[GoldCashew]

It's not, but the atmosphere has water vapor which can add to refraction...

To what degree does water vapor add to refraction? Is it the same as a solid glass dome?

Also, your experiment appears to be using a light bulb that is very large in scale to the size of your solid glass flat earth dome model. The size of the bulb you are using to simulate a small spotlight Sun should be to scale relative to the size of the flat earth model you are using.

Additionally, the distance of the small spotlight Sun in your experiment should also be to scale relative to the surface of your flat earth model.

 

[Tron]

The bulb is definitely too big but I'm not sure about the distance being wrong.  I used to think a spotlight sun was the only way to simulate the day/night and other observations on earth but then I tried different distances and they all worked the same.  I'm trying to recreate Voyager 1 photos of the sun and earth to get a more accurate simulation...


https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/536/voyager-1s-pale-blue-dot/

Here's a close up of the Earth Sun relationship...



Earth is located where it says "E", Venus "V" and the sun appears in only some photos but I marked it as "Sun".  You can see how far away Earth is relative to the Sun which I hope isn't too far off from my photo.  Moving the lightbulb away like I did is not accurate but I was just proving the point of atmospheric refraction.  If you actually turn the Map in a circular motion or in many other configurations you can also get a sunset and night effect.  It's bizarre almost but the light just fades away.

[GoldCashew]

The bulb is definitely too big but I'm not sure about the distance being wrong.  I used to think a spotlight sun was the only way to simulate the day/night and other observations on earth but then I tried different distances and they all worked the same.  I'm trying to recreate Voyager 1 photos of the sun and earth to get a more accurate simulation...


https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/536/voyager-1s-pale-blue-dot/

Here's a close up of the Earth Sun relationship...



Earth is located where it says "E", Venus "V" and the sun appears in only some photos but I marked it as "Sun".  You can see how far away Earth is relative to the Sun which I hope isn't too far off from my photo.  Moving the lightbulb away like I did is not accurate but I was just proving the point of atmospheric refraction.  If you actually turn the Map in a circular motion or in many other configurations you can also get a sunset and night effect.  It's bizarre almost but the light just fades away.

Thanks.

1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate. Solid glass and our atmosphere are two very different mediums; it would be like suggesting that looking through a large tank filled with water has the same refraction properties as looking through a large tank without any water but saying that the tank without water has similar refraction properties because there is water vapor in our atmosphere.

2. Regarding sizes and distances of our Earth, the spotlight Sun, and celestial bodies, what do you believe the following are:
- size/diameter of the flat Earth's plane?
- size/diameter of the Sun?
- distance of the Sun to the Earth's plane? (I believe you are currently trying to use Voyager 1 photos of the sun and earth to recreate distances to get a more accurate simulation).   

3. It appears you may be suggesting and wanting to experiment in your model with Sun to flat Earth distances that are different than what "general" FE theory suggests which is that the spotlight Sun is only about 30 miles or so in diameter and 3,000 miles or so away from the flat Earth plane. Is this correct?

[Tron]

Cashew its like saying refraction exists through solid mediums - liquid mediums - and gaseous atmospheric mediums...  Its an established phenomenon.  We can argue how much atmospheric refraction exists which I think is your general point.

I can give you a few numbers as to what the diameter of the earth is, sun, moon, and distance between them but its really not worth it.   

But generally I'd put all my distances within thousands of miles which is similar to some general FE theory.

[GoldCashew]

Cashew its like saying refraction exists through solid mediums - liquid mediums - and gaseous atmospheric mediums...  Its an established phenomenon.  We can argue how much atmospheric refraction exists which I think is your general point.

I can give you a few numbers as to what the diameter of the earth is, sun, moon, and distance between them but its really not worth it.   

But generally I'd put all my distances within thousands of miles which is similar to some general FE theory.

1. Yes, my first point is that using a solid glass dome to simulate your model would be an inaccurate setup.

2. It would indeed be worth it to having an experimental setup that mimics as best as possible the scale of sizes and distances to which you are testing.
    - for example, if the small spotlight Sun is the same as general FE theory (~30 miles in diameter) and your flat Earth assumption is say 7,900 miles, than that would indicate that in your model the Sun would need to be 263 times smaller. The spotlight in your model would be quit small, almost like the size of the head of a pin (vs. a large flashlight bulb) if you wanted to use something similar in size to what you are using to replicate the flat Earth.
    - The distance of your small Sun would also need to be positioned to simulate being about 3,000 miles away, which would be a less than half the diameter of your flat earth model.
    - Do you plan to adjust your setup in this way?

3. In terms of your mention about Voyager 1, my comment can be addressed in a different thread and debate, but it would seem to suggest you believe in or are open to the notion that NASA has gone to space and that space travel exists. If that be the case, than some questions to you would be what do you make of the pictures NASA has taken and published over these past few decades showing a Globe Earth and Earth's curvature? Again, this is for a separate debate but something to think about since you mentioned Voyager 1.

[Tron]

I hope to make a more accurate model to scale to test some of these assumptions...

And yeah, I believe in space travel and photography.  The only way to reconcile FE Theory and space travel in my view is to not doubt its authenticity, rather finding a different interpretation of the data if called for.

[MCToon]

It's not, but the atmosphere has water vapor which can add to refraction...

It seems you have not studied the effects of water vapor on the index of refraction.

Also, the sun sets in deserts and over the ocean alike.  Ascribing correct or incorrect effects of water vapor doesn't help.

[MCToon]

Most FE'ers approach you with open aggression.

Indeed.  I would expect them to be excited to share the results of their hard work.  You and Tom do!  I find it very strange that so many flat earthers make such absurd claims about the Flat Earth Society.  You are the only ones I have seen in all my adventures that actually try.

To your knowledge, are there other people that think the EA idea is worthwhile? 

[Tron]

It's not, but the atmosphere has water vapor which can add to refraction...

It seems you have not studied the effects of water vapor on the index of refraction.

Also, the sun sets in deserts and over the ocean alike.  Ascribing correct or incorrect effects of water vapor doesn't help.

Okay, fair enough.   Nitrogen and Oxygen are 99% of the earth's atmosphere - not water vapor.

I'm still trying to find data about the properties of the atmosphere after which I can compare the effects of refraction.

[SteelyBob]

The idea that anyone should be "explaining observations" rather than drawing conclusions from them is at the core of the disagreement here. We're not trying to "explain sunsets", despite the repeated cries of those who claim to support science, but whose actions betray them. We observe, hypothesise, verify, and conclude.

That seems at odds with the wiki, which frequently uses the word 'explain' in exactly that manner, for example:

Horizon limits are easily explained by the fact that air is not transparent and refraction diverts/scatters the rays over a large dense medium, so it is not possible to see past a certain distance.

Aside from being obviously wrong (why can I see the top half of a distant ship, or mountain, but not the bottom, if the cause is the limited visibility?), that is clearly an attempt to explain something, in precisely the fashion that you are claiming that you do not do. Moreover, where is the verification of this? What we observe directly contradicts this hypothesis.

I would suggest that a more fundamental question for FET is not so much why there are sunsets, or why things disappear from the bottom up as they get more distant, but why there is a horizon in the first place. If the earth was flat, then we wouldn't expect a distinct, crisp horizon at a relatively short distance from the observer. The wiki is muddled on this - in one place, we have this:

Light from objects too far away either hits the ground or is bent upwards before it reaches us. This also explains the "sinking ship" effect: the bottom portion of the ship appears to sink into the ocean because all of the light either hits the ocean or is bent upwards, but light from the top portion will be able to go further down before being bent upwards and becoming visible to us, since the ocean is lower relative to it.

But then elsewhere we have this:

It is believed that the bending of light does not simulate the rate of globe earth curvature. Instead, the bending occurs more gradually over a greater distance.

But if the bendy light doesn't bend enough to 'simulate' (?) the rate of globe earth curvature, why would there be a distinct horizon behind which things appear to disappear?

[MCToon]

Okay, fair enough.   Nitrogen and Oxygen are 99% of the earth's atmosphere - not water vapor.

I'm still trying to find data about the properties of the atmosphere after which I can compare the effects of refraction.

Start here:
https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/understanding.html

I have a collection of empirical measurements here:
https://mctoon.net/refraction/

[Tron]

These are great websites..  Thanks..

[Action80]

1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.

The Dome is not the atmoplane.

[GoldCashew]

1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.

The Dome is not the atmoplane.

Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.

[Action80]

1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.

The Dome is not the atmoplane.

Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.

But you did write that using a solid glass dome to simulate the atmoplane is wrong. The Dome holds the atmoplane in.

[Pete Svarrior]

To your knowledge, are there other people that think the EA idea is worthwhile?

I had a mixed response from Globebusters, with some of them/some of their audience claiming that EA proves I'm a CIA spy (or whatever it is they say), and others at least conceding it's viable. But I generally don't bother with the more hardline FE'ers, they're just a little too much to handle.

[GoldCashew]

1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.

The Dome is not the atmoplane.

Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.

But you did write that using a solid glass dome to simulate the atmoplane is wrong. The Dome holds the atmoplane in.

As I mentiined to Tron, our atmosphere (or atmoplane as you call it) is not solid glass.

I don't believe in a physical dome. Unfortunately in Tron's experiment where he wanted to use a physical dome, he filled his dome with solid glass. We all know that our atmosphere (the atmoplane as you call it) does not consist of solid glass.

[Action80]

1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.

The Dome is not the atmoplane.

Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.

But you did write that using a solid glass dome to simulate the atmoplane is wrong. The Dome holds the atmoplane in.

As I mentiined to Tron, our atmosphere (or atmoplane as you call it) is not solid glass.

I don't believe in a physical dome. Unfortunately in Tron's experiment where he wanted to use a physical dome, he filled his dome with solid glass. We all know that our atmosphere (the atmoplane as you call it) does not consist of solid glass.

Yes, therefore. the solid glass is keeping the atmoplane in. The dome is NOT simulating the atmoplane.

It is simulating the DOME, not the atmoplane.

Typical obfuscation, probably purposeful, on your part.

[Pete Svarrior]

The contention here is that for the dome to be filled with glass, it would have to be... well, filled with glass.

We are not currently experiencing a world that's uniformly filled with glass. Glass is solid. We'd notice.

A solid glass dome is convenient, because it does very accurately replicate FE predictions at a smaller scale. However, I cannot imagine a scenario in which this would be an accurate description of our world.

[GoldCashew]

1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.

The Dome is not the atmoplane.

Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.

But you did write that using a solid glass dome to simulate the atmoplane is wrong. The Dome holds the atmoplane in.

As I mentiined to Tron, our atmosphere (or atmoplane as you call it) is not solid glass.

I don't believe in a physical dome. Unfortunately in Tron's experiment where he wanted to use a physical dome, he filled his dome with solid glass. We all know that our atmosphere (the atmoplane as you call it) does not consist of solid glass.

Yes, therefore. the solid glass is keeping the atmoplane in. The dome is NOT simulating the atmoplane.

It is simulating the DOME, not the atmoplane.

Typical obfuscation, probably purposeful, on your part.

I honestly am not sure what we are arguing about.

All I am saying is that when Tron used a solid glass dome shaped object to perform an experiment, that the solid glass wouldn't be an accurate representation of our atmosphere (the atmoplane). We don't live in and breath in solid glass.

If Tron wanted to redo the experiment and simulate it via a physical dome to simulate his firmament, than his firmament dome could be like a thin glass shell vs. being totally filled in with glass.

Again, am not sure what we are arguing about.