The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Bobby Shafto on November 12, 2018, 04:33:41 AM
-
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/taosy8.jpg)
A month ago, I mentioned the so-called "green flash" as one of my "5 Characteristics of Sunset to Distinguish Between Flat Earth and Globe Earth. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10968.msg168804#msg168804)." I meant to get back to this but it slipped my mind until RonJ brought it up (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11296.msg172702#msg172702) today in another topic.
I used to hear about the "green flash" but even though I'd seen a lot of sunsets over the world's oceans, I had never witnessed a green flash. It wasn't until recently that I learned it was a real thing and not some mythical afterimage optical illusion. But I now understand what it is and have seen it, at least in video and photography imagery I've taken of the setting sun. And I also understand the explanation for it, but only in the context of a globe earth with an atmo-sphere. That explanation doesn't work for a flat earth with a planar atmo-layer. As such, I don't know how a flat earth model with an atmolayer explains this phenomenon.
The most comprehensive source (I think) for explaining the sun's Green Flash are a set of Web pages posted by San Diego State University's (former?) adjunct astronomy professor Dr. Andrew T. Young's page at https://aty.sdsu.edu/ (https://aty.sdsu.edu/). It's not very well organized, in my opinion, but rather a set of Web pages that seems as if it was composed and evolved over time, but there's a wealth of information not just about the green flash but of atmospheric effects on optics. It's a resource that's been very helpful for me in understanding the visual effects of atmospheric refraction, which for me had previously been limited to anomalous effects on radar and HF/UHF/EHF communications systems.
As explained in Dr. Young's pages, it's a complex combination of light extinction, diffusion (scattering) and astronomical refraction. It's this latter essential element that is absent in a flat earth/atmolayer model.
In a flat earth model that incorporates EAT (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator), light bending up and away from the surface of the earth could cause the requisite refraction, but it would cause the green flash to appear on the bottom of the setting sun, not the top.
Light from the sun needs to be refracted downward along distances much greater than those required to produce terrestrial mirages. At least that's the mechanism as it is explained for an atmoSPHERE. If it can work through an atmoLAYER, and without ignoring other claimed explanations for varous sun set phenomena in a flat earth model, I'd like to invite that discussion.
-
Yes, the green flash is real. I've personally witnessed it on a couple occasions far out to sea. You can see it at sun set and also at sun rise. Sun rise is more difficult because you have to have access to something like a Nautical Almanac so you can see the exact time and azimuth that the sun will rise for your position and then be watching very carefully at that point on the horizon because you will only see the green flash for an instant and it will then go away, replaced by just the tip of the rising sun. At sunset it's a lot easier as all you have to do is watch as the sun goes down over the horizon and you will sometimes see a flash just when the last little bit is going under. The weather conditions have to be favorable for you to see something and you will only see it for an instant.
-
I've watched a lot of over-water sunsets: most from the California Pacific Coast, but also from Key West, Panama, Philippines, Thailand, Diego Garcia, Margaret River W.A. and from the flight deck of aircraft carriers in the North Arabian Sea, the Luzon Straits, South Pacific, South China Sea and Gulf of Alaska.
But try as I may, I've never been able to witness a "green flash" with my own eyes. I still haven't.
I've only been able to capture it with long focal length photography and video. And until I started seeing pictures of the phenomenon, I had the impression that it really was only visible at that last instant before the sun disappeared. But that may be the only point when the human eye can see it, but a camera lens will capture it throughout the sunset process, depending on atmospheric conditions.
(https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0005/greenflash_casado.jpg)
This is a good picture - it's not one I took -- showing the sun in a state about 2 minutes before sunset is complete. The upper and lower limbs of the sun are showing different effects that whatever earth model you ascribe too must be able to explain both simultaneously. I think a globe earth model does. I don't know of a way for a flat earth model to accomplish that, at least based on what I've seen so far.
-
I've spent a lot of time on the ocean and had been told about the green flash. But it was years before I actually got to see it in person and I was actually starting to think it was a snipe-hunting myth. When I finally got to see it, I was off shore near the Caribbean (South Atlantic) island of Saba and it looked nothing like I had imagined (pre Youtube era.)
The conditions had to be just right and you had to be looking at the right spot at the right time. I could see that if someone didn't want to acknowledge the reality of the green flash, it is easy to ignore. Hoaxing a green flash video would be easier that hoaxing space travel videos.
-
... I was actually starting to think it was a snipe-hunting myth.
Same here. Or, if I was accepting that it was real, I was sure it was an after-image illusion, like staring at a red dot for a minute and then looking at a white background and seeing a green dot.
Interestingly, here's an image taken of the moon doing the same trick but instead of a shorter wavelength color on the upper limb, it's a longer wavelength color on the lower limb.
(https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0509/RedFlash_seip_f50in.jpg)
I've never seen that before, but then again, I've never actually personally witnessed moonrise/moonset over a low-horizon.
-
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/212zseg.jpg)
Another green flash yesterday evening.
This shouldn't happen if light is bent upwards.
-
Great job! The picture is typical of what I would see while mid-ocean going to Asia. It also shows that there's curvature of the earth.
-
The sun is a ball moving very very fast through the upper atmoplane on a flat earth (exoplane). Its only 800 miles up.
I would expect a green flash from something moving so fast when the static in the air is high. It is called St Elmo's fire. The earth doesn't need to be round for that to happen.
Inb4 Wouldn't the sun create sonic booms at the equator? Answer ... no, the air is too thin much like satellites don't heat up in RE explanations.
-
Found this posted in response to a similar challenge to "flat earth theory" way back in 2008.
"Why do we need to bother creating a theory for this phenomenon when we already know that the earth is flat?"
Not very zetetic.
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/so5onn.jpg)
In the top graphic, the atmosphere refracts sunlight when the sun is near the horizon, causing the sun to appear higher than it actually is. But this direction of refracted light (toward denser medium nearer the surface of earth) is also why the dispersion of green-wavelength light can appear on the upper rim of the setting sun.
In the middle graphic, this would work the same in a flat earth atmolayer. As the sun recedes, it penetrates greater lengths of denser air, bending it toward the earth's surface. That could great "green flash" phenomena too, but it would (like the globe earth) cause the sun to appear higher than it actually is.
However, a common explanation for why the sun appears to set on a flat earth even though it never actually dips below the surface plane of earth is that atmolayer effects cause the sun to appear lower than it actually is. That would require sunlight to refract/bend in the opposite direction, tending away from the surface of earth as depicted in the third diagram. But that's opposite of how refraction would work, unless the atmolayer actually gets denser with altitude.
Whatever the mechanism, if light actually bends away from the earth to cause the sun to appear to sink, then a different explanation for the green flash phenomenon is necessary. Because in that situation, the green flash -- if it would occur at all -- would be at the lower limb of the sun.
Essentially, a flat earth model isn't internally consistent if claiming refraction as the reason for the sun's reaching low elevation (and for the "sunken ship effect") while also adopting the atmospheric refraction/dispersion explanation for the "green flash" phenomenon as being also true for a flat earth atmolayer. The two explanations are in contradiction of each other.
-
I would expect to see some St. Elmo's fire as well under certain circumstances. I've personally witnessed the phenomenon both at sea on ocean going ships and on aircraft as well. Of course your explanation for the green flash on the sun is erroneous. St. Elmo's fire requires a atmosphere and plenty of air. Are you then saying that you have an atmosphere above the flat earth at 800 miles up? Of course you can claim that there is, but then be ready to defend the atmospheric pressure on the earth's surface vs the density of air. Are you ready for a discussion with just verifiable facts and no BS?
-
This is very, very weak evidence for a globe. Direct observations of the earth's surface show zero curvature therefore there must be some FE explanation for this phenomenon. This phenomenon is so obscure that FErs generally haven't dealt with it, but I'm sure that an explanation could be found if we put our heads together. I haven't really looked at it yet.
Here's a Youtube video for good measure:
-
This is very, very weak evidence for a globe. Direct observations of the earth's surface show zero curvature therefore there must be some FE explanation for this phenomenon.
Here's a simple/good explanation why:
(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)
This phenomenon is so obscure that FErs generally haven't dealt with it, but I'm sure that an explanation could be found if we put our heads together. I haven't really looked at it yet.
Here's a Youtube video for good measure:
As for the green flash, the video you posted presumes a solid glass dome-like paperweight is pressed firmly down on top of a flat earth.
-
This is very, very weak evidence for a globe. Direct observations of the earth's surface show zero curvature therefore there must be some FE explanation for this phenomenon.
Here's a simple/good explanation why:
(https://i.imgur.com/s4l9nY3.jpg?1)
This phenomenon is so obscure that FErs generally haven't dealt with it, but I'm sure that an explanation could be found if we put our heads together. I haven't really looked at it yet.
Here's a Youtube video for good measure:
As for the green flash, the video you posted presumes a solid glass dome-like paperweight is pressed firmly down on top of a flat earth.
This thread isn't about arguing about whether or not there is a curve. I wasn't even referring to just visually inspecting the horizon (which of course shows no visually detectable curve and wouldn't even if the earth were round at the agreed upon dimensions) but observation of distant objects, etc. I brought that up to make the point that direct observations of the Earth should trump indirect evidences like the green flash. It is to commit an affirming the consequent fallacy to claim that because a phenomenon has a RE explanation that satisfies you that therefore the RE must be true whereas the strongest FE claims (like the demonstrations that Earth has zero detectable curvature) by their very nature admit no RE explanation. It is the burden of proof of the one who makes the positive claim that the green flash proves RE to not only supply the RE explanation but to prove that no FE explanation is possible. As for the video, it isn't perfect but it's a starting point. It shows a green-flash like phenomena on a scale that FErs can roughly agree on. Bobby presumes that all Flat Earthers believe in an "atmosplane" but many believe in a dome.
-
This thread isn't about arguing about whether or not there is a curve.
It is actually, when you break it down: Atmosphere versus atmoplane.
I wasn't even referring to just visually inspecting the horizon (which of course shows no visually detectable curve and wouldn't even if the earth were round at the agreed upon dimensions) but observation of distant objects, etc.
You were and still are.
I brought that up to make the point that direct observations of the Earth should trump indirect evidences like the green flash.
I'm not following your trumping logic. Seems to be a fairly direct observation of the sun as it rises or sets from the vantage point of earth.
It is to commit an affirming the consequent fallacy to claim that because a phenomenon has a RE explanation that satisfies you that therefore the RE must be true whereas the strongest FE claims (like the demonstrations that Earth has zero detectable curvature) by their very nature admit no RE explanation. It is the burden of proof of the one who makes the positive claim that the green flash proves RE to not only supply the RE explanation but to prove that no FE explanation is possible. As for the video, it isn't perfect but it's a starting point. It shows a green-flash like phenomena on a scale that FErs can roughly agree on.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the green flash proves a globe. But I would say that there is an RE explanation for it that is satisfactory to me and it is predicated on an atmosphere. The question is, how does the green flash phenomena manifest itself on a flat earth?
As to video, if shining a penlight through a hunk of glass replicates an earth/sun phenomena to FEr satisfaction, that speaks volumes.
Bobby presumes that all Flat Earthers believe in an "atmosplane" but many believe in a dome.
Can't speak for Bobby, but isn't the dome covering the atmoplane, so to speak?
-
This thread isn't about arguing about whether or not there is a curve.
Seeing as how I initiated the discussion proposing that the "green flash" is a distinctive feature of a globe earth with an atmosphere and invited discussion about how such a phenomenon can be explained on a flat earth with an atmolayer, I'd say this thread is about whether there is or isn't "curve."
The phenomena of the sun reaching (and sinking behind) the horizon and also being able to exhibit a green flash are consistently explicable by a globe model with an atmosphere.
In a flat earth model, you can have a green flash, but then there is no explanation consistent with the green flash to explain the sun reaching (and appearing to sink behind) a horizon. Or, you can have a curved/refracted light explanation for why the sun appears to reach and set at a horizon, but then that defeats the green flash explanation. There is no flat earth model that I've seen yet proposed that can explain both without contradiction.
Dome or no dome.
The prism effect of that glass half sphere is exhibiting light refraction and dispersion, but isn't producing an image mimicking the setting sun with a green flash. If you believe that glass medium models a firmament containing an atmolayer or that the dome IS the atmolayer, then it should be able to produce the illusion of a setting sun by a light source above the dome, from the perspective of an observer at the base, and simultaneously create the prism effect with the shorter wave length colors on top and the longer wavelength colors on the bottom, as oriented to the base of the dome.
If you can do that, then you've answered the challenge. I don't think it can be done. The bending of light necessary to make the light source appear to be lower toward the base is the opposite of what would make the prism'ed green dispersion of color appear on the top of the light source.
-
Bobby presumes that all Flat Earthers believe in an "atmosplane" but many believe in a dome.
Can't speak for Bobby, but isn't the dome covering the atmoplane, so to speak?
Bobby doesn't presume anything about what flat earther's believe regarding a dome.
Bobby leaves it to the flat earther to devise a flat earth model to solve the riddle, and leaves it up to the flat earther to decide whether or not a dome helps answer the question.
-
The sun is a ball moving very very fast through the upper atmoplane on a flat earth (exoplane). Its only 800 miles up.
Can you show me the evidence for that? How was that 800 miles worked out and tested experimentally?
-
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/taosy8.jpg)
A month ago, I mentioned the so-called "green flash" as one of my "5 Characteristics of Sunset to Distinguish Between Flat Earth and Globe Earth. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10968.msg168804#msg168804)." I meant to get back to this but it slipped my mind until RonJ brought it up (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11296.msg172702#msg172702) today in another topic.
I used to hear about the "green flash" but even though I'd seen a lot of sunsets over the world's oceans, I had never witnessed a green flash. It wasn't until recently that I learned it was a real thing and not some mythical afterimage optical illusion. But I now understand what it is and have seen it, at least in video and photography imagery I've taken of the setting sun. And I also understand the explanation for it, but only in the context of a globe earth with an atmo-sphere. That explanation doesn't work for a flat earth with a planar atmo-layer. As such, I don't know how a flat earth model with an atmolayer explains this phenomenon.
The most comprehensive source (I think) for explaining the sun's Green Flash are a set of Web pages posted by San Diego State University's (former?) adjunct astronomy professor Dr. Andrew T. Young's page at https://aty.sdsu.edu/ (https://aty.sdsu.edu/). It's not very well organized, in my opinion, but rather a set of Web pages that seems as if it was composed and evolved over time, but there's a wealth of information not just about the green flash but of atmospheric effects on optics. It's a resource that's been very helpful for me in understanding the visual effects of atmospheric refraction, which for me had previously been limited to anomalous effects on radar and HF/UHF/EHF communications systems.
As explained in Dr. Young's pages, it's a complex combination of light extinction, diffusion (scattering) and astronomical refraction. It's this latter essential element that is absent in a flat earth/atmolayer model.
In a flat earth model that incorporates EAT (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator), light bending up and away from the surface of the earth could cause the requisite refraction, but it would cause the green flash to appear on the bottom of the setting sun, not the top.
Light from the sun needs to be refracted downward along distances much greater than those required to produce terrestrial mirages. At least that's the mechanism as it is explained for an atmoSPHERE. If it can work through an atmoLAYER, and without ignoring other claimed explanations for varous sun set phenomena in a flat earth model, I'd like to invite that discussion.
It would be incumbent upon you to clearly demonstrate why it cannot appear on flat earth first.
While feeling no obligation to point out the obvious, simply stating,"...it cannot," earns you the perfunctory, "...yes it can."
EAT is not even complete and you are going to post a conclusion as if it is?
-
It doesn't matter what the mechanism is that is causing the bending of light.
Doesn't matter if earth is flat or globe.
If light is being bent in the opposite direction - upwards away from earth- green flash won't be on top of an apparent setting (or rising) sun.
If you want your green flash and an upward bending of light to explain sun setting in a flat earth model, you need a new explanation for the phenomenon and not the one we currently have that is compatible with globe earth.
-
I brought that up to make the point that direct observations of the Earth should trump indirect evidences like the green flash.
It doesn't work like that. You can't say that because you can see no curvature then you can discount all evidence of curvature. If you are promoting a scientific model for something then you need to be able to explain all evidence.
It is the burden of proof of the one who makes the positive claim that the green flash proves RE to not only supply the RE explanation but to prove that no FE explanation is possible.
No it's not. If RE has an explanation for an observation then that is more weight in favour of RE. If supporters of FE can explain it, then that is weight in favour of FE.
RE can explain all these observations, FE cannot. So the weight of evidence is in favour of RE. In fact, the weight is so in favour of RE that is an accepted scientific fact.
-
RE can explain all these observations, FE cannot. So the weight of evidence is in favour of RE. In fact, the weight is so in favour of RE that is an accepted scientific fact.
The writings of great Flat Earthers like Samuel Rowbotham, Thomas Winship, Lady Blount, Tom Bishop etc. attest to the opposite. Regardless, there is indeed a hierarchy of evidence. The more direct an evidence for a claim is far more convincing than an indirect evidence because there is a much higher probability that an alternative explanation for the indirect evidence can be found than an alternative explanation for the direct evidence.
-
It doesn't matter what the mechanism is that is causing the bending of light.
Doesn't matter if earth is flat or globe.
If light is being bent in the opposite direction - upwards away from earth- green flash won't be on top of an apparent setting (or rising) sun.
If you want your green flash and an upward bending of light to explain sun setting in a flat earth model, you need a new explanation for the phenomenon and not the one we currently have that is compatible with globe earth.
Let me get this straight...you, while dismissing FE, are proclaiming how something would be physically manifested in that place you deny could exist...
Good luck with that...I ain't buyin'...
-
This thread isn't about arguing about whether or not there is a curve.
The phenomena of the sun reaching (and sinking behind) the horizon and also being able to exhibit a green flash are consistently explicable by a globe model with an atmosphere.
In a flat earth model, you can have a green flash, but then there is no explanation consistent with the green flash to explain the sun reaching (and appearing to sink behind) a horizon. Or, you can have a curved/refracted light explanation for why the sun appears to reach and set at a horizon, but then that defeats the green flash explanation. There is no flat earth model that I've seen yet proposed that can explain both without contradiction.
The explanation for sunsets in the standard Flat Earth model is that the sunsets are a consequence of perspective, eg: objects appear lower the farther away they are from the observer. Why do you think this precludes a green flash for FE? According to livescience.com "When the sun starts to dip below the horizon the colors of the spectrum disappear one at a time, starting with those with the longest wavelengths to those with the shortest. At sunrise, the process is reversed, and a green flash may occur as the top of the sun peeks above the horizon." This process would occur on a Flat Earth or a Round Earth just the same, or am I missing something. ???
-
This thread isn't about arguing about whether or not there is a curve.
The phenomena of the sun reaching (and sinking behind) the horizon and also being able to exhibit a green flash are consistently explicable by a globe model with an atmosphere.
In a flat earth model, you can have a green flash, but then there is no explanation consistent with the green flash to explain the sun reaching (and appearing to sink behind) a horizon. Or, you can have a curved/refracted light explanation for why the sun appears to reach and set at a horizon, but then that defeats the green flash explanation. There is no flat earth model that I've seen yet proposed that can explain both without contradiction.
The explanation for sunsets in the standard Flat Earth model is that the sunsets are a consequence of perspective, eg: objects appear lower the farther away they are from the observer. Why do you think this precludes a green flash for FE? According to livescience.com "When the sun starts to dip below the horizon the colors of the spectrum disappear one at a time, starting with those with the longest wavelengths to those with the shortest. At sunrise, the process is reversed, and a green flash may occur as the top of the sun peeks above the horizon." This process would occur on a Flat Earth or a Round Earth just the same, or am I missing something. ???
On a RE the sun appears HIGHER than it actually is during sunrise/set. This is what produces the green flash at the TOP of the sun. For FE, the sun appears LOWER in the sky in order to create sunrise/set. This should produce a RED flash at sunrise/set at the TOP of the sun, not a GREEN flash (if I'm remembering my color theory correctly) at the TOP of the sun. The light is bending the incorrect way for the green flash to occur. Since we see a GREEN flash, that explanation for how the sun sets on a FE doesn't fit the observation. So either the Earth isn't flat, or the mechanism that allows both the sun to appear LOWER in the sky AND create a GREEN flash, is unknown. Which is a pretty big hole for the FE hypothesis.
-
On a RE the sun appears HIGHER than it actually is during sunrise/set. This is what produces the green flash at the TOP of the sun. For FE, the sun appears LOWER in the sky in order to create sunrise/set. This should produce a RED flash at sunrise/set at the TOP of the sun, not a GREEN flash (if I'm remembering my color theory correctly) at the TOP of the sun.
According to the great physicist ROY G BIV, green is actually in the middle of the spectrum, so I'm not sure if FE refraction would change the color of the flash. Otherwise, what you say sounds about right.
-
On a RE the sun appears HIGHER than it actually is during sunrise/set. This is what produces the green flash at the TOP of the sun. For FE, the sun appears LOWER in the sky in order to create sunrise/set. This should produce a RED flash at sunrise/set at the TOP of the sun, not a GREEN flash (if I'm remembering my color theory correctly) at the TOP of the sun.
According to the great physicist ROY G BIV, green is actually in the middle of the spectrum, so I'm not sure if FE refraction would change the color of the flash. Otherwise, what you say sounds about right.
Green is more common, but shorter wavelength blue and even violet flashes do occur, though rare and normally only captured in photos/video with magnification. The reason for that is the wavelengths shorter than green will be subjected more to the extinction effects of the atmosphere: diffusion/scattering. So those refracted rays don't survive the distance. When they do, they do stack on top of the green because they are refracted more.
Colors with longer wavelengths like orange and red are below.
If you reverse the refraction index (or whatever mechanism that is causing light to bend and be dispersed into its constituent wavelengths, the prism ordering will be reversed. Violets/blues/greens will be on the bottom and the yellow/orange/red will be on top.
Green IS more toward the middle, but when it comes to "flashes" on the sun's upper limb, it's the most likely.
I can find a picture showing blue or even violet.
If refraction of the sort that bends light toward the earth as sunlight passes from the rarer, higher atmolayer altitudes to the denser, lower levels exists in both RE and FE models, it wouldn't change the color order. The problem for FE -- or at least one problem I'm trying to to highlight with this topic -- is that FE models that explain the lower elevation of the sun at sunset through refraction can't also explain the order ordering of the prismatic colors and the "green flash" using the same refractive explanation. The two are contrary to each other.
The refractive situation that makes the "green flash" on top of a setting sun possible also visually elevates the sun from it's actual position. But in FE, an explanation for the sun being lower than it actually is is required for the sun to appear to set at all. So if the air is what is causing the sun to appear to reach a horizon on a flat earth, then the "green flash" won't happen. It would be a "red flash". Or maybe "green flashes" below the sun as it meets the horizon.
-
The explanation for sunsets in the standard Flat Earth model is that the sunsets are a consequence of perspective, eg: objects appear lower the farther away they are from the observer.
Are you sure that's still the "standard?" It is the flaws in the "perspective" theory for sunsets that has led some FE proponents to seek better explanations, like atmospheric refraction, electromagnetic accelerator theory, or other unexplained mechanisms that cause light to bend away from earth to give the appearance of "hull-up sinking ships" and the setting or rising of sun and moon.
If standard, or should we say orthodox, FET is that light is refracted toward the earth similar to the globe earth model but perspective is the reason the sun appears to reach the horizon, then for that FE model, you'd be absolutely right. The "green flash" is not a unique feature of a globe sunset. It could happen on a FE.
But only if the perspective explanation actually works. In no model of FE, whether AE or bi-polar or infinite plane or any that I've seen, does the path of the sun ever reach a distance sufficient for perspective to lower the sun's elevation to the horizon. There's not enough distance. It becomes a "handwave" ad hoc rationalization to declare perspective can produce the setting of the sun without explaining the attending geometry required for that to happen.
When I've seen it tried, it invokes "bending" of the light somehow to bring the sun to less that around 15-20 degrees above the horizon with the available expanse over which the sun travels above the earth. But any "bending" to create the illusion or appearance that the sun is meeting the horizon is opposite of that required to produce a "green flash." So the only way for perspective to work in conjunction with "green flash" producing refraction is if light is refracted toward the surface of the earth, which is a problem I have not seen solved in the perspective explanation. Perspective can only go so far in bringing the sun down in angular elevation over a flat earth, especially when toward-earth refraction is working against it to raise the apparent elevation.
I presumed in opening this topic that FET had or was moving beyond perspective as a model for explaining sun's apparent motion. I disparage the perspective-based model, but I consider the proposed EAT-based model challenging and have sought to find and articulate observable distinctions between a spherical earth with a refractive atmosphere from a flat earth with EAT (and a refractive atmolayer). The phenomenon of the "green flash" is one of those I think I've identified. But yes, it assumes that the FE model has abandoned the flawed perspective rationale. If not, then that's another topic, and one that's been hashed out over and over again.
I'm not certain, but I think the inception of EAT may have been motivated by flaws in explaining sunset/rise as a product of perspective.
Why do you think this precludes a green flash for FE?
Hopefully now you understand. It's only for any FE model that invokes upward bending of light to explain phenomena like setting suns or objects appearing to be cut off by the horizon. In a model in which light is refracted or bent by the medium of the atmo- in a way that is toward the earth, I wouldn't think that a green flash is precluded.
According to livescience.com "When the sun starts to dip below the horizon the colors of the spectrum disappear one at a time, starting with those with the longest wavelengths to those with the shortest. At sunrise, the process is reversed, and a green flash may occur as the top of the sun peeks above the horizon." This process would occur on a Flat Earth or a Round Earth just the same, or am I missing something. ???
What you're missing is FE model explanations for other phenomena that are contrary to that excerpt. EAT is one such proposal. Another is claiming "refraction" as the reason for the appearance of sunsets or missing hulls of distant ships or why hundreds of feet of distant towers or mountain ranges are cut off by an apparent horizon.
If those, in your view" are non-standard and the standard is Perspective and you believe Perspective to be adequate for the FE model, then this topic isn't for you. Because, yes, in that view, the "green flash" argument is irrelevant and would work the same (mostly).
But then why did you show me a video of a refractive dome? That's not perspective. That's the refraction of light. And if that's how the atmolayer works over a flat earth, then show me how such a refracting dome can cause the sun to appear to set on a horizon while also producing "green flash."
-
Maybe this will help. These are exaggerated to better show how the refracting of different wavelengths works to create the dispersion of color.
In this example, light is bending toward earth as it encounters increasing air density, refracting towards the denser medium. Red (longer wavelength) is refracted less than green (shorter wavelength). Because the green light has experienced a greater degree of refraction, the perceived elevation of that source will be higher than the less-refracted red. So the green rim will be elevated above the longer wavelength colors.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r2dju4x_kAw/W_3AKM7yoAI/AAAAAAAAMhE/y42u7g6qmhIKuCZKwcSTJCCcWXSpzJDdwCLcBGAs/s1600/green%2Bflash.jpg)
That prism-effect of refraction isn't enough to produce a perceptible green rim on the sun except under fine detail in some photographs. But that isn't the "flash." To get the flash you need the magnification of that thin green rim by a mirage or mock mirage. Even then, it often takes a camera with telephoto to capture it. I've never seen it with my naked eyes.
But that's the explanation. And as long as sunlight is passing through the atmosphere/layer at an angle where it is encountering increasing density, it will refract toward the normal; toward the denser medium. In an atmosphere, conforming around a spherical earth, that happens even if the light is tangent to the earth. Because the atmosphere curves away, the light will refract to try to follow the lower, denser portion of the atmosphere. On a flat earth, that won't happen (unless there's some principle of atmolayer layering over a flat earth that isn't also flat.)
But regardless, if penetrating the atmolayer at an angle, this will happen on a flat earth also. You just need the geometry to produce a shallow enough angle.
In either case, that type of refraction (toward the earth) will also push the sun to appear higher, not lower. On a globe, it's said the sun at sunset is a whole width higher than it is astronomically due to this atmospheric refractive effect. That means when you see the sun touch down on an sea horizon, its geometric position is actually completely below the horizon. It is this same rationale for why globe earth curvature calculators must take into consideration standard atmospheric refraction and not rely on mere geometric calculation. Light refracts to follow the curve, making things appear above the horizon that might otherwise be obscured were it not for the atmosphere.
Now, as for refraction in the opposite direction:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HlOBa0PkR2k/W_3AKMIoC-I/AAAAAAAAMhI/-9llnSvu_RU_co9MU3OgjXaBsQVtxnedQCLcBGAs/s1600/red%2Bflash.jpg)
Without explaining how it works, "refraction" has been cited by FE proponents to explain how a sun that is actually remaining overhead but receding into the distance over a flat earth can appear to descend to the horizon. In order for that to be true, the light from the sun must curve away from the flat surface of earth. If it's actually refraction doing that, then that means the upper layers of the atmolayer must be denser than the lower elevations. That may be true in isolated, transient and non-standard conditions but isn't typical; certainly not standard enough to consistently produce a setting sun day in and day out.
Additionally, even if one claims that the atmolayer actually is causing light to bend upward, remember that the prism effect would cause greens to refract more and reds less, but because the direction is reversed, so is the fringing on the sun and the green rim would be on the bottom of the setting sun, not the top.
The same reasoning applies regardless of what's causing the bending. If it's EAT, then EAT will affect the shorter wavelengths slightly more than the longer wavelengths and produce a bottom-limb green fringe too vice the upper-limb "green flash" we can observe.
(Edit: thinking on this a bit, I realize now that EAT makes no such commitment. Just because refractive "bending" affects shorter wavelengths more than longer wavelengths doesn't mean that that is necessarily true if EA is doing the bending. There's a reason why it is true of refraction in optics, but given that EA is based on dark energy concepts and has -- for 10 years now -- remained an untested and still developmental hypothesis, I suppose that assuming that the "bendy" influence would have a dispersive effect similar to refraction might not be a sound one. It might help to know how the equation (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator) was derived to know if there's any wavelength, frequency or energy dependency on the amount of x-y "bending." This is just occurring to me.)
My argument is that this is one of the ways to zetetically determine whether or not EAT (or upward refraction) is causing the sun to appear to set; unless, of course, there is some other explanation for the prismatic effect on the sun that hasn't been discovered yet. But it can't be the same as the explanation used in a globe earth without undermining any light-bending-upwards explanations to explain how the sun can appear lower than it actually is.
-
I can find a picture showing blue or even violet.
Quite the coincidence: San Diego photographer Jim Grant posted a "blue flash" photo on Twitter just a few hours ago:
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/34figkw.jpg)
It seems to me many of his sunset and sunrise images are color-corrected and enhanced, which may have brought out the blue more this image. But whatever he does in post edit, I don't think it would have turned a green flash to blue. There are other examples searchable online. This one just happened to show up in my feed in timely fashion.