[JRowe]

If by that you mean "perspective," it doesn't resolve to explain how the sun (or moon) can decline to the horizon line. Surely you are not subscribing to the Earth Not a Globe ersatz explanation of perspective.

How can a sun with a constant angular width of about 0.5° ever reach the horizon due to perspective? Disappear to a dot (vanishing point) 20° above the horizon given the size/dimensions of the TFES Wiki cosmos? Sure. You'd need a lot more distance to approach the horizon, and an explanation for why the sun doesn't proportionally appear to diminish in size.

Don't just show me train tracks. That's not an answer I'd expect from you.

You asked how it appears close to the Earth, that's how; objects at a distance appear closer together. Why it doesn't proportionately appear to diminish in size was not the first question, if anything that was the fifth. Don't complain that the answer to one question wasn't tailored to a different question.

[Bobby Shafto]

3. Why can I see the sun again if I rise in altitude (even while moving further away from the sun)?
4. Is there an altitude at which I could be where I will not be in the spotlight pattern but could still see it cast upon the earth in the distance?
5. Why does the sun appear circular until appearing close to the earth (and even, when atmospheric conditions permit, as it appears eclipsed by the earth)?

3, 4, 5. Like i said above, space isn't constant, there's no way to explain the intricacies without going through pages of underlying physics (like any science, answers are built on what comes before, there are consequences), if you're interested click my sig and get back to me.

I only asked these questions after reading your DE pages. I cannot interpret from that model you've presented how these questions are answered.

[JRowe]

I used the word "appears" for a reason, knowing that you do not believe it is actually eclipsed by the earth.

It disappears as a full orb, bottom up. It's the same visual appearance as if the sun has gone behind a mountain ridge or other elevated terrestrial feature. It doesn't fade or diminish as a whole. It gets cut off at the horizon, starting with the lower limb and then proceeding upward until the upper limb is extinguished. That's not the behavior of a light getting just far enough away that it can't be seen. Is it just coincidence that this phenomenon occurs when the sun appears to intersect with the earth, and the earth has nothing to do with it?

It happens at a distance, so the Sun appears near the Earth; correlation does not equal causation, there can just be a common cause.
The cutting-off is basically the same principle as the moon's phases.

From what he says above, I think he means that as the sun gets more distant, the space becomes less concentrated, and (by analogy with his example about compressed springs) the sun expands. But at the very same time, it is getting more distant so the perspective effect compresses it again. So it appears the same size to us.

My next question would be why people standing further West directly underneath the sun do not notice that it is expanding.

Not in the slightest, if it were that simple I would have said as much. Science is based on the application of principles, this aspect of space is applied, and results in the formation of the Earth, the shape and properties and movements of the stars and planets, why we stay on the Earth's surface... The Sun is part of that, and as with any scientifc model the Sun is intimately connected to the rest of it.

I only asked these questions after reading your DE pages. I cannot interpret from that model you've presented how these questions are answered.

I need more than that if you want me to clarify, the explanation I'd give is in those pages. What part of it doesn't make sense, why, what can't you visualize?

[Bobby Shafto]

It happens at a distance, so the Sun appears near the Earth; correlation does not equal causation, there can just be a common cause.
The cutting-off is basically the same principle as the moon's phases.

Coincidence, then.

Where are you on earth? Just a lat/long to the nearest tenth of a degree (or metropolitan area if that's lets intrusive).

I'm in San Diego, CA. (In a couple of weeks I'll be in Fairbanks, AK).

I'd like to challenge your explanation for the sun being low on the horizon due to distance/perspective with your cooperative observations of the sun from your vantage point on earth. Okay?

[edby]

From what he says above, I think he means that as the sun gets more distant, the space becomes less concentrated, and (by analogy with his example about compressed springs) the sun expands. But at the very same time, it is getting more distant so the perspective effect compresses it again. So it appears the same size to us.

My next question would be why people standing further West directly underneath the sun do not notice that it is expanding.

Not in the slightest, if it were that simple I would have said as much.

But does the sun expand as it moves further West or not?

[HorstFue]

Question was:

1. How can a sun that's above the plane of the earth appear close to the earth upon sunset?

Answer given is this image.

1.

What's this? A model?
Let's try: So one rail represents the ground of flat earth, the other rail represents sun's path above the earth.
The rails in the model are about 2 meters apart. According FET Sun's path is about 3,000 miles (4,827,000 meters) above the ground.
At what distance do the rails (from the image) appear to "meet"? 2,000 meters I would estimate.
So the rails appear to meet at a distance from the observer, that is about 1,000 times the distance between the two rails. Now at what distance from the observer would the Sun appear to "meet" the ground?

[Bobby Shafto]

You have to throw out much of how TFES describes the cosmos. Using JRowe's sketch as a starting point, here's my understanding (so far):



The sun isn't 3000 miles above the earth. Nor does it move. It's inside the earth, between two planes (hemiplanes): one the north hemiplane; the other the south hemiplane.

The sun is a spot light at the centerpoint between the hemiplanes, like a cylinder of stone containing an incandescent molten metal center from which light can emanate. (Moon is similar.) It rotates, accounting for night and day on the opposite sides of the hemiplanes (and the moon rotates as well, while also moving around the sun).

The light from the spotlight follows a path of the aether, outward and upward from the equatorial "seam" (no perceptual space at the "seam") and is projected onto the aetheric dome above each of the hemiplanes. It's apparent movement across that dome from the perspective of hemiplane dwellers is a consequence of the spotlight sun's rotation. Though we can point to the sun or see it rise/set, that's not where the sun actually is. It's physically in a "bubble" between the two discs.

The projected image never varies from it's circular shape from any point of perspective on the surface of either plane. The spotlight just happens to rotate away to obscure the sun at the point of the apparent horizon. It also defies perspective explanations by never changing size as the projection recedes in the distance from one's vantage point. It always disappears (somehow) bottom-up no matter where you are on your respective hemiplane. It behaves unlike any spotlight -- projection or otherwise -- that you could scale in a model, due in some way to the relationship of space(time) and the aether that I can't decipher.

[Bobby Shafto]

JRowe:

Here are 3 candidate spotlight moons I've modeled.

The one on the left is a luminescent flat surface inside of an opaque cylinder.
The middle is a luminescent sphere protruding from an opaque cylinder.
The one on the right is a luminescent sphere recessed inside of an opaque cylinder.



Which of these best represents what you describe in Dual Earth Theory (DET), and sketched here:



My guess is the one on the left? I don't thinks it's germane to what I hope to model, but I understand that perhaps the opaque (stone) shell edges and/or luminescent (molten metal) surface are not smooth but are more irregular than in my model. I just want to capture how the lighted portion can be presented to an earth-bound viewer and I want to make sure I have the configuration correct.

[JRowe]

It happens at a distance, so the Sun appears near the Earth; correlation does not equal causation, there can just be a common cause.
The cutting-off is basically the same principle as the moon's phases.

Coincidence, then.

Um, no, that is the exact opposite of what I said.

Where are you on earth? Just a lat/long to the nearest tenth of a degree (or metropolitan area if that's lets intrusive).

I'm in San Diego, CA. (In a couple of weeks I'll be in Fairbanks, AK).

I'd like to challenge your explanation for the sun being low on the horizon due to distance/perspective with your cooperative observations of the sun from your vantage point on earth. Okay?

How would that do so?

From what he says above, I think he means that as the sun gets more distant, the space becomes less concentrated, and (by analogy with his example about compressed springs) the sun expands. But at the very same time, it is getting more distant so the perspective effect compresses it again. So it appears the same size to us.

My next question would be why people standing further West directly underneath the sun do not notice that it is expanding.

Not in the slightest, if it were that simple I would have said as much.

But does the sun expand as it moves further West or not?

No.

The sun isn't 3000 miles above the earth. Nor does it move. It's inside the earth, between two planes (hemiplanes): one the north hemiplane; the other the south hemiplane.

The sun is a spot light at the centerpoint between the hemiplanes, like a cylinder of stone containing an incandescent molten metal center from which light can emanate. (Moon is similar.) It rotates, accounting for night and day on the opposite sides of the hemiplanes (and the moon rotates as well, while also moving around the sun).

The light from the spotlight follows a path of the aether, outward and upward from the equatorial "seam" (no perceptual space at the "seam") and is projected onto the aetheric dome above each of the hemiplanes. It's apparent movement across that dome from the perspective of hemiplane dwellers is a consequence of the spotlight sun's rotation. Though we can point to the sun or see it rise/set, that's not where the sun actually is. It's physically in a "bubble" between the two discs.

The projected image never varies from it's circular shape from any point of perspective on the surface of either plane. The spotlight just happens to rotate away to obscure the sun at the point of the apparent horizon. It also defies perspective explanations by never changing size as the projection recedes in the distance from one's vantage point. It always disappears (somehow) bottom-up no matter where you are on your respective hemiplane. It behaves unlike any spotlight -- projection or otherwise -- that you could scale in a model, due in some way to the relationship of space(time) and the aether that I can't decipher.

The downside with explanations like this is that they miss a lot of the underlying theory that's key to understanding it. For example, aether is just the word I use for space (as Einstein once did) just because it gets confusing otherwise. Because of that, the Sun being projected onto the aetheric dome, as you put it, simply means that the flow of aether goes from the Sun's location, to that altitude; it's the same as the flow that connects each side of the equator, only witha  difefrent vertical coordinate. The meaning of this is that the Sun essentially exists at that point in the sky, because again space is not constant.
The really fun thing is when you get onto how it also technically has a fixed distance away, but also grows further away, but as I said divorced from context and the underlying theory that's never going to make sense.
Vanishing bottom-up's already been explained through, it rotates, same as the moon. WHat cuts it off is not the Earth, but rather its own unlit side.

JRowe:

Here are 3 candidate spotlight moons I've modeled.

The one on the left is a luminescent flat surface inside of an opaque cylinder.
The middle is a luminescent sphere protruding from an opaque cylinder.
The one on the right is a luminescent sphere recessed inside of an opaque cylinder.



Which of these best represents what you describe in Dual Earth Theory (DET), and sketched here:



My guess is the one on the left? I don't thinks it's germane to what I hope to model, but I understand that perhaps the opaque (stone) shell edges and/or luminescent (molten metal) surface are not smooth but are more irregular than in my model. I just want to capture how the lighted portion can be presented to an earth-bound viewer and I want to make sure I have the configuration correct.

Between the left and middle.
It's not just the moon either, the Sun is the same kind of entity, just in a location where it is heated to a far greater degree.

[Bobby Shafto]

It happens at a distance, so the Sun appears near the Earth; correlation does not equal causation, there can just be a common cause.
The cutting-off is basically the same principle as the moon's phases.

Coincidence, then.

Um, no, that is the exact opposite of what I said.

It's coincidence if it happens near the earth from every vantage point and nowhere else, unless you can explain the common cause for why it correlates. That mechanism is not explained anywhere in your pages as to why it only occurs at the horizon line.

If the explanation for a horizon is the same as for why the sun's light pattern (which at least Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory has going for it) then it wouldn't be just coincident. But I'm not seeing that anywhere in your treatise. It just does.

Now, if you want to help correct my ignorance, please do. But don't point me back to the DE Web pages because I'm not getting it from there. You'll have to spell it out if you want to correct my "coincidence" interpretation and support your asserting that it's the exact opposite of coincidence.

[JRowe]

It's coincidence if it happens near the earth from every vantage point and nowhere else, unless you can explain the common cause for why it correlates. That mechanism is not explained anywhere in your pages as to why it only occurs at the horizon line.

I did that, that's my point; the common cause is distance. The distance both makes it appear close to the horizon, and makes it cut off much like the moon.

[Bobby Shafto]

Where are you on earth? Just a lat/long to the nearest tenth of a degree (or metropolitan area if that's lets intrusive).

I'm in San Diego, CA. (In a couple of weeks I'll be in Fairbanks, AK).

I'd like to challenge your explanation for the sun being low on the horizon due to distance/perspective with your cooperative observations of the sun from your vantage point on earth. Okay?

How would that do so?

It depends. Are we in the same hemiplane? Are we in the same half of the same hemiplane? I need to know our relative locations to show you how we can test your theory. It doesn't have to be specific. United Kingdom? US Southeast? South Africa? South China Sea? Mediterranean? Just something generic; not privacy compromising.

[Bobby Shafto]

It's coincidence if it happens near the earth from every vantage point and nowhere else, unless you can explain the common cause for why it correlates. That mechanism is not explained anywhere in your pages as to why it only occurs at the horizon line.

I did that, that's my point; the common cause is distance. The distance both makes it appear close to the horizon, and makes it cut off much like the moon.

The common cause is "distance."

Distance accounts from the limits of the spotlight pattern.
Distance accounts for why the spotlight itself appears to reach the horizon.

So the reason for why any spot on earth where a sunset is being viewed is also is where the edge of the spotlight pattern cast on the earth is "distance?"

How does that explain why/how those two phenomena occur simultaneously?

[Bobby Shafto]

Between the left and middle.
It's not just the moon either, the Sun is the same kind of entity, just in a location where it is heated to a far greater degree.

I know it's both. Just focusing on the moon.

By "between" I assume you mean the illuminated portion is not flat but not a full hemisphere protruding from the rock shell. It's convex.

 So, here are the DE moon phases, if we could see the theoretical rock casing...?



(Not sure if I'm rotating it in the correct direction.)

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

OK, so the papers today are FULL of pictures of the Blood Moon from last night. How does this square up to this "DE, self-lit cylindrical moon with one end of the cylinder pointing toward Earth" jive ... ?


IF the Moon is a cylinder like this, what possible reason is there for it to turn blood red? 

Is it a strategy by "those in control" to make it LOOK as though it's a sphere, passing through Earth's shadow, and illuminated only by refracted light?  Highly, highly unlikely.

Could it be a just be coincidence that it turns itself red at EXACTLY the times and places where RE theory and mechanics asserts that it will be?  Again, highly unlikely.


Isn't the most probable explanation merely the simplest?

It's an orbital sphere, as stated in the textbooks, as orbited and landed upon by the USA, Russia, China, Japan, and India.
It's a solid, as found by those who have bounced lasers and radio signals off it.
It has a slightly irregular orbit with respect to Earth, so we don't see a Blood Red Moon every 28 days.
We're seeing the BRM because this is one of the occasions when the Moon's orbit takes it into a 'sweet spot' opposite the Sun

Job done. Solved.

[timterroo]

It always disappears (somehow) bottom-up no matter where you are on your respective hemiplane. It behaves unlike any spotlight -- projection or otherwise -- that you could scale in a model, due in some way to the relationship of space(time) and the aether that I can't decipher.

Could it be that the sun is a sphere and the earth is also a sphere that orbits the sun? If this were true, it would account for the disappearing effect, the misbehaving spotlight, and the space/time relationship. Just saying...

[JRowe]

It depends. Are we in the same hemiplane? Are we in the same half of the same hemiplane? I need to know our relative locations to show you how we can test your theory. It doesn't have to be specific. United Kingdom? US Southeast? South Africa? South China Sea? Mediterranean? Just something generic; not privacy compromising.

Give some indication of what you're actually planning to do first.

The common cause is "distance."

Distance accounts from the limits of the spotlight pattern.
Distance accounts for why the spotlight itself appears to reach the horizon.

So the reason for why any spot on earth where a sunset is being viewed is also is where the edge of the spotlight pattern cast on the earth is "distance?"

How does that explain why/how those two phenomena occur simultaneously?

I don't know how else I can explain this. The Sun is going to rotate out of view when it appears to be at a great distance. Equally, it is going to appear to be near the horizon when it is at a distance. What needs explaining here?!

By "between" I assume you mean the illuminated portion is not flat but not a full hemisphere protruding from the rock shell. It's convex.

 So, here are the DE moon phases, if we could see the theoretical rock casing...?



(Not sure if I'm rotating it in the correct direction.)

Essentially, though there is the side effect of the moon being illuminated so the crescent would be more distinct, and the basic issue of the face which would appear different depending on the angle at which the features on it are viewed, but I accept the limitations in modelling that.

IF the Moon is a cylinder like this, what possible reason is there for it to turn blood red? 

Essentially, just the angle at which it shines causing the light to pass through even more air.

Could it be a just be coincidence that it turns itself red at EXACTLY the times and places where RE theory and mechanics asserts that it will be?  Again, highly unlikely.

'RE theory and mechanics'?! We've been able to predict lunar and solar eclipses for centuries before anyone had any concept of the most fundamental aspects of RET. The mechanics don't predict a thing, they were developed with unknowns specifically meant to simulate a predictable system. Clockwork being made to sync up with other clockwork ain't anything impressive.

[Bobby Shafto]

Give some indication of what you're actually planning to do first.

I just want to compare sun (and/or moon) sightings: date, time, azimuth and elevation (and moon "face" orientation if applicable).

We share the same frame of reference so, if we cooperate, we ought to be able to verify if the DET model for the apparent location and motion of the celestial bodies matches what can be observed, particularly regarding rising/setting of those celestial bodies.

I can do it myself, but that wouldn't have any persuasive power. I'm already persuaded. You're already persuaded. Working together, one of us might find reason for reconsideration.

[Bobby Shafto]

The common cause is "distance."

Distance accounts from the limits of the spotlight pattern.
Distance accounts for why the spotlight itself appears to reach the horizon.

So the reason for why any spot on earth where a sunset is being viewed is also is where the edge of the spotlight pattern cast on the earth is "distance?"

How does that explain why/how those two phenomena occur simultaneously?

I don't know how else I can explain this. The Sun is going to rotate out of view when it appears to be at a great distance. Equally, it is going to appear to be near the horizon when it is at a distance. What needs explaining here?!

Explain how rotating out of view changes distance?
Give me some numbers. Estimated is okay. How far away from me is the sun when it "rotates out of view?"  Tonight, when the sun does set, I can verify where it will appear to be at its zenith over head another point on earth. How high up will it's projection be? 3000 miles, or is that an errant FET number?

The geometry of "rotating out of view" to account for the sun's spot light pattern moving away from me at the very moment that "perspective" due to distance is causing the sun to be cut off, bottom-first, at an apparent horizon is completely lost on me, regardless of whether the sun is where the standard FET model says or your DET alternative describes. it doesn't make sense to me. Claiming "distance" is like a hand-wave or magic box explanation. I can't work it out. And given that the orthodox spinning globe orbiting a distant sun works so well to explain what I see re. the sun, I'm working really hard to understand why a more difficult to comprehend alternative is even necessary.

I may never be convinced of it's truth, but I do want to comprehend the internal logic of it.

[timterroo]

I may never be convinced of it's truth, but I do want to comprehend the internal logic of it.

Agreed. I may be a stubborn orthodox fool, but I am at least trying to expand my horizon. No point in resisting any possible truth. If nothing else, it is a stimulating conversation.