object are coming in which depends upon distance between object and observer, so there is a concrete physical basis for drop in apparent height.
Trying to use that to explain this video is confusing perspective with reality (see Dougal and the cows (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0) for a good explanation of this).
Edby's diagram sums it up perfectly:
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/e/e3/Everest.jpg)
If anyone thinks it's possible for the Everest shadow video to work on a flat earth, I would suggest they either draw a profile diagram of how this would work, or better still, make a scale model. All they need is a light and two objects of different sizes.
It's possible because as the sun moves away from the mountain perspective and atmospheric refraction work together to decrease the angle of the light rays coming from the sun, as those angles become shallower and shallower the shorter mountain peak can serve to block those rays. You can't easily make a scale model because it requires vast differences in distance between light sources, observers and objects.
-
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/e/e3/Everest.jpg)
It's possible because as the sun moves away from the mountain perspective and atmospheric refraction work together to decrease the angle of the light rays coming from the sun, as those angles become shallower and shallower the shorter mountain peak can serve to block those rays. You can't easily make a scale model because it requires vast differences in distance between light sources, observers and objects.
1. The Sun is a sphere.... you have to show how it works as a spotlight... until you can show the sun is not a sphere with light emanating in all directions from every point on its surface then all of the rest of this is just nonsense.
2. Why would refraction cause light to bend Up? I was under the impression light is bending down in order to explain the sinking ship and the sunset itself in FEH.. Please make up your mind which direction sunlight needs to bend to make various FET work.
3. Shadows require a direct line to the light source, this is how shadows work, in order for a lower mountain to shadow the higher Everest, the light source must be even lower.
4. EAT has not been shown to exist. Its properties and mode of action are not even well described. Zero experimental evidence. What’s so special about UP? Why would EAT only act in the upwards direction? If EAT acts this way, then it goes against what we see every day with actual measurable refraction and mirages.
-
It's possible because as the sun moves away from the mountain perspective and atmospheric refraction work together to decrease the angle of the light rays coming from the sun, as those angles become shallower and shallower the shorter mountain peak can serve to block those rays. You can't easily make a scale model because it requires vast differences in distance between light sources, observers and objects.
You're a bit confused, George, about what perspective is.
How is perspective working, for example, in Edby's diagram?
And why would the properties of light change depending on distance? (If you say 'refraction' - refraction can be demonstrated at very short distances too. Plus you're bending the wrong way, as pointed out above.)
Funny how we can make scale models of the actual planet, globe, moon, sun, etc that match reality perfectly - but the flat earth idea is apparently 'unmodelable'. :D
-
Here's an FEH model, albeit very crude. If the sun does not set like in the globe earth model, the constant height FE sun will only cast a shadow as high as the lower mountain, no matter perspective or distance.
(https://i.imgur.com/giwEeVN.jpg)
-
Here's an FEH model, albeit very crude. If the sun does not set like in the globe earth model, the constant height FE sun will only cast a shadow as high as the lower mountain, no matter perspective or distance.
(https://i.imgur.com/giwEeVN.jpg)
And that's with the sun only around 2-3 times as high as the tallest mountain - rather than the 546 times higher that they claim it is.
-
Here's a picture of a man walking along a street at night:
(https://miro.medium.com/max/640/1*xD42RwCUuJ7Lzr0OMnE8Vg.jpeg)
The nearby lamps are clearly a lot taller than he is, and I think we can assume that the lamps are all about the same size.
The ones in the distance appear at a lower 'apparent height' than the man, because of the law of perspective. But they're not actually smaller than him, or lower than him, they're just far away.
This is what the scene would look like for an observer from the side (aka, reality):
(https://i.imgur.com/1N8SEWr.jpg)
Question is: will the distant lamps shine on the underside of his chin? That's what flat earthers are proposing will happen when they try and explain videos such as the Everest sunset one.
-
Question is: will the distant lamps shine on the underside of his chin?
To which the answer is “No, clearly not”.
Shadow angle depends solely on the relationship between the physical positions of light source and object which the shadow is cast of.
The FE claim (from Tom and GJ at least) is that because the distant light appears to be below the man’s chin by perspective the shadow is cast upwards. But that is obviously not true. Were that so then the person taking that photo would observe the shadow of the man cast upwards because from his perspective the lamp seems to be below the man’s chin. An observer from the side would observe the shadow cast downwards because from that perspective the lamp appears to be above the man’s chin. This makes no sense, the shadow is either angled upwards or downwards, that can’t change because of anyone’s perspective.
While we are here, the man in that photo would see the lamp above his chin because the lamp IS above his chin. Distant objects which are taller than you may appear shorter than closer ones but the top of them will never go below eye level. If the FE claim is that they do then that contradicts the claim that the horizon rises to eye level. Claiming that distant lights which are physically above you go below eye level would be equivalent to claiming that the horizon rises to above eye level.
In that photo the lamp only looks lower than the man’s head because the photo is taken from below the level of his head.
-
As with all these discussions what appears to be forgotten is reality.
Imagine you were able to position people at regular intervals, say one every hundred miles along a line of latitude.
Each person in a comfy chair looking at the sky for 24 hours. Ok some may have to be in boats....but let’s go with it. For everyone it’s a bright blue sky with no clouds. What are they going to see?
A few facts.
Every person will see the same sun.
Every person will see it rise and then set.
Not everyone will see the sun at the same time.
For some it will be full sunshine while for others it will be pitch blackstrap the same time.
The question is what is accounting for the changing levels of illumination that each observer experience during the 24 hour period?
(a) the brightness of the sun varies during the 24 hour period
(b) the relative position of the observer in relation to the sun accounts for changes in perceived light levels
All those who selected (a), that’s John and Rowbotham have unfortunately failed!
As for the Mount Everest question, get out more and go look at some mountains at sun rise or sun set.
-
I'm still hung up on Everest. It seems to me that Rowbotham's ENAG Chapter IX with his "Law of Perspective" as the cause for the observable sunrise/sunset is, well, null and void.
Just simply messing around with the visuals/vectors, no matter the distance of the constant height FE sun, the resulting shadow from a lower peak than Everest will never rise higher than it's own height. Yet we see the shadow rise up to the top of Everest. I think we're in the realm of the sun actually "sets" and we can put an 'X' through chapter IX.
-
All good, you guys - though one question:
Imagine you were able to position people at regular intervals, say one every hundred miles along a line of latitude.
How will they know where the line of latitude is?
-
All good, you guys - though one question:
Imagine you were able to position people at regular intervals, say one every hundred miles along a line of latitude.
How will they know where the line of latitude is?
Using GPS on their smartphone.
-
All good, you guys - though one question:
Imagine you were able to position people at regular intervals, say one every hundred miles along a line of latitude.
How will they know where the line of latitude is?
It’s just a thought experiment! Though your phone would do it, as to who would supply the chairs and boats, that I’m not sure, though we could ask people to bring their own.
-
Problem is, they don't believe in GPS, information from phones, lines of latitude, or distances, etc.
Though I'm pretty sure they do believe in chairs.
-
Matter of perspective, the "shrinking effect" as things get further away, half the equation seems to be left out here. That is everything shrinks equally, all edges all angle. Not just top to bottom.
As the top of the lamp comes down the bottom goes up equally the father away it gets. As does the side to side perspective of the shrinking sidewalk or train track.
If you are 6' tall, a wall across the street is 4' high, a lamp post 10' tall 1/2 mile down the street, the 4' high wall will never obscure your sight of the lamp. Nor will the wall cast a shadow that reaches you and definitely not onto the building that's behind you.
You could easily reproduced this effect on any street with similar obstacles, or on a beach with cliffs behind you at sunset.
The idea that light bends has been thoroughly tested and experimented with. The results are conclusive and well documented of the where, when and how light bends. I'm pretty sure there's no experiments that prove there are light bending effects on the sun that causes shadows to be casting that oppose the laws of physics when it pertains to the sun, or any light source for that matter. You have to have something like maybe water that distorts the reflective light, or image of a solid object. This is simply NOT what we're seeing with the sun shins on an object that casts a shadow on a taller object behind it as in the OP Everest video shows.