[3DGeek]

Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.

I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that

What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?

Perspective being perspective doesn't mean we understand all the factors at play here or how perspective works in all cases either.

what factors? What are you talking about? I'm a layman, but perspective doesn't strike me as one of those esoteric fields of study at the borders of human knowledge...

The trouble is that the fuzzy thinkers around here haven't quite realised that "perspective" isn't a "law of physics" that could be incorrect somehow.  It's an emergent property of the fact that light travels in straight lines.   If you assert (as Tom does) that light does indeed travel in straight lines - then there are no FE sunsets.   I CLEARLY proved that with the world's simplest diagram on the thread I started about that.

FE'ers have to abandon light travelling in straight lines and go back to the "Electromagnetic accelerator" - it's their only hope of having sunsets.   It has the huge benefit (for them) that it's already beautifully decorated with bullshit math and vague assertions in the "Bishop Equation" and the unknown (why?) "Bishop Constant".

Sadly, of course, that theory is ridiculously easy to bust too.

There is no way out of this trap.   Flat maps can't work, Flat astronomy can't work, Flat sunsets can't work.   These are all utterly, undeniably, proven now...even according to the "rules of evidence" that FE'ers will accept.

[rodriados]

Weren't stars simply dome reflections from Earth's lights?

Why can't FEers get their things together and consensus about anything?

[juner]

Weren't stars simply dome reflections from Earth's lights?

Why can't FEers get their things together and consensus about anything?

nah, friend, you are at the wrong place for domes

[3DGeek]

Weren't stars simply dome reflections from Earth's lights?

Wow!  That's a new one!  That's absolutely hilarious.

EXPERIMENT TO DISPROVE:

* Stand outside at night for a few hours.
* Watch the stars slowly track across the sky.
* Reflections of lights on the fixed dome from the immovable Earth couldn't do that.
* Q.E.D.

Why can't FEers get their things together and consensus about anything?

That's a good question - but this particular faction of FE-ism (there are several) is anti-dome.   The pro-dome people tend to be the biblical literalists - and they are MUCH easier to out-argue than this lot.  Much to everyone's chagrin - the pro-dome nutcases do visit here from time to time.

One of the crazier ideas that I saw were from a splinter group who claimed that the moon is self-illuminated (which solves many problems that the tfes.org faction has) - and that the light comes from tiny luminous creatures (think 'fireflies') who migrate back and forth across the surface of the moon over the course of a month!

Nobody here seems to believe that one - which is a shame because it's hilarious.

[rodriados]

Weren't stars simply dome reflections from Earth's lights?

Wow!  That's a new one!  That's absolutely hilarious.

EXPERIMENT TO DISPROVE:

* Stand outside at night for a few hours.
* Watch the stars slowly track across the sky.
* Reflections of lights on the fixed dome from the immovable Earth couldn't do that.
* Q.E.D.

Why can't FEers get their things together and consensus about anything?

That's a good question - but this particular faction of FE-ism (there are several) is anti-dome.   The pro-dome people tend to be the biblical literalists - and they are MUCH easier to out-argue than this lot.  Much to everyone's chagrin - the pro-dome nutcases do visit here from time to time.

One of the crazier ideas that I saw were from a splinter group who claimed that the moon is self-illuminated (which solves many problems that the tfes.org faction has) - and that the light comes from tiny luminous creatures (think 'fireflies') who migrate back and forth across the surface of the moon over the course of a month!

Nobody here seems to believe that one - which is a shame because it's hilarious.

This was actually my first post in this forum. All of the stories I've been told about FE before coming here, involved some kind of dome. And actually, the "day and night cycle" illustration in the Wiki made me think people here had the same beliefs.

[3DGeek]

Weren't stars simply dome reflections from Earth's lights?

Wow!  That's a new one!  That's absolutely hilarious.

EXPERIMENT TO DISPROVE:

* Stand outside at night for a few hours.
* Watch the stars slowly track across the sky.
* Reflections of lights on the fixed dome from the immovable Earth couldn't do that.
* Q.E.D.

Why can't FEers get their things together and consensus about anything?

That's a good question - but this particular faction of FE-ism (there are several) is anti-dome.   The pro-dome people tend to be the biblical literalists - and they are MUCH easier to out-argue than this lot.  Much to everyone's chagrin - the pro-dome nutcases do visit here from time to time.

One of the crazier ideas that I saw were from a splinter group who claimed that the moon is self-illuminated (which solves many problems that the tfes.org faction has) - and that the light comes from tiny luminous creatures (think 'fireflies') who migrate back and forth across the surface of the moon over the course of a month!

Nobody here seems to believe that one - which is a shame because it's hilarious.

This was actually my first post in this forum. All of the stories I've been told about FE before coming here, involved some kind of dome. And actually, the "day and night cycle" illustration in the Wiki made me think people here had the same beliefs.

The information in the Wiki (which we're continually directed to read) is often not what "current thinking" in FET says.