[StinkyOne]

What path do photons take at sunset that allows the bottom of clouds to be illuminated? 3D has been asking this question in various threads and I felt it is critical to the whole sunset debate and needed it's own thread. If the Earth was flat and the Sun stayed at a constant altitude, direct sunlight would never be able to shine on the bottom of a cloud.
I've seen claims that this is due to perspective, but perspective can't cause this as it does not rearrange the position of objects. Think of railroad tracks appearing to draw closer to one another. At no point do the tracks appear to draw together more rapidly or shift position. The rate of change in perspective is linear, not exponential. The other option is reflection, but this doesn't hold because there is a period of time as the Sun sets where the light is coming from a roughly 90 degree angle which causes shadows to be cast from clouds that hang lower than others. If the light was reflected, the shadows couldn't form at that angle.

So, how do photons originating 3000 miles up reach the underside of a cloud?

[3DGeek]

What path do photons take at sunset that allows the bottom of clouds to be illuminated? 3D has been asking this question in various threads and I felt it is critical to the whole sunset debate and needed it's own thread. If the Earth was flat and the Sun stayed at a constant altitude, direct sunlight would never be able to shine on the bottom of a cloud.
I've seen claims that this is due to perspective, but perspective can't cause this as it does not rearrange the position of objects. Think of railroad tracks appearing to draw closer to one another. At no point do the tracks appear to draw together more rapidly or shift position. The rate of change in perspective is linear, not exponential. The other option is reflection, but this doesn't hold because there is a period of time as the Sun sets where the light is coming from a roughly 90 degree angle which causes shadows to be cast from clouds that hang lower than others. If the light was reflected, the shadows couldn't form at that angle.

So, how do photons originating 3000 miles up reach the underside of a cloud?

Tom has AGAIN promised to start his own thread on this and to fully explain it.  We're about a month since the first promise and many days since the second...so I wouldn't hold your breath.

I have a "thought experiment" that's interesting.

Suppose you had a long, rigid tube...about the same diameter as the sun appears to be at arm's length...a half inch say.  If you aim it at the sun, you should see sunshine through it...right?

Suppose I make the tube longer?  The light still shines down the tube.  The hole at the far end does seem to get smaller and smaller the longer the tube is.

Tom is effectively claiming that because magic perspective causes parallel lines to meet at the horizon, then if the tube were long enough to reach to the horizon - then the far end of the tube would be completely blocked - so no sunlight can travel down it.

Mmmmm'K.

This would happen (according to him) anytime the tube is longer than the distance to the "vanishing point".

For me, that distance would be infinity - but for Tom, it's at the horizon distance...because...magic.

What if we make the diameter of the tube larger?   Well, Tom says that railroad tracks visibly touch each other at the horizon - so I guess a tube of diameter 4' 8.5" (the standard track gauge on US railroads) would still be closed off by perspective.

But what if I make the tube diameter larger?   I don't see any limit on the size it could be.   Tom seems to be saying that so long as the sides of the tube are parallel - the far end will always shrink to zero because of perspective.

So can I make a tube that's a mile in diameter - and a few miles long to reach the horizon - and it would STILL look completely dark at the end?

What if I make the tube 5 miles in diameter...still dark?   At this point, the diameter of the tube is greater than it's length - but STILL no light comes through it?

The problem is that Tom's "visceral feel" that train tracks meet at the horizon starts to feel "wrong" at some point.

Parallel lines that are 5 miles apart that meet literally at the horizon would angle inwards in a most bizarre way.

Fact is, Tom's magic perspective simply isn't true.   Those parallel lines meet at infinity.  It's easy to convince yourself that two lines that are 4' 8.5" apart meet at the horizon - but it's a MUCH harder sell to imagine a 5 mile diameter, 3 mile long cylinder doing the same thing.

Let's push the crazy thought experiment a bit further.

Let's go back to our 1/2" diameter tube...let's make it 8,000 miles long...so it actually TOUCHES the surface of the sun at one end and my eye at the other.

Theoretically, Tom would have to say that I can't see the sun through it because of perspective...but what if I make the tube 32 miles in diameter...it's now wide enough to contain the entire Flat Earth Sun....so the sun is now INSIDE the tube...and Tom would have to say that I still couldn't see it.

But where are the sun's rays going?

Suppose it's noon - and the sun is nearly overhead.

I point my tube up vertically at the sun and even though the sun is entirely INSIDE the tube - I can't see it because of perspective.  This tube is 32 miles wide and the sun is completely inside of it - but SOMETHING is stopping the photons from reaching me?!?

Then I take the tube away and I CAN see the sun.

Hmmm - so how did the photons coming from the center of sun towards me - KNOW to be blocked when the tube was there?  They travel in straight lines (Tom admits this) - so they don't touch the sides...they don't even come within 15 miles of the edge of this gigantic tube.   Yet they are somehow hitting the sides?!?   How can this be?

Doesn't make sense.

Sadly, we know Tom will now ask "How do we know this?"  "Where did anyone make a tube that big?"  "Can we show him the scientific paper where they made the tube and tried it?"

I predict a total failure of imagination.

[J-Man]

It's really the anti-photons that cause this. Even though they both have the save characters the anti's get down and dirty so to speak. As the sun rotates downward on the dome the anti's begin to wobble just enough to cast light on the underside of heavenly clouds.

The CERN boys figured all this out when they've had to admit they are confused and yes, obviously God exists.

It's ok for you to be confused, these best scientist are also.

[mtnman]

What path do photons take at sunset that allows the bottom of clouds to be illuminated? 3D has been asking this question in various threads and I felt it is critical to the whole sunset debate and needed it's own thread. If the Earth was flat and the Sun stayed at a constant altitude, direct sunlight would never be able to shine on the bottom of a cloud.
I've seen claims that this is due to perspective, but perspective can't cause this as it does not rearrange the position of objects. Think of railroad tracks appearing to draw closer to one another. At no point do the tracks appear to draw together more rapidly or shift position. The rate of change in perspective is linear, not exponential. The other option is reflection, but this doesn't hold because there is a period of time as the Sun sets where the light is coming from a roughly 90 degree angle which causes shadows to be cast from clouds that hang lower than others. If the light was reflected, the shadows couldn't form at that angle.

So, how do photons originating 3000 miles up reach the underside of a cloud?

Tom has AGAIN promised to start his own thread on this and to fully explain it.  We're about a month since the first promise and many days since the second...so I wouldn't hold your breath.

I have a "thought experiment" that's interesting.
...

I predict a total failure of imagination.

3D, I'd have to say you got this one wrong. You predicted a total failure of imagination, and JMan responded with nothing but imagination.

It's really the anti-photons that cause this. Even though they both have the save characters the anti's get down and dirty so to speak. As the sun rotates downward on the dome the anti's begin to wobble just enough to cast light on the underside of heavenly clouds.

[mtnman]

But to get this back on track...

3D, I have seen your efforts to get a straight answer on photons and their path from the sun to us at sunset from Tom for a few weeks now I think. But I am wondering, this doesn't seem like a very complicated question. Wouldn't you think some of the other FE faithful should be able to answer it also?

[StinkyOne]

I'd like for any of the serious ones to take a swing at it, but I don't see that happening. If they can't make  the bogus perspective or reflection claims, then they literally have no other answer lined up. If they actually used the Zetetic method, they would be forced to conclude that the Earth can't be flat.

[3DGeek]

It's really the anti-photons that cause this.

You're guessing again.  The photon is it's own anti-particle.  Photons and antiphotons are the exact same thing...hence everything else that follows from that mistake here is premium BS marinaded in hogwash.

Even though they both have the save characters the anti's get down and dirty so to speak. As the sun rotates downward on the dome the anti's begin to wobble just enough to cast light on the underside of heavenly clouds.

The CERN boys figured all this out when they've had to admit they are confused and yes, obviously God exists.

It's ok for you to be confused, these best scientist are also.

Ah...noooo...I think it's clear who is confused.

[GiantTurtle]

I'm surprised that you are citing CERN J-Man, I thought they would necessarily be another part of the round earth conspiracy seeing as they claim to fire neutrinos underneath the earth's curve.
But moving on, if an anti-particle is one that can 'wobble' to behind an object, then why do anti-photons not wobble around other things, such as casting light directly on to a room's ceiling?

[3DGeek]

But to get this back on track...

3D, I have seen your efforts to get a straight answer on photons and their path from the sun to us at sunset from Tom for a few weeks now I think.

I've been asking for that answer for 8 weeks now - Tom promised to start a new thread to answer it more than a month ago - and then again last week - but so far, no response.   He did claim to have answered it in another thread - but I don't see anything other than more claims about perspective there.

But I am wondering, this doesn't seem like a very complicated question. Wouldn't you think some of the other FE faithful should be able to answer it also?

Tom is the only Flat Earther that I can recall who clearly proclaims a believe that photons travel in straight lines.   So this problem may be uniquely his.

However, magic-perspective has crept into other lines of discussion too - a while back someone said that it accounted for the moon-rotation problem...so disproving it is the key to unlocking other fallacies in FET.

For at least some of the other FE'ers - the solution lies in what the Wiki seems to be asserting - which is "Electromagnetic Acceleration" (EA) - which claims that light DOESN'T travel in straight lines.  Weirdly, that variation of FET has Tom's name all over it - "The Bishop Equation" and "The Bishop Constant" figure in it.   Tom has mentioned that he changed his mind on this one.  But the magic perspective thing is all over Rowbothams' writings and we know that Tom worships his writings.

The EA stuff is also utterly nonsensical - the equations aren't even dimensionally correct - so you know they're wrong.

But it's a pain to have to fight a war on two fronts...so I'd prefer to nail Tom's brand of crazy to the wall first - and then consider EA.

[juner]

The EA stuff is also utterly nonsensical - the equations aren't even dimensionally correct - so you know they're wrong.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

[mtnman]

“Electromagnetic Acceleration”? Is that different than universal acceleration?

[xenotolerance]

Yes, it is. Universal acceleration concerns a constant acceleration equal to g of the Earth and its surrounds, where g is the acceleration caused by the Earth's gravity.

Electromagnetic acceleration concerns the bending of light rays, and reviewing the relevant literature, I can tell you it's not very well defined. Whoever put it together doesn't actually know calculus, but sure likes to think they do. And, it appears that was Parsifal, without input from Tom, who refers to Rowbotham's perspective instead, though both ideas are equally worthy in so far as they are both wrong. I suggest reading that train wreck of a thread, as it has a broad reception ranging from, Hooray!, to, what the fuck even is this

Here is the equation in Wolfram, with a B of 2, and with c expressed in m/s. As long as B is positive it just scales the thing linearly, so the shape of whatever EA is supposed to be is herein well defined. I guess B is supposed to be greater than c, because it's supposed to be accurate only when y is much greater than x, or something. It isn't actually made clear anywhere exactly what this was supposed to represent, but peeps sure did get defensive about it.

I recommend ignoring this faulty concept in this thread.

[Tom Bishop]

I have already told you guys that I would make a thread addressing this. I am merely going to rehash the explanations I have already given in previous discussions on this perspective subject and throw in an illustration. In our previous conversations on this the path to the sun was already described, and the reason was that the physical continuous universe model you think light passes through, and which is taught in school, does not actually exist, and there is no reason to assume that it exists.

It is really quite a chore to explain things over and over. I am going to give the same explanations again, in attempt to break things down to be understandable by a child. Repeating and clarifying myself to someone I had already written at least 8 pages of content to on the subject is way down on my list of priorities, right above going to my local McDonalds and offering to mop their floors.

I can try to get around to this chore in the next week or two. But if you don't like waiting, you don't have to be here.

[xenotolerance]

Tom:

• Your previous explanations are impossible
• None of us are referring to a continuous universe model
• The continuous universe model is no longer taught in schools, if it ever was

This thread, from my point of view, is actually about demonstrating that your explanations about perspective are bunk, and that your method of debate is shit, rather than actually getting into another pointless argument with you.

If you don't like getting #rekt, you don't have to be here

[StinkyOne]

I have already told you guys that I would make a thread addressing this. I am merely going to rehash the explanations I have already given in previous discussions on this perspective subject and throw in an illustration. In our previous conversations on this the path to the sun was already described, and the reason was that the physical continuous universe model you think light passes through, and which is taught in school, does not actually exist, and there is no reason to assume that it exists.

It is really quite a chore to explain things over and over. I am going to give the same explanations again, in attempt to break things down to be understandable by a child. Repeating and clarifying myself to someone I had already written at least 8 pages of content to on the subject is way down on my list of priorities, right above going to my local McDonalds and offering to mop their floors.

I can try to get around to this chore in the next week or two. But if you don't like waiting, you don't have to be here.

You literally made no sense. You were saying the perspective is not optical, but a real change in the true position of objects. (which of course is not remotely true) Everyone pointed that out, and that is when the question was asked - what path do photons take from the sun to your eye? Pretty sure it was asked to nail down exactly how you perceive the position of the sun since you appeared to be saying it was actually on the horizon, which isn't possible because it is actually, according to FET, roughly 3k miles high.

[3DGeek]

I have already told you guys that I would make a thread addressing this. I am merely going to rehash the explanations I have already given in previous discussions on this perspective subject and throw in an illustration. In our previous conversations on this the path to the sun was already described, and the reason was that the physical continuous universe model you think light passes through, and which is taught in school, does not actually exist, and there is no reason to assume that it exists.

It is really quite a chore to explain things over and over. I am going to give the same explanations again, in attempt to break things down to be understandable by a child. Repeating and clarifying myself to someone I had already written at least 8 pages of content to on the subject is way down on my list of priorities, right above going to my local McDonalds and offering to mop their floors.

I can try to get around to this chore in the next week or two. But if you don't like waiting, you don't have to be here.

You literally made no sense. You were saying the perspective is not optical, but a real change in the true position of objects. (which of course is not remotely true) Everyone pointed that out, and that is when the question was asked - what path do photons take from the sun to your eye? Pretty sure it was asked to nail down exactly how you perceive the position of the sun since you appeared to be saying it was actually on the horizon, which isn't possible because it is actually, according to FET, roughly 3k miles high.

Yes - exactly.

What I'm hoping to see is a diagram showing the literal position of the sun and a person looking at a sunset...then a nice straight line showing the path of the photons.

I think the diagram that Tom is talking about is really two separate diagrams - one from the perspective of the sun and another from the perspective of the person.

Trouble is, the actual photons can't be doing two different things at the same time - so that diagram doesn't make sense.

Tom's claim to have answered our question is false.   He has not once given a coherent account of the path of a photon from the sun to our eyes at sunset.

[devils advocate]

I feel a bit bad for Tom in some ways, he's kinda left out to dry by his community here. Surely some of the other FE have theories about how the sunsets we see daily can be explained on their flat earth but none of them come to his aid, or ours by offering their opinions.

I know (and Junker has made it clear) that we are in no way entitled to their opinions and cannot demand they answer and don't feel that this thread violates this. I hope to be a polite as possible and request sincerely for some answers.

This is the BIG topic at the moment on this forum (for us RE) and if there are FE reading these posts who could answer these questions with ease but chose not to do then they are as guilty as some of them believe NASA to be of hiding the truth in my opinion.

Sure you don't want to (and are not obligated to) repeat yourselves to every RE who pops in here so why not put your answers on the Wiki? Please!

There are probably a few different versions to answer this question and it would be great to hear them so please tell us what you think

Many thanks

DA

[Curious Squirrel]

I feel a bit bad for Tom in some ways, he's kinda left out to dry by his community here. Surely some of the other FE have theories about how the sunsets we see daily can be explained on their flat earth but none of them come to his aid, or ours by offering their opinions.

I know (and Junker has made it clear) that we are in no way entitled to their opinions and cannot demand they answer and don't feel that this thread violates this. I hope to be a polite as possible and request sincerely for some answers.

This is the BIG topic at the moment on this forum (for us RE) and if there are FE reading these posts who could answer these questions with ease but chose not to do then they are as guilty as some of them believe NASA to be of hiding the truth in my opinion.

Sure you don't want to (and are not obligated to) repeat yourselves to every RE who pops in here so why not put your answers on the Wiki? Please!

There are probably a few different versions to answer this question and it would be great to hear them so please tell us what you think

Many thanks

DA

I don't know that I've come across an answer other than 'perspective' so far. Been working my way backwards through the forum here, and I have seen the topic come up at least once before. I still haven't seen it really explained well though, other than 'perspective'. The roughest replies are still on the other site though where begging the question is the norm. At least Tom is attempting to explain things, which is certainly greatly appreciated.

Don't get me wrong Tom, I definitely appreciate you attempting to explain this, even if I feel your current explanations leave a bit to be desired so far. I think the two main questions that play upon this subject are A) How do you know that basic geometry breaks down at long distances and B) What is the straight line path of the photons to come in at a roughly 0 degree angle every evening.

[StinkyOne]

I feel a bit bad for Tom in some ways, he's kinda left out to dry by his community here. Surely some of the other FE have theories about how the sunsets we see daily can be explained on their flat earth but none of them come to his aid, or ours by offering their opinions.

I know (and Junker has made it clear) that we are in no way entitled to their opinions and cannot demand they answer and don't feel that this thread violates this. I hope to be a polite as possible and request sincerely for some answers.

This is the BIG topic at the moment on this forum (for us RE) and if there are FE reading these posts who could answer these questions with ease but chose not to do then they are as guilty as some of them believe NASA to be of hiding the truth in my opinion.

Sure you don't want to (and are not obligated to) repeat yourselves to every RE who pops in here so why not put your answers on the Wiki? Please!

There are probably a few different versions to answer this question and it would be great to hear them so please tell us what you think

Many thanks

DA

I don't know that I've come across an answer other than 'perspective' so far. Been working my way backwards through the forum here, and I have seen the topic come up at least once before. I still haven't seen it really explained well though, other than 'perspective'. The roughest replies are still on the other site though where begging the question is the norm. At least Tom is attempting to explain things, which is certainly greatly appreciated.

Don't get me wrong Tom, I definitely appreciate you attempting to explain this, even if I feel your current explanations leave a bit to be desired so far. I think the two main questions that play upon this subject are A) How do you know that basic geometry breaks down at long distances and B) What is the straight line path of the photons to come in at a roughly 0 degree angle every evening.

I think a lot of us have a certain amount of respect for Tom. He really is the only one that makes an effort to stick with threads despite getting hammered on. I obviously think he is completely wrong on a lot of things, but I give him credit for defending his worldview.

I'm curious as to what he has to say concerning the non-continuous nature of the universe. I'm assuming he is referring to quantum mechanics and Planck's work. I guess when perspective isn't enough, pull something else out of the hat. Better than being forced to admit the Earth is round, I guess.