[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.

This quote above is from the FE wiki.

The perspective effect would cause the already relatively small size of a flock of birds to reduce. Hence the disappearing. The sun, however, does not reduce in size in any way, it simply sinks down. Anyone who has properly watched a sunset can tell that these two effects are not comparable. The sun is not changing as it recedes. Another effect that we should see from a receding sun is the fading of the power of the sunlight. This effect is called the Inverse square law in Physics but we experience it simply as bright objects appearing dimmer the further away they are. We also do not see this occurring.

This is perhaps the most simple observation of all to help us discern which model is rational and which fantastical. It is simply not adequate or indeed sane to suggest that the sun recedes like a flock of birds. It does not match mathematical measurements and calculations, or basic observation or indeed common sense. It is total, utter nonsense in every way and needs desperate logical contortions to allow any aspect to be considered.

If any FE can shed new light (haha) on this issue, please do.

[Tom Bishop]

The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.

This quote above is from the FE wiki.

The perspective effect would cause the already relatively small size of a flock of birds to reduce. Hence the disappearing. The sun, however, does not reduce in size in any way, it simply sinks down.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

What is your background in optics? I have a degree in Physics. The link you posted it utter nonsense.

One part of your wiki claims w.r.t to sunsets "The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance" while here it states "The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer."

So what we are meant to understand is that the sun does not sink down below the arc of the Earth's horizon, rather it is a perspective effect and yet one part of the perspective effect (the shrinking, not the descending) is offset by some type of magnification effect caused by vapours in the atmosphere.

The effect that is being vaguely alluded to and yet carefully never named can only be refraction. Refraction occurs due to the differing density of the medium which light travels through but magnification can only occur under very special conditions, not in the random ones that would occur in an uncontrolled weather system. That is utterly basic science.

If this effect you are referring to is a world effect, visible to all, then I am sure there must be multitudes of flat earther's who have documented it, measured it under various conditions and published (or at least sent you) the results. Please, in the manner of proper scientific discourse point me beyond your own wiki to these independant sources so I might analyse their data and compare it to the standard Physics model.

Otherwise might I suggest removing that part of your wiki before some impressionable child reads it and gets the wrong idea.

respectfully,

Mr B

[Tom Bishop]

I see that you have neglected to provided any contradictory evidence or anything of merit to discuss in your response. We are empiricists here. That means we have higher standards than you. If you have anything meaningful to say, you will need to show, not tell.

[Bobby Shafto]

I see that you have neglected to provided any contradictory evidence or anything of merit to discuss in your response. We are empiricists here. That means we have higher standards than you. If you have anything meaningful to say, you will need to show, not tell.

Empiricism.

Here is the sun with solar filter E15 to minimize glare, taken at 9:25AM.


Here is the sun on the same day at local solar noon (12:50PM)


And again, at 5:45PM


And here, 3° above the horizon, approaching sunset:


Unlike the headlight or streetlamp photographs, all of these were taken to reduce or eliminate glare of the light source.  All taken at the same focal length, with same optics, same resolution.  In terms of pixels, all showed a sun 600-610px in diameter, with deviation depending not on time of day or elevation of sun, but a +/- 5px edge ambiguity as to where to measure. The sun didn't shrink. It didn't "swell" as Rowbotham claims. And unlike the terrestrial night examples in those wiki photographs, there is no blooming effect that is "magnifying" the sun because that's been eliminated with the filter.

So there's your empirical contradictory evidence. What do we do now?

[Bobby Shafto]

BTW, here is the table of all of the observations/photos taken on that day:

TIME  | EL  | Width
09:25 | 40° | 607px
12:50 | 69° | 603px
15:45 | 45° | 608px
17:10 | 26° | 601px
17:45 | 20° | 610px
18:35 | 09° | 604px
18:55 | 05° | 604px
19:05 | 03° | 600px
19:15 | 1.5°| 601px
19:18 | 0.8°| 609px

[Tom Bishop]

Unlike the headlight or streetlamp photographs, all of these were taken to reduce or eliminate glare of the light source.  All taken at the same focal length, with same optics, same resolution.  In terms of pixels, all showed a sun 600-610px in diameter, with deviation depending not on time of day or elevation of sun, but a +/- 5px edge ambiguity as to where to measure. The sun didn't shrink. It didn't "swell" as Rowbotham claims. And unlike the terrestrial night examples in those wiki photographs, there is no blooming effect that is "magnifying" the sun because that's been eliminated with the filter.

So there's your empirical contradictory evidence. What do we do now?

What's contradictory? The sun remained the same size, as predicted.

The filter had no effect, as predicted:

Q: Shouldn't polarized sun glasses or a welding mask be able to restore the sun to its actual state?
A: The explanation is describing a projection upon the atmoplane. The projection is appearing upon a medium between the source and the observer. Polarized sun glasses or welding masks are useful for reducing internal glare lens effects within the eye, but would only darken the scene in this external situation.

[Bobby Shafto]

What's contradictory? The sun stayed the same size, exactly as predicted.

The filter had no effect, exactly as predicted:

Q: Shouldn't polarized sun glasses or a welding mask be able to restore the sun to its actual state?
A: The explanation is describing a projection upon the atmoplane. The projection is appearing upon a medium between the source and the observer. Polarized sun glasses or welding masks are useful for reducing internal glare lens effects within the eye, but would only darken the scene in this external situation.

The filter has ultimate effect. Without it, you can't get a reliable measure of the sun, just like you can't reliably measure the street lamps or the headlights in your photographs because of the glare.

Eliminate the glare and see the true size of the light source and then measure it.

Do it. You want to be empirical? Take filtered (and focused) photographs of a light source with increasing distance and see if atmospheric/planar effects magnify  it so that it stays the same size. I wager it won't. The light source (headlamps, street lights) will reduce in apparent size with distance due to perspective.

It's not very empirical to take photographs off of the Internet of light with glare (or with a shorter focal depth like you did in another thread) to show them staying at the same size with increasing distance and say it compares to my observations of the sun WITH filtering of the sun at the same size at all elevations (distances on a claimed flat earth).

[Tom Bishop]

Take a look at this video and demo of a popular pair of polarized glasses for night driving at the 4:52 mark:



We see that there is a car in the distance with headlights that overlap each other:



Now when he applies the filtered lens -- Surprise surprise, the headlights still overlap:



Continue watching the video to verify that the object in question is indeed a car.

From the video description:

BLUPOND Wrap Around Oversized Sunglasses Fit Over Glasses For Women and Men With Flip Up Polarized Anti Glare Lens

HIGHEST QUALITY MATERIALS
✔ Polarized 100% UV 400 anti-glare lenses protect your eyes and ensure clarity and control by transforming distorted and distracting light into a crystal clear view.
✔ Lenses built from shatterproof glass
✔ Durable polycarbonate frames fully tested and built from the strongest materials to ensure years of functional use.
✔ Frames complete with reinforced hinges to prevent damage from drops and squishes.
✔ Protective coating to prevent scratches.

[Bobby Shafto]

Take a look at this video...

Okay, but why do you always seem to turn to video or photos you find on the Internet? Go out and take filtered photos of light sources with focus, lens flare and other camera-induced effects reduced or eliminated. Let the atmosphere due to the magnifying you and the wiki claim.

I'll take a look at the video now.

[Bobby Shafto]

I'll take a look at the video now.

What am I supposed to empirically take away from that video? Has optical glare been eliminated?

I pointed out other light sources. Have I circled them at their atmospherically-magnified size? Or is there still lens flare, glare artificially "blooming" the size?



Even the review said the glasses cut glare "a little bit."

This isn't an experimental setup, Tom. To support your wiki page claim, you should perform the observation with a camera set so that there isn't lens effects. Get the light source in focus. Filter for flares, halos, starburst, etc so it doesn't mar the observation. Then see if the light source "magnifies" with distance due to atmoplane so that the object seems to stay the same size despite perspective.

Resorting to out of focus or camera-optics affected photographs or video is just not what I thought you were demanding of the OP.

[Tom Bishop]

What am I supposed to empirically take away from that video? Has optical glare been eliminated?

I pointed out other light sources. Have I circled them at their atmospherically-magnified size? Or is there still lens flare, glare artificially "blooming" the size?

http://oi64.tinypic.com/ypjf5.jpg

Even the review said the glasses cut glare "a little bit."

They are 100% Polarized UV 400 anti-glare lenses. The take away from this is that there are more effects other than glare that occurs in the eye or camera lens.

This isn't an experimental setup, Tom. To support your wiki page claim, you should perform the observation with a camera set so that there isn't lens effects. Get the light source in focus. Filter for flares, halos, starburst, etc so it doesn't mar the observation. Then see if the light source "magnifies" with distance due to atmoplane so that the object seems to stay the same size despite perspective.

Resorting to out of focus or camera-optics affected photographs or video is just not what I thought you were demanding of the OP.

Whatever you think of it, it's evidence. Maybe you can come up with a theory that the company is a fraud and these aren't really polarized glasses. They are handing out overpriced flimsy tiwanese-made yellow tinted plastic! Our conclusion will be different, however.

[Bobby Shafto]

100% polarized and amber tinted. But didn't eliminate the glare. It's still present.

It's someone else's video. It's not a test to prove what you (or the wiki) are claiming.

Be empirical, or find someone who has actually done a test to examine the claim you're making. Not some video that sort of, kind of but doesn't really, empirically prove what you claim.

[Bobby Shafto]

These two images were taken moments apart a little before sunset: one with a solar filter and one not.

If I'm conducting analysis to see if the sun changes size throughout the day, which one should I use?



Should I compare the unfiltered one with earlier in the day filtered ones to show that sun "increases" in size toward sunset?

If the atmosphere (atmoplane) is responsible for magnifying the sun as it sets, then if I apply the filter that caused the "increase" should I then see a sun that's reduced in size?

[Dr David Thork]

Whatever you think of it, it's evidence. Maybe you can come up with a theory that the company is a fraud and these aren't really polarized glasses. They are handing out overpriced flimsy tiwanese-made yellow tinted plastic! Our conclusion will be different, however.

I'd seen Tom's video before. I have a actually have a set of those night driving glasses.

They don't make anything harder to see at night. But they take all the blue light out of everything. The result is less glare from awful German cars with xenon bulbs, and everything has a warmer hue. The result is you don't get blinded by on coming cars, and it makes you feel, and this sounds silly, but calmer. All of the aggression of night driving is gone. If someone is right behind you in an Audi with his lights filling your rear view mirror, you no longer feel like there is a big aggressive car behind you. In fact its like you are being tailed by a Citreon 2CV. For some of the older people, do you remember ever driving in France back in the day when they had to have yellow filters on the cars headlights? Well its like that. Like everyone has gone back to 1990s France.

In summary they work great. They don't help you see any more, but they do dial down your cortisone a notch or two, and it makes night driving a lot less tiring as your eyes are strained less by harsh blue car and street lighting. They are polarised, they do take some of the reflection out of puddles, but it doesn't really help your driving. I think polarised is a bit of a gimmick for night driving, the colour is the thing doing the work filtering the blue light.

Anyway ... back to your thread, ... something about the shape of the earth. But yeah, I have them they are a real thing.

[Curious Squirrel]

Whatever you think of it, it's evidence. Maybe you can come up with a theory that the company is a fraud and these aren't really polarized glasses. They are handing out overpriced flimsy tiwanese-made yellow tinted plastic! Our conclusion will be different, however.

I'd seen Tom's video before. I have a actually have a set of those night driving glasses.

They don't make anything harder to see at night. But they take all the blue light out of everything. The result is less glare from awful German cars with xenon bulbs, and everything has a warmer hue. The result is you don't get blinded by on coming cars, and it makes you feel, and this sounds silly, but calmer. All of the aggression of night driving is gone. If someone is right behind you in an Audi with his lights filling your rear view mirror, you no longer feel like there is a big aggressive car behind you. In fact its like you are being tailed by a Citreon 2CV. For some of the older people, do you remember ever driving in France back in the day when they had to have yellow filters on the cars headlights? Well its like that. Like everyone has gone back to 1990s France.

In summary they work great. They don't help you see any more, but they do dial down your cortisone a notch or two, and it makes night driving a lot less tiring as your eyes are strained less by harsh blue car and street lighting. They are polarised, they do take some of the reflection out of puddles, but it doesn't really help your driving. I think polarised is a bit of a gimmick for night driving, the colour is the thing doing the work filtering the blue light.

Anyway ... back to your thread, ... something about the shape of the earth. But yeah, I have them they are a real thing.

Thork, since you have a pair, is there any chance you could verify they are in fact properly polarized? You would need a second lens that you know is polarized of course, and it's fine if you don't. Just thought we could at least put that particular bit to bed if possible, as polarization seems a bit odd for night driving glasses. I've used my own polarized lenses at night, and it makes it very hard to see at times, and doesn't do a ton for reducing glare off headlights. By which I mean the optical effect of magnification, not the intensity of the light.

[Bobby Shafto]

Whatever you think of it, it's evidence. Maybe you can come up with a theory that the company is a fraud and these aren't really polarized glasses. They are handing out overpriced flimsy tiwanese-made yellow tinted plastic! Our conclusion will be different, however.

That's a very odd standard of evidence you have there for a self-proclaimed empicist.

I've provided you with direct counter evidence (not a video done by someone else that is but an analogy for the sun) showing that the sun doesn't get smaller if "atmospheric magnification" is compensated for. If you want to believe your wiki explanation holds for headlights and street lights when viewed through 100% polarized glasses, that's fine by me. But empirically, that doesn't hold for the sun.

[Dr David Thork]

Thork, since you have a pair, is there any chance you could verify they are in fact properly polarized? You would need a second lens that you know is polarized of course, and it's fine if you don't. Just thought we could at least put that particular bit to bed if possible, as polarization seems a bit odd for night driving glasses. I've used my own polarized lenses at night, and it makes it very hard to see at times, and doesn't do a ton for reducing glare off headlights. By which I mean the optical effect of magnification, not the intensity of the light.

No, I checked when I bought them. You hold them out over a body of water, for me a small stream. Then turn them 90 degrees. When you do this, suddenly you can't see through the water any more because of the reflection. They are 100% polarised.

[AATW]

What's contradictory? The sun remained the same size, as predicted.

The filter had no effect, as predicted:

You don't have any model which predicts anything, you're giving yourself way too much credit.
All your model says is that the earth is flat, everything else is rationalisation to try and explain away the problems that causes.
If the sun revolves around a flat earth then clearly it will keep getting bigger and smaller.
So you rationalise and claim there is some effect which by amazing co-incidence exactly counteracts that.
I'm not a huge fan of Occam's Razor but as you invoke it, what is the simplest explanation for the sun remaining a constant size?

1) That the sun is getting closer and further away but there is an effect which only works on the sun and exactly counteracts the effect of the distance variation
2) The sun is indeed a constant distance.

You cherry pick pictures which show lights with extreme glare where you really can't see the size of the actual light source. In most photos of a row of lights going into the distance it's clear the further away ones are smaller.



Sunset cannot work by perspective, EA is a better theory which would explain sunset. Probably has other problems but it fixes this.

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

we appear to have 'gone down the rabbit hole' in my absence from this thread. Lets get back to the data.

I see that you have neglected to provided any contradictory evidence or anything of merit to discuss in your response. We are empiricists here. That means we have higher standards than you. If you have anything meaningful to say, you will need to show, not tell.

I am somewhat shocked at your assertion 'we are empericists' here as I see virtually no refrences made on you wiki to any sort of data, experimentation or scientific investigation of any kind.

My original post was asking how the sun descending can be explained by it receding. The lack of reduction in size was explained by a magnification effect. To quote the oft referenced Rowbotham:

"IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium.

As an empiricist you should have no problem linking to the data that supports this statement. It is not a theory I am familiar with. It seems to be a major supporting part of FE theory since the Sun NOT SHRINKING as it recedes is a totally contradictory effect and flies in the face of all other known observations. Presumably planes and other objects must experience this effect if it is atmospheric? Why then do we not see it in those cases?

So, we cannot move on in this particular thread until we see some backup for the central claim. I have NEVER seen this effect and I do not believe it can be measured. If you know different, please set me straight with the data.