I don't quite follow what you're saying. But the overwhelmingly condescending tone is a non starter if you want anyone to want to hear what you have to say.We get sunsets at a very predictable times, with the sun certainly appearing to set behind the horizon.
If your statement is that the sun should light up the entire earth at once, which is pretty much all I could deduce from that overly long, insulting diatribe, then you are wrong. Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset.
If I missed your point, then please try to be more concise and less rude. Thanks.
I don't quite follow what you're saying. But the overwhelmingly condescending tone is a non starter if you want anyone to want to hear what you have to say.We get sunsets at a very predictable times, with the sun certainly appearing to set behind the horizon.
If your statement is that the sun should light up the entire earth at once, which is pretty much all I could deduce from that overly long, insulting diatribe, then you are wrong. Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset.
If I missed your point, then please try to be more concise and less rude. Thanks.
Please explain how you explanation "Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset" can possibly explain that. True it does explain the "reds and purples in the sky at sunset".
You claim "Light decays"! No, light travelling through a vacuum does not decay!
Travelling through a clear atmosphere the limit is about 340 km - the Rayleigh Limit due to scattering from Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules. The actual limit varies from only a few kilometres up to this figure, depending on the clarity of the air.
With the Flat Earth model at sunset the sun is (supposedly) around 5000 km high and on the equator at an equinox around 14,400 km away (horizontally). With this geometry, and the effective top of the atmosphere is at about 10 km high.
With these distances the effective path length for sunlight at sunset is only about 30 km! Unless you come up with some very "bendy light".
And while we are at it, the sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky, yet its distance from the observer varies from 5,000 km when overhead to roughly 15,000 km at sunset - why does perspective cause it to reduce it size to less than 1/3 the size it is when overhead? The explanation we are given is "atmospheric magnification" - sure, must be a big magnifying glass up there!
That model of the sun has so holes it it's a wonder all the "phlogiston[1]" doesn't leak out.
[1] Stop laughing! Someone DID suggest that (not on this site though).
We get sunsets at a very predictable times, with the sun certainly appearing to set behind the horizon.
Please explain how you explanation "Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset" can possibly explain that. True it does explain the "reds and purples in the sky at sunset".
You claim "Light decays"! No, light travelling through a vacuum does not decay!
Travelling through a clear atmosphere the limit is about 340 km - the Rayleigh Limit due to scattering from Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules. The actual limit varies from only a few kilometres up to this figure, depending on the clarity of the air.
With the Flat Earth model at sunset the sun is (supposedly) around 5000 km high and on the equator at an equinox around 14,400 km away (horizontally). With this geometry, and the effective top of the atmosphere is at about 10 km high.
With these distances the effective path length for sunlight at sunset is only about 30 km! Unless you come up with some very "bendy light".
And while we are at it, the sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky, yet its distance from the observer varies from 5,000 km when overhead to roughly 15,000 km at sunset - why does perspective cause it to reduce it size to less than 1/3 the size it is when overhead? The explanation we are given is "atmospheric magnification" - sure, must be a big magnifying glass up there!
That model of the sun has so holes it it's a wonder all the "phlogiston[1]" doesn't leak out.
[1] Stop laughing! Someone DID suggest that (not on this site though).
Why do you feel an incessant need to speak for others? My post was clearly intended for the OP, as an invitation to elaborate his point of view, with less arrogance and more precision.
If you think the Sun looks the same at noon as it does prior to sunset, then you are lying to yourself. To me, when I see it at sunset, it clearly looks blurrier, hazier, with a large amount of flare going on.
Quick question: When you see an airplane going away into the distance, does it or does it not sink into the horizon, regardless of altitude?
We get sunsets at a very predictable times, with the sun certainly appearing to set behind the horizon.
Please explain how you explanation "Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset" can possibly explain that. True it does explain the "reds and purples in the sky at sunset".
You claim "Light decays"! No, light travelling through a vacuum does not decay!
Travelling through a clear atmosphere the limit is about 340 km - the Rayleigh Limit due to scattering from Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules. The actual limit varies from only a few kilometres up to this figure, depending on the clarity of the air.
With the Flat Earth model at sunset the sun is (supposedly) around 5000 km high and on the equator at an equinox around 14,400 km away (horizontally). With this geometry, and the effective top of the atmosphere is at about 10 km high.
With these distances the effective path length for sunlight at sunset is only about 30 km! Unless you come up with some very "bendy light".
And while we are at it, the sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky, yet its distance from the observer varies from 5,000 km when overhead to roughly 15,000 km at sunset - why does perspective cause it to reduce it size to less than 1/3 the size it is when overhead? The explanation we are given is "atmospheric magnification" - sure, must be a big magnifying glass up there!
That model of the sun has so holes it it's a wonder all the "phlogiston[1]" doesn't leak out.
[1] Stop laughing! Someone DID suggest that (not on this site though).
Why do you feel an incessant need to speak for others? My post was clearly intended for the OP, as an invitation to elaborate his point of view, with less arrogance and more precision.
If you think the Sun looks the same at noon as it does prior to sunset, then you are lying to yourself. To me, when I see it at sunset, it clearly looks blurrier, hazier, with a large amount of flare going on.
Quick question: When you see an airplane going away into the distance, does it or does it not sink into the horizon, regardless of altitude?The moon does essentially the same thing and is easier to observe because it is not so glaringly bright. So, please explain in words simple enough for an apparent dunder-head like me to understand just how this is possible!
- I did not say "the Sun looks the same at noon as it does prior to sunset", I said "sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky". So I am NOT lying to myself or anyone else.
Of course the sun looks redder and sometimes distorted and shimmery at sunset!
But, it is absolutely true that (apart from a bit of distortion sunrise and sunset) the sun does stay the SAME SIZE as it moves across the sku!- Yes, an aeroplane dose sink towards the horizon, it DOES NOT appear to sink BELOW the horizon.
And their is a massive difference here the plane maybe at 10,000 m altitude and if the air is perfectly clear be visible (would need a telescope!) for up to hundreds of kilometres. At this distance it would be within a couple of degrees of the horizon.
On the other hand, the FE sun is supposedly at 5,000 km altitude, and at sunset would be roughly (varies a lot depending on season and location) 14,400 km away. At this distance is is still at an elevation from the horizon of about 19°. BIG, BIG difference.
So, YOU tell me how this magic FE sun of YOURS ever could appear to SET BEHIND THE HORIZON or even sink into the horizon?(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/moonset_zpsn2izwsaq.jpg)E&OE(xpected)
Moonset
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/moonset_zpsn2izwsaq.jpg)
Quote(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/moonset_zpsn2izwsaq.jpg)
Pretty sure that photo is edited. The reflection of the moon shouldn't be brighter than the moon itself. The moon shouldn't have a white ring around the edge like that either. Conclusion: the moon was superimposed there by a non-professional, and doesn't belong in this image at all. Second conclusion: the sun should be up even with the main cloud frill. That's where the crepuscular rays point, right in the middle of the artificially darkened area.
Are you saying that it's impossible for the moon to dip down below the horizon?
Pretty sure that photo is edited. The reflection of the moon shouldn't be brighter than the moon itself. The moon shouldn't have a white ring around the edge like that either. Conclusion: the moon was superimposed there by a non-professional, and doesn't belong in this image at all. Second conclusion: the sun should be up even with the main cloud frill. That's where the crepuscular rays point, right in the middle of the artificially darkened area. I put that photo there, but it's provenance is ??????? (unknown). There are at least 151 references easily accessible. The one that looks the most likely origin (I think) says (in Swedish) "What if I had been so good at taking photos that I managed to take this picture for example. Now I'm not the first to admit bluntly that it is stolen . . . . . " But it's still a nice picture. | Quote (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/moonset_zpsn2izwsaq.jpg) |
I put that photo there, but it's provenance is ??????? (unknown). There are at least 151 references easily accessible. The one that looks the most likely origin (I think) says (in Swedish) "What if I had been so good at taking photos that I managed to take this picture for example. Now I'm not the first to admit bluntly that it is stolen . . . . . "
But it's still a nice picture.
I put that photo there, but it's provenance is ??????? (unknown). There are at least 151 references easily accessible. The one that looks the most likely origin (I think) says (in Swedish) "What if I had been so good at taking photos that I managed to take this picture for example. Now I'm not the first to admit bluntly that it is stolen . . . . . " | Quote (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/moonset_zpsn2izwsaq.jpg) |
OP needs to read the FAQ and parts of the wiki. Rabinoz needs to stop abusing the table BBCode. What's new?So, I sttutter occasionally but TFES still can't work out how the sun rises and sets!
How do you explain day/night cycles and seasons?It unequivocally says The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves.
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves.
The sun shines light from all directions on its surface. It's not a lamp. It's light is limited in its duration across the earth's surface because of the not-perfectly-transparent atmosphere, and its decent(sic?) into the surface is an illusion of perspective.This explanation can never explain the sharp transition we see as the sun rises and sets! On top of that, before sunrise and after sunset we often see sunlight shining on the underside of clouds near the horizon!
The sun and moon at a level of about 3000 miles above the earth are not within the atmosphere of the earth, and so the light between those two objects is unimpeded.
OP needs to read the FAQ and parts of the wiki. Rabinoz needs to stop abusing the table BBCode. What's new?
SexWarrior needs to stop being such an internet warrior and start having sex. What's new?If you're offering... your place or mine? 8) 8) 8) 8)
SexWarrior needs to stop being such an internet warrior and start having sex. What's new?If you're offering... your place or mine? 8) 8) 8) 8)
I don't quite follow what you're saying. But the overwhelmingly condescending tone is a non starter if you want anyone to want to hear what you have to say.
If your statement is that the sun should light up the entire earth at once, which is pretty much all I could deduce from that overly long, insulting diatribe, then you are wrong. Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset.
If I missed your point, then please try to be more concise and less rude. Thanks.
My challenge is to argue this, but here's the deal! Before you can argue it, you HAVE to try the experiment above, and share your results.I am having trouble re-creating the experiment in the dimensions of the earth. Any ideas how to do that?
You are the 1 arguing with flat earthers. Tell 10 of your friends "I argue with flat-earthers on the internet." and share your results.
Then by all means argue.
My challenge is to argue this, but here's the deal! Before you can argue it, you HAVE to try the experiment above, and share your results.I am having trouble re-creating the experiment in the dimensions of the earth. Any ideas how to do that?You are the 1 arguing with flat earthers. Tell 10 of your friends "I argue with flat-earthers on the internet." and share your results.
Then by all means argue.
Tell 10 of your friends "I argue with flat-earthers on the internet." and share your results.
Fuck the flat earthers
You know what they say "When arguing with an idiot, any outside observe can't tell which is the idiot"
Most online flat Earthers i know are American (i can tell by their usage of miles), they have freedom of speech don't they?
God these guys are retarded
The Flat Earth society are meant to be a joke, no one there actually believes the Earth is flat
I personally suspect that they don't actually honestly believe that the Earth is flat... they are just claiming this in order to be kooky and annoy people, because they like attention.
Have they ever seen mountain, canyons and something like that?
Of course the Earth is round, they must be abnormal then.
I would leave them be and let Darwinism sort things out
ok
Then by all means argue.You are the 1 arguing with flat earthers. Tell 10 of your friends "I argue with flat-earthers on the internet." and share your results.
Pictures are not a valid form of evidence, folks. Pictures can be (and always are) doctored.
We get sunsets at a very predictable times, with the sun certainly appearing to set behind the horizon.
Please explain how you explanation "Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset" can possibly explain that. True it does explain the "reds and purples in the sky at sunset".
You claim "Light decays"! No, light travelling through a vacuum does not decay!
Travelling through a clear atmosphere the limit is about 340 km - the Rayleigh Limit due to scattering from Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules. The actual limit varies from only a few kilometres up to this figure, depending on the clarity of the air.
With the Flat Earth model at sunset the sun is (supposedly) around 5000 km high and on the equator at an equinox around 14,400 km away (horizontally). With this geometry, and the effective top of the atmosphere is at about 10 km high.
With these distances the effective path length for sunlight at sunset is only about 30 km! Unless you come up with some very "bendy light".
And while we are at it, the sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky, yet its distance from the observer varies from 5,000 km when overhead to roughly 15,000 km at sunset - why does perspective cause it to reduce it size to less than 1/3 the size it is when overhead? The explanation we are given is "atmospheric magnification" - sure, must be a big magnifying glass up there!
That model of the sun has so holes it it's a wonder all the "phlogiston[1]" doesn't leak out.
[1] Stop laughing! Someone DID suggest that (not on this site though).
Why do you feel an incessant need to speak for others? My post was clearly intended for the OP, as an invitation to elaborate his point of view, with less arrogance and more precision.
If you think the Sun looks the same at noon as it does prior to sunset, then you are lying to yourself. To me, when I see it at sunset, it clearly looks blurrier, hazier, with a large amount of flare going on.
Quick question: When you see an airplane going away into the distance, does it or does it not sink into the horizon, regardless of altitude?The moon does essentially the same thing and is easier to observe because it is not so glaringly bright. So, please explain in words simple enough for an apparent dunder-head like me to understand just how this is possible!
- I did not say "the Sun looks the same at noon as it does prior to sunset", I said "sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky". So I am NOT lying to myself or anyone else.
Of course the sun looks redder and sometimes distorted and shimmery at sunset!
But, it is absolutely true that (apart from a bit of distortion sunrise and sunset) the sun does stay the SAME SIZE as it moves across the sku!- Yes, an aeroplane dose sink towards the horizon, it DOES NOT appear to sink BELOW the horizon.
And their is a massive difference here the plane maybe at 10,000 m altitude and if the air is perfectly clear be visible (would need a telescope!) for up to hundreds of kilometres. At this distance it would be within a couple of degrees of the horizon.
On the other hand, the FE sun is supposedly at 5,000 km altitude, and at sunset would be roughly (varies a lot depending on season and location) 14,400 km away. At this distance is is still at an elevation from the horizon of about 19°. BIG, BIG difference.
So, YOU tell me how this magic FE sun of YOURS ever could appear to SET BEHIND THE HORIZON or even sink into the horizon?(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/moonset_zpsn2izwsaq.jpg)E&OE(xpected)
Moonset