The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: jonnytimber on January 13, 2016, 04:14:32 PM
-
If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual? Are we 4-5 times closer at those times? This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is. Use your eyes non believers.
-
Same goes for the moon too
-
If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual? Are we 4-5 times closer at those times? This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is. Use your eyes non believers.
Nice proof of a globe earth, it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere. On a flat earth the sun would get smaller as it approached the horizon.
That's the cue for the bendy light brigade to ride to the rescue.
Use your eyes indeed.
-
Nice proof of a globe earth, it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.
Very curious. How, exactly, do you propose that refraction is responsible for this apparent shrinking of the sun? Generally, the agreement among mainstream RE'ers appears to be that refraction can only explain the apparent anomalous displacement of the sun, and some of the observable turbulence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
Are you proposing your own alternative Round Earth model here? I'm not necessarily disparaging against that given FET's track record, but I would appreciate your being upfront about it.
-
Nice proof of a globe earth, it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.
Very curious. How, exactly, do you propose that refraction is responsible for this apparent shrinking of the sun? Generally, the agreement among mainstream RE'ers appears to be that refraction can only explain the apparent anomalous displacement of the sun, and some of the observable turbulence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
Are you proposing your own alternative Round Earth model here? I'm not necessarily disparaging against that given FET's track record, but I would appreciate your being upfront about it.
Uh, no it's magnified, not shrunk.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/132-why-does-the-moon-look-big-on-the-horizon-intermediate
-
Uh, no it's magnified, not shrunk.
You're clinging to my (admittedly debatable) choice of words rather than answering the question - for shame!
But sure, in my mind it was easier to imagine it as the sun "shrinking" from point A to point B. If you prefer to view it as it "growing" between points B and C, that's fine by me.
Ultimately, however, your link very explicitly states that it's not caused by refraction. Could resolve this seeming contradiction? In other words, could you please pick a stance and stick to it?
-
Uh, no it's magnified, not shrunk.
You're clinging to my (admittedly debatable) choice of words rather than answering the question - for shame!
But sure, in my mind it was easier to imagine it as the sun "shrinking" from point A to point B. If you prefer to view it as it "growing" between points B and C, that's fine by me.
Ultimately, however, your link very explicitly states that it's not caused by refraction. Could resolve this seeming contradiction? In other words, could you please pick a stance and stick to it?
Ok, let's make it simpler, my stance is that the sun and moon are not especially closer to earth when close to the horizon, in spite of appearing larger. If the earth was flat the and the sun was close, the sun should appear to get smaller as it moves further away.
The fact that it doesn't is more of an argument for a round earth than a flat earth.
-
To clarify, are you taking this statement back?
Nice proof of a globe earth, it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.
[emphasis mine]
-
To clarify, are you taking this statement back?
Nice proof of a globe earth, it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.
[emphasis mine]
Perhaps you could clarify, do you think there is refraction when looking close to the horizon?
-
To clarify, are you taking this statement back?
Nice proof of a globe earth, it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.
[emphasis mine]
Perhaps you could clarify, do you think there is refraction when looking close to the horizon?
In general, yes. Its the whole cold/warm/density of the atmosphere the sunlight is passing through over again. Move on please.
-
If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual? Are we 4-5 times closer at those times? This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is. Use your eyes non believers.
Nice proof of a globe earth, it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere. On a flat earth the sun would get smaller as it approached the horizon.
That's the cue for the bendy light brigade to ride to the rescue.
Use your eyes indeed.
No sorry, if the sun was that far away, so so far away, it would always look the same. Our minuscule position across a vastness of 93,000,000 miles could never affect the visual appearance of the sun. It's pure common sense. However, on a flat earth, taking into account our perspective vision, it makes perfect sense that it appears larger at the horizon
-
If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual? Are we 4-5 times closer at those times? This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is. Use your eyes non believers.
Nice proof of a globe earth, it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere. On a flat earth the sun would get smaller as it approached the horizon.
That's the cue for the bendy light brigade to ride to the rescue.
Use your eyes indeed.
No sorry, if the sun was that far away, so so far away, it would always look the same. Our minuscule position across a vastness of 93,000,000 miles could never affect the visual appearance of the sun. It's pure common sense. However, on a flat earth, taking into account our perspective vision, it makes perfect sense that it appears larger at the horizon
So you think perspective makes things look bigger as they get further away? Are you sure it's not an optical illusion?
-
Perhaps you could clarify, do you think there is refraction when looking close to the horizon?
Of course. It's just entirely impossible for it to cause a magnification effect on the Sun, regardless of the Earth's shape.
-
Perhaps you could clarify, do you think there is refraction when looking close to the horizon?
Of course. It's just entirely impossible for it to cause a magnification effect on the Sun, regardless of the Earth's shape.
I was working towards understanding another issue, not strictly related to the apparent size.
The refraction of sight lines close to the horizon can't occur on a flat earth. ( Excepting unusual ducting and temperature gradient effects )
The refraction of horizontal rays requires the curvature of the earth for the light path to go through air of different density.
The flat earth answer I imagine is going to be along the lines of the sun is not on the horizon, but somewhat elevated, so the sight line is not horizontal, and angled through layers of different density and therefore can be refracted downwards. Which would have the effect of making the sun appear higher in the sky, not lower. So on a flat earth it's the wrong way around.
-
So, for clarity, you do agree that the issue mentioned in the OP would not be caused by refraction under the Round Earth model?
-
So, for clarity, you do agree that the issue mentioned in the OP would not be caused by refraction under the Round Earth model?
From what I've read, the general consensus is that it's an optical illusion, the refraction doesn't make it bigger under normal circumstances, but it does allow you to see the sun when it's slightly below the horizon.
I was hoping you would address the flat earth refraction question.
-
Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".
Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?
-
Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".
Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?
I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.
-
Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".
Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?
No.
Let me repeat, the suns rays are refracted by the earth's curvature when the sun is close to the horizon, this can cause the sun to appear distorted and magnified, this effect cannot happen on a flat earth.
I thought you already partially agreed with me when you said.
Of course. It's just entirely impossible for it to cause a magnification effect on the Sun, regardless of the Earth's shape.
Were you wrong when you suggested the sun was shrinking, just a yes or no will suffice.
Very curious. How, exactly, do you propose that refraction is responsible for this apparent shrinking of the sun? Generally, the agreement among mainstream RE'ers appears to be that refraction can only explain the apparent anomalous displacement of the sun, and some of the observable turbulence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
emphasis added.
-
Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".
Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?
I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.
Amazing input.
-
Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".
Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?
I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.
Amazing input.
I thought it was probably low content and irrelevant, and then I realized he was probably referring to those newly arrived flat earth youtube bunnies. The ones that think the sun is 4-5 times larger at sunset, and things getting bigger as they move away due to perspective.
Still waiting to see if anyone has picked up the point I'm making about the observed refraction of sight lines close to the horizon, not being possible on a flat earth, but always occurs on a globe earth.
-
Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".
Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?
I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.
Amazing input.
I thought it was probably low content and irrelevant, and then I realized he was probably referring to those newly arrived flat earth youtube bunnies. The ones that think the sun is 4-5 times larger at sunset, and things getting bigger as they move away due to perspective.
Still waiting to see if anyone has picked up the point I'm making about the observed refraction of sight lines close to the horizon, not being possible on a flat earth, but always occurs on a globe earth.
Not sure how long you've been here but you can't fight this crazy. Math and science beyond the scope of addition, let alone substantial evidence is disregarded as fantasy
-
Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".
Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?
I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.
Amazing input.
I thought it was probably low content and irrelevant, and then I realized he was probably referring to those newly arrived flat earth youtube bunnies. The ones that think the sun is 4-5 times larger at sunset, and things getting bigger as they move away due to perspective.
Still waiting to see if anyone has picked up the point I'm making about the observed refraction of sight lines close to the horizon, not being possible on a flat earth, but always occurs on a globe earth.
Not sure how long you've been here but you can't fight this crazy. Math and science beyond the scope of addition, let alone substantial evidence is disregarded as fantasy
There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.
I'll also add that the "upper fora" are more moderated than the more casual fora. Low content posting such as this isn't allowed. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting.
-
Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".
Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?
I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.
Amazing input.
I thought it was probably low content and irrelevant, and then I realized he was probably referring to those newly arrived flat earth youtube bunnies. The ones that think the sun is 4-5 times larger at sunset, and things getting bigger as they move away due to perspective.
Still waiting to see if anyone has picked up the point I'm making about the observed refraction of sight lines close to the horizon, not being possible on a flat earth, but always occurs on a globe earth.
Not sure how long you've been here but you can't fight this crazy. Math and science beyond the scope of addition, let alone substantial evidence is disregarded as fantasy
There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.
I'll also add, that the "upper fora" are more moderated than the more casual fora. Low content posting such as this isn't allowed. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting.
No sweat. However, you've commented on my posts in the past, posts where I've been much more dedicated and involved, especially on the fact side. But even when you can prove that the math is faulty, FEers tend to write you off as a shill or just say you have kindergarten level of knowledge. Even when you prove and show off practical skills, you claim I lie.
It gets tiresome, it resembles the rationality of a child. FEers are probably the least open community of them all
-
Well, it is the Flat Earth Society. The premise going in is that the earth is flat. Most of the regulars here like to engage it actual discussion, and you won't see them calling anyone a shill. However, there have been multiple FE communities that have converged here, so there's personalities of all kinds, and that's fine. The moderators/admins here look to keep the discussion open, however there's only a few of us in comparison to the hundreds of RErs who come in demanding we provide them some proof they think they're obligated to from us. We have laid things out very well, but answering the same questions over and over gets old. I'm all for open discussion, but do grow weary of trolls and people who think they're a lot smarter than they really are. No one forces anyone to come here and post, and we don't owe anything to anyone.
-
If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual? Are we 4-5 times closer at those times? This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is. Use your eyes non believers.
I've never seen it appear 4-5 times larger. I've seen it appear slightly larger at sunset during dusty or smokey conditions, but during normal clear conditions it appears the same size. Do you have any examples of it appearing that big?
-
[There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.
I'm interested in learning more about this advanced maths that can produce refraction of sight lines close to the horizon on a flat earth.
I assert that it's not possible. For light paths to refract there needs to be a change in refractive index, which requires the sight line to traverse a change in air density. The standard adiabatic lapse rate on a curved earth means the density varies with altitude, that change in refractive index combined with the earth's curvature, causes sight lines to be refracted downwards. If the sight lines are across water, then a temperature gradient of 0.11 degrees C per meter can refract sight lines downwards sufficiently to match the earth's curvature. Again not possible on a flat earth.
While a flat earth may have the same lapse rate, it lacks the curvature for the sight lines to be refracted.
-
[There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.
I'm interested in learning more about this advanced maths that can produce refraction of sight lines close to the horizon on a flat earth.
I assert that it's not possible. For light paths to refract there needs to be a change in refractive index, which requires the sight line to traverse a change in air density. The standard adiabatic lapse rate on a curved earth means the density varies with altitude, that change in refractive index combined with the earth's curvature, causes sight lines to be refracted downwards. If the sight lines are across water, then a temperature gradient of 0.11 degrees C per meter can refract sight lines downwards sufficiently to match the earth's curvature. Again not possible on a flat earth.
While a flat earth may have the same lapse rate, it lacks the curvature for the sight lines to be refracted.
The bending of light is not exactly a new concept. Here is a sample from an old member on the "old" site:
Success! I have derived an equation for the path of light from the north star in the north south direction that exhibits the above assumptions.
y(x) = h - x Cot[r/h] - (x^2 (3 h - 2 r Cot[r/h] - r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^2 - (x^3 (-2 h + r Cot[r/h] + r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^3
y is the height of the light beam as a function of x, the distance from the north pole. h is the height of the Sun. r is distance of a ground observer of the light beam from the north pole. R is the distance from the equator to the north pole.
This is a cubic equation. Further degrees of polynomials could be used up to an infinite Taylor series, but they would require more unknown parameters. Perhaps a theory for cause of bendy light could provide values for these unknown parameters. Quadratic and lower polynomials are unable to satisfy the assumptions.
-
[There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.
I'm interested in learning more about this advanced maths that can produce refraction of sight lines close to the horizon on a flat earth.
I assert that it's not possible. For light paths to refract there needs to be a change in refractive index, which requires the sight line to traverse a change in air density. The standard adiabatic lapse rate on a curved earth means the density varies with altitude, that change in refractive index combined with the earth's curvature, causes sight lines to be refracted downwards. If the sight lines are across water, then a temperature gradient of 0.11 degrees C per meter can refract sight lines downwards sufficiently to match the earth's curvature. Again not possible on a flat earth.
While a flat earth may have the same lapse rate, it lacks the curvature for the sight lines to be refracted.
The bending of light is not exactly a new concept. Here is a sample from an old member on the "old" site:
Success! I have derived an equation for the path of light from the north star in the north south direction that exhibits the above assumptions.
y(x) = h - x Cot[r/h] - (x^2 (3 h - 2 r Cot[r/h] - r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^2 - (x^3 (-2 h + r Cot[r/h] + r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^3
y is the height of the light beam as a function of x, the distance from the north pole. h is the height of the Sun. r is distance of a ground observer of the light beam from the north pole. R is the distance from the equator to the north pole.
This is a cubic equation. Further degrees of polynomials could be used up to an infinite Taylor series, but they would require more unknown parameters. Perhaps a theory for cause of bendy light could provide values for these unknown parameters. Quadratic and lower polynomials are unable to satisfy the assumptions.
Thanks for that, I was half expecting a bendy light solution, is there a theory for what is causing the light to bend.
-
I plotted that equation, and it shows light paths being bent away from the earth, asymptotically towards Polaris. So that from the North Pole you would see nothing at all since all the light is being bent away. This is not what we observe at the north pole.
I also read the original thread here.. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.0#.Vps1r6iUdGE
First, the mechanism proposed is the EA Electromagnetic Accelerator, and second, Euclid's formula is purely a empirical derivation.
The round earth explanation of the observed refraction is simpler and easily verified from multiple sources.
-
....Crickets.....
-
....Crickets.....
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. What is it you want? The only question within your last double post was regarding the mechanism behind the UA and bending light. The simple answer for that is dark energy. The more complicated answer is that we still do not know.
-
....Crickets.....
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. What is it you want? The only question within your last double post was regarding the mechanism behind the UA and bending light. The simple answer for that is dark energy. The more complicated answer is that we still do not know.
My apologies, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what is the benchmark for "low content" Is it the number of words, the implied meaning, the depth of the question or something else.
.... crickets ... is full of meaning, and depth, but lacking in number of words.
I'll take the "We don't know" as the definitive answer, I suspect Sandokhan might have a different view.
-
....Crickets.....
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. What is it you want? The only question within your last double post was regarding the mechanism behind the UA and bending light. The simple answer for that is dark energy. The more complicated answer is that we still do not know.
My apologies, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what is the benchmark for "low content" Is it the number of words, the implied meaning, the depth of the question or something else.
.... crickets ... is full of meaning, and depth, but lacking in number of words.
I'll take the "We don't know" as the definitive answer, I suspect Sandokhan might have a different view.
Low-content is a post that adds nothing to the conversation, which your comment was an example of.
Dark energy is ultimately the answer. Sandokhan can chime in if he wants to, but he does not to subscribe to the electromagnetic accelerator. I am sure he will be happy to teach you about the aether and telluric currents.
-
If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual? Are we 4-5 times closer at those times? This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is. Use your eyes non believers.
I know I am very late on replying to the OP, but so many answers seem to be getting nowhere. My simple answer is that I have never seen the sun 4 to 5 times larger at sunset.
I have seen it appear a little larger when very close to the horizon, but that is a simple optical illusion and any measurements have shown no change.
This is the well known "Ponzo Illusion", see http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/exmoon.htm (http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/exmoon.htm), though this is for the moon.
Also the sun is often quite distorted and sometimes "bloated" when just on the horizon, simply due to diffraction in heated air near the earth's surface.
So, what about some evidence that it really is 4 to 5 times larger before any further ideas are hatched on either side.