The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TitanicShark on May 26, 2017, 01:03:07 PM
-
If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.
-
If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.
Again - I hate to be an FE "apologist" - but the sun appears to move across the sky in RE theory too...very slowly...but at sunset and sunrise, especially near the equator - you can easily see the sun moving. The motion of the FE sun is claimed to produce identical motion across the sky as we see in the real world...at identical speeds.
For one specific spot on the Earth's surface, there is indeed a route that both FE Sun and FE Moon might take to mimic the RE experience.
The HUGE problem is that no possible set of FE sun/moon/star/planet motions can explain the positions of those bodies at multiple locations simultaneously.
That may not have been a problem in the 1800's and 1900's - but here in 2017, we have instant communications around the world - with web-cams accessible in many cities. This makes it MUCH harder for FE'ers to explain the motions of their sun and moon.
At this point, they usually appeal to "refraction" and various other distortions of the path of light from a straight line.
This is clearly needed because without that, there can be no sunrises and sunsets in Europe while it's midday in China or the USA.
If the FE'ers carefully explained how all of this works - you could tear their explanation down instantly - but they remain incredibly vague on the details...so we're back to nailing Jello to the ceiling.
-
If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.
Again - I hate to be an FE "apologist" - but the sun appears to move across the sky in RE theory too...very slowly...but at sunset and sunrise, especially near the equator - you can easily see the sun moving. The motion of the FE sun is claimed to produce identical motion across the sky as we see in the real world...at identical speeds.
For one specific spot on the Earth's surface, there is indeed a route that both FE Sun and FE Moon might take to mimic the RE experience.
The HUGE problem is that no possible set of FE sun/moon/star/planet motions can explain the positions of those bodies at multiple locations simultaneously.
That may not have been a problem in the 1800's and 1900's - but here in 2017, we have instant communications around the world - with web-cams accessible in many cities. This makes it MUCH harder for FE'ers to explain the motions of their sun and moon.
At this point, they usually appeal to "refraction" and various other distortions of the path of light from a straight line.
This is clearly needed because without that, there can be no sunrises and sunsets in Europe while it's midday in China or the USA.
If the FE'ers carefully explained how all of this works - you could tear their explanation down instantly - but they remain incredibly vague on the details...so we're back to nailing Jello to the ceiling.
What I am saying is it would be much easier to see the Sun moving
-
No - not if it were 30 miles across and 3000 miles away and moving at a speed that made it *look* just like the RE sun.
At a single location - the FE claims for their sun looking convincingly like the RE sun - are plausible.
It's not until you start to look at it from multiple places in the world - the FE sun can't be in multiple places at once - hence their theories start to fall apart.
Debunking FE isn't as easy as it first seems. FE proponents have been thinking hard about this stuff - and fending off all kinds of *simple* objections - for at least 200 years.
However, as the modern world reveals more and more evidence - and we can actually CHECK what happens in places like Australia in realtime - the FE theories start to get more and more holes.
-
(http://dadmansabode.com/F/FES/wkFES-001.jpg)
(http://dadmansabode.com/F/FES/FES-003hm.jpg) (http://www.space.com/17733-earth-sun-distance-astronomical-unit.html)
I'm STILL waiting for a FErs answer to this question ............ w a i t i n g (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6251.msg117326#msg117326)
-
If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.
If we assume that the distances between latitudes are the same in both theories (about 111 km) then it is easy to calculate. The tropic of cancer, over which the sun is on summer solstice, is 7396 km from the north pole. The tropic of capricorn, over which the sun is on the winter solstice, is 12604 km from the north pole.
So, the tropic of cancer should have a length of 2π*7396 km = 46470 km, and the tropic of capricorn 2π*12604 km = 79193 km.
In either case, a full round takes 24 h, so the speeds should be 1936 km/h and 3300 km/h respectively (or 1203 mph and 2051 mph respectively). These are the minimum and the maximum: between the solstices it is then something between these.
-
A full round takes 24 hours ON AVERAGE. On only four days a year will the sun's full circuit across the sky take exactly 24 hours, the rest of the year the sun 'moves' across the sky in less than 24 hours or more than 24 hours.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Tijdvereffening-equation_of_time-en.jpg)
That's important to include in speed calculations. It means that the sun does not smoothly accelerate from the slowest Tropic of Cancer speed up to the fastest Tropic of Capricorn speed while spiralling outward/southward, and then smoothly decelerate back down to the slowest Tropic of Cancer speed as in spirals inward/northward. I'm not going to try and create the graph on my iPad, but once I'm back at my computer I will create a spreadsheet to illustrate the speed and acceleration curves for a flat earth's sun.
-
A full round takes 24 hours ON AVERAGE. On only four days a year will the sun's full circuit across the sky take exactly 24 hours, the rest of the year the sun 'moves' across the sky in less than 24 hours or more than 24 hours.
Ok, thanks.
So the time difference from 24 hours is between -17 and +14 minutes, right? Then the maximum time for one round is 24h14' = 1454 minutes and the minimum 23h43' = 1423 minutes.
But the relation between these is only 1454/1423 = 1.02, which doesn't quite explain my calculations where it is more like 1.7.
-
(http://dadmansabode.com/F/FES/wkFES-001.jpg)
(http://dadmansabode.com/F/FES/FES-003hm.jpg) (http://www.space.com/17733-earth-sun-distance-astronomical-unit.html)
I'm STILL waiting for a FErs answer to this question ............ w a i t i n g (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6251.msg117326#msg117326)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
No, that's not how perspective works.
While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity. Of course, the nearer the lines are to each other, the less distance is required to make them seem to converge. But for 3000 miles, it requires a lot, lot more than 6000 miles. A lot more than what you claim to be the size of the earth. A distance that, if true, would affect the apparent size of the sun as well. (Of course 6000 miles should affect that as well, but I'm not going to that here. The sun should shrink to a dot before it sets.)
What that video actually claims is that nothing, that is over 6000 miles away, can be seen above the horizon, since at that distance every horizontal line converges there. Which makes one ask, where are the stars that can be seen after the sunset, and which seem to be everywhere around the sky.
The video uses a picture of wall panels, but in that picture those panels do not have a converging point until lines are drawn over them. That is understandable, since the maker of the video obviously didn't find an infinitely long wall. As you look closer on the wall, you see how the horizontal panels are being supported by vertical beams: and as you look further and further away, the apparent distances between these vertical beams become smaller and smaller: very unlike the sun on its path down, marked with green spots which seem to be placed pretty evenly.
-
While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.
That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.
The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.
-
While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.
That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.
The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.
Can you show a real world example where parallel rail tracks converge in reality and not just the optical illusion that you sadly cling to as a necessary physical reality? If you can show me a photo from 3 feet away from the convergence point I will believe in a FE.
-
While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.
That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.
But you surely know that the rails of a railway track actually are parallel. That they seem to not be is only an illusion. Of course, they are closer to each other than 3000 miles to begin with, and that's why they seem to converge relatively sooner than the claimed path of the sun and the horizon.
The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.
The problem with the video is that it tries to present a model of a 3-dimensional universe by a 2-dimensional picture. It is a mathematic inevitability that every such model is predestined to fail; some just fail more than others.
Maybe you could add the third dimension, time: look at the railway when there is a train going towards the horizon on it. While the rails seem to come closer and closer to each other, and the train seems to become smaller and smaller, the train also seems to become slower and slower. If the railway really reaches the horizon and the view is unobstructed, then, just a little before the train finally disappears, it should look like a tiny dot and not moving at all.
And this is what should also happen to the sun on its way towards the "vanishing point": while moving on its way towards the horizon, it should seem to become both smaller and slower, before disappearing.
-
Tom and the video narrator continue to make the age old mistake typical of the flat earth mind: ignoring how BIG things are! Two parallel rows of tulips are a certain distance apart, let's call that distance d. They visually appear to converge at a distance, let's call that x. How far away is x in terms of d? Is it 1000d? 100d? Certainly more than 10d, from looking at the photo. Do the same for the "wall of slats" the video narrator is so proud of. Pick any pair of adjacent slats and you will see they are still visually distinct at the far end of the frame, probably 20 or 30 slat-widths away. Do the same for railroad tracks. Again, the convergence point is a good bit more than 10d away. Do it again for the sides of a road, for containers on a cargo ship, for whatever parallel lines you like. Always the convergence is a very large multiple of d away. Now take the flat earth's sun. With a d of a mere 3000 miles up, it can never be more than about FIVE times that far away at MIDNIGHT, and therefore must be closer than 5d at sunrise and sunset. But we are expected to believe that the same rules of perspective that keep tulips, railroads, and everything else visually distinct beyond 10d, when applied to the flat earth's sun these rules can somehow magically have different results at less than 5d?
Another thing every flat earther conveniently ignores when using these "perspective pictures" to try and prove something: as these parallel things get closer to the visual convergence point, they get smaller. The sun never does that. Ever. The distance from observer to sun does change on a round earth, but the percentage of the overall distance is too small for the difference to be noticeable by eye. The distance to the flat earth's sun should more than double between noon and sunset, but somehow it stays visually exactly the same size?
-
Tom and the video narrator continue to make the age old mistake typical of the flat earth mind: ignoring how BIG things are! Two parallel rows of tulips are a certain distance apart, let's call that distance d. They visually appear to converge at a distance, let's call that x. How far away is x in terms of d? Is it 1000d? 100d? Certainly more than 10d, from looking at the photo. Do the same for the "wall of slats" the video narrator is so proud of. Pick any pair of adjacent slats and you will see they are still visually distinct at the far end of the frame, probably 20 or 30 slat-widths away. Do the same for railroad tracks. Again, the convergence point is a good bit more than 10d away. Do it again for the sides of a road, for containers on a cargo ship, for whatever parallel lines you like. Always the convergence is a very large multiple of d away. Now take the flat earth's sun. With a d of a mere 3000 miles up, it can never be more than about FIVE times that far away at MIDNIGHT, and therefore must be closer than 5d at sunrise and sunset. But we are expected to believe that the same rules of perspective that keep tulips, railroads, and everything else visually distinct beyond 10d, when applied to the flat earth's sun these rules can somehow magically have different results at less than 5d?
Another thing every flat earther conveniently ignores when using these "perspective pictures" to try and prove something: as these parallel things get closer to the visual convergence point, they get smaller. The sun never does that. Ever. The distance from observer to sun does change on a round earth, but the percentage of the overall distance is too small for the difference to be noticeable by eye. The distance to the flat earth's sun should more than double between noon and sunset, but somehow it stays visually exactly the same size?
Hey! You're gonna start confusing us if you go on much longer about things like d and x.
-
While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.
That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.
The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.
All this ignore the fact that the sun maintains a fixed relative size. If perspective was the cause of a sun sut the sun would look tiny as it set.
-
While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.
That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.
The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.
Can you show a real world example where parallel rail tracks converge in reality and not just the optical illusion that you sadly cling to as a necessary physical reality? If you can show me a photo from 3 feet away from the convergence point I will believe in a FE.
I didn't say it was physical reality. The two lines in a rail road perspective scene will just eventually appear to converge at a set point, since two lines pointed at each other must eventually meet. The sun set in FE is also an illusion. It is not a physical reality that the sun is intersecting with the earth. There is no contradiction there.
-
But you surely know that the rails of a railway track actually are parallel. That they seem to not be is only an illusion.
Let me stop you there. The sun setting in FET is also an illusion. The sun seems to set, like the railroad perspective lines seem to intersect.
-
While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.
That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.
The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.
All this ignore the fact that the sun maintains a fixed relative size. If perspective was the cause of a sun sut the sun would look tiny as it set.
This was discussed by Samuel Birley Rowbotham over 150 years ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Alternatively, you may visit the sun magnification article (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) in our Wiki which we have long provided for people with queries on this subject, and basically provides the same explanation as is in Earth Not a Globe.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
I can see what the author of this video is saying - but it's not correct at all...and he cheated. The error is a common rookie mistake that people new to computer graphics make.
Here is the 100% classic railroad track perspective:
(https://renaissancegames.us/RRtracks2.png)
The red lines converge at infinity.
But lets draw a line for each railroad tie...which we assume are pretty equally spaced in the real world:
(https://renaissancegames.us/RRtracks3.png)
And for clarity - let's just look at those red and green lines:
(https://renaissancegames.us/RRtracks1.png)
What you see is that not only do the two red lines get closer together - but so do the green ones.
What this means is that although the distant sun is being converged towards the horizon - each step of equal distance away from the eye takes it smaller and smaller increments towards the horizon.
So even though it's going to get closer to the horizon, it can NEVER get low enough to look like it's setting. Sorry - no way - that's a horrible misunderstanding of how perspective works. When we say "Parallel lines converge at infinity"...we truly mean "INFINITY" - not the horizon...and certainly not ~8,000 miles away.
But there is a much more serious problem with the "perspective" argument.
Look at the trees in our picture...don't they seem kinda *SMALLER* at the horizon than up close? Why! Yes they do!
So if the compression of size due to perspective can shrink the vertical position of the sun to the horizon - how come it doesn't ALSO make the sun shrink to a teeny-tiny dot when it sets?
You can't have it both ways. If visual perspective seems to shrink things the further they are from us (which it undoubtedly does) then why is the sun the same exact size on the horizon as it is at noon?
In RE, it's not a problem - the sun is always at the same distance (well, more or less) so it's size is the same no matter where it is in the sky.
So, sorry Flat Earthers - your video is bogus. BUSTED.
-
You can't have it both ways. If visual perspective seems to shrink things the further they are from us (which it undoubtedly does) then why is the sun the same exact size on the horizon as it is at noon?
In RE, it's not a problem - the sun is always at the same distance (well, more or less) so it's size is the same no matter where it is in the sky.
So, sorry Flat Earthers - your video is bogus. BUSTED.
This was discussed by Samuel Birley Rowbotham over 150 years ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Alternatively, you may visit the sun magnification article (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) in our Wiki which we have long provided for people with queries on this subject, and basically provides the same explanation as is in Earth Not a Globe.
-
That doesn't work...if these light ray distortion effects make the sun look bigger than it is, they'd also make the gap between the sun and the horizon look bigger too...or are you telling us that there are different kinds of light rays - those which are magnified by the atmosphere and those which are not?
Be careful how you answer this one because my next question will be about the magnification of the moon, airplanes and clouds close to the horizon...and the slightest mistake in your reply will produce a horrible inconsistency in your theory...and you can be quite sure I'll catch it!
-
This was discussed by Samuel Birley Rowbotham over 150 years ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Alternatively, you may visit the sun magnification article (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) in our Wiki which we have long provided for people with queries on this subject, and basically provides the same explanation as is in Earth Not a Globe.
In that article there is a picture that shows virtually the same thing as 3DGeek's railway:
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/4/4a/Streets_at_night.jpg/650px-Streets_at_night.jpg)
I don't know how many pairs of streetlamps there are, I lost count after 5, but absolutely more than 10. We can assume that they are somewhat evenly spaced.
Even though the streetlamps seem to be of equal size*, the distances between them seem to shrink, so much that after 5 we cannot tell one apart from the next. This is very much unlike from what is claimed to happen to the setting sun in the diagram – the diagram that has some neat spots, not only equally sized but also equally spaced, all the way down to the horizon.
And despite the fact that the streetlamps seem to come closer and closer to each other, they are still, at the end of the street, clearly above the street level. Not at the street level and surely not below. This is despite the fact that the length of the street is far, far greater when related to the height of a streetlamp, than the distance to the horizon when related to the claimed distance to the sun.
*) this seemingly equal size is due to lens flare, which could be corrected using certain filters when taking the picture.
-
I'd also like to point out a certain difference in the flat earth philosophy when regarding to the claimed magnification phenomenom.
The most common argument for a flat earth I ever hear (not only on this forum, there are several out there) is that it looks like so. And yes, it does. There have surely been a lot of ancient civilisations who believed in flat earth, and why not: from each of their perspectives, that has probably been a reasonable belief.
But I seriously doubt that any of them would have believed in a sun that circles endlessly above the earth. No. When they have seen how the sun seems to go behind the horizon, they have believed that that's what it really does. During the night it then moves beneath the earth (and whatever structure there is supporting us down there allows it to do so) to the other side. Or maybe the sun only lasts for one day, and the gods or whatever they believed in makes a new one for each day. But it surely doesn't stay above the earth forever: that would clearly be against their senses.
It is only this modern day theory (and I consider Rowbotham a "modern day" person in this context), that on the other hand says that we should trust our senses more than "unproven" theories and that the earth is flat, and simultaneously claims that the sun circles above the earth which it certainly doesn't seem to do. It labouriously makes up a theory about perspective and magnification in order to make it look possible, but still that seems to contradict anything we know about perspective and magnification in a closer-to-earth context. Making up a theory like this is really opposite to this entire philosophy.
Of course, this needs to be done. Unlike ancient civilisations, we know that the earth is large, something they had no idea about. We know about the existence of Europe, two Americas, Asia, Africa, Australia and so on, we probably have friends living in several of those, we surely know that the sun shines in different times in different places. This is when the reality tells us that our common sense is wrong. This is when we need to fabricate a new theory to make the reality fit in. And, frankly, some do this better than others.
-
That doesn't work...if these light ray distortion effects make the sun look bigger than it is, they'd also make the gap between the sun and the horizon look bigger too...or are you telling us that there are different kinds of light rays - those which are magnified by the atmosphere and those which are not?
Be careful how you answer this one because my next question will be about the magnification of the moon, airplanes and clouds close to the horizon...and the slightest mistake in your reply will produce a horrible inconsistency in your theory...and you can be quite sure I'll catch it!
If you read through the sun magnification article closely you will find that it says that only light sources of a certain intensity in the far field can catch onto the atmosphere and magnify. There is a highway scene with headlights that stay consistent in size as they go into the the distance next to red tail lights in the next lane over which are appropriately shrinking into the distance. The headlights are bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere and the tail lights in the adjacent lanes are not.
-
And despite the fact that the streetlamps seem to come closer and closer to each other, they are still, at the end of the street, clearly above the street level. Not at the street level and surely not below. This is despite the fact that the length of the street is far, far greater when related to the height of a streetlamp, than the distance to the horizon when related to the claimed distance to the sun.
The article is about the topic of the size consistency of the sun, not some other topic about how it can intersect with the horizon.
-
And despite the fact that the streetlamps seem to come closer and closer to each other, they are still, at the end of the street, clearly above the street level. Not at the street level and surely not below. This is despite the fact that the length of the street is far, far greater when related to the height of a streetlamp, than the distance to the horizon when related to the claimed distance to the sun.
The article is about the topic of the size consistency of the sun, not some other topic about how it can intersect with the horizon.
He said thinking they were unrelated.
-
You can't have it both ways. If visual perspective seems to shrink things the further they are from us (which it undoubtedly does) then why is the sun the same exact size on the horizon as it is at noon?
In RE, it's not a problem - the sun is always at the same distance (well, more or less) so it's size is the same no matter where it is in the sky.
So, sorry Flat Earthers - your video is bogus. BUSTED.
This was discussed by Samuel Birley Rowbotham over 150 years ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Alternatively, you may visit the sun magnification article (http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) in our Wiki which we have long provided for people with queries on this subject, and basically provides the same explanation as is in Earth Not a Globe.
"Written by Samuel Birley Rowbotham over 150 years ago.
Doesn't that tell you something ? LOL
Most of ENAG is bogus.
-
No. Newton wrote the Principia 350 years ago. It doesn't matter in the slightest how old the book is, only the content of the ideas. It just so happens that Rowbotham is a sloppy theorist and experimentalist as well.
-
No. Newton wrote the Principia 350 years ago. It doesn't matter in the slightest how old the book is, only the content of the ideas. It just so happens that Rowbotham is a sloppy theorist and experimentalist as well.
The point was that Rowbotmam's audiences over 150 years ago were mostly illiterate and they believed him.
People are a bit more literate today.
-
The article is about the topic of the size consistency of the sun, not some other topic about how it can intersect with the horizon.
First: then, the picture is not very good, because of the lens flare effect. (Of course, eliminating it with a proper filter would destroy the point of the whole picture anyway.)
Second: all the laws of nature must work all the time. "All the time" includes articles that don't particularly discuss just those laws.
The topic of this thread is "If the sun is close", and the question on whether or not the sun meets the horizon is an integral part of that topic.
I could add that this magnification theory seems to work quite strangely. First, the sun looks like its size doesn't change at all: it is claimed that this is because its apparent shrinking (due to perspective) and the magnification nullify each other. But then, when it seems to meet the horizon, it actually starts shrinking, but not evenly: it's like a chord starts cutting horizontal slices off the sun, bottom to top. But even at the moment when this chord coincides with the diameter – when the sun actually looks like a semi-circle – the long diameter of that semi-circle is still practically the same as anytime during the day, despite half of the sun having disappeared.
And then the sun shrinks even more, until the point when it finally disappears, and from that moment on the magnification phenomenom has completely ended.
The time interval during which the sun is reduced from a full circle to nothing is not very long: few minutes, depending on the latitude. Before those few minutes, the magnification works perfectly. After those few minutes, it doesn't work at all. Not even the best telescopes cannot bring the sun back to sight.
-
The article is about the topic of the size consistency of the sun, not some other topic about how it can intersect with the horizon.
First: then, the picture is not very good, because of the lens flare effect. (Of course, eliminating it with a proper filter would destroy the point of the whole picture anyway.)
Second: all the laws of nature must work all the time. "All the time" includes articles that don't particularly discuss just those laws.
The topic of this thread is "If the sun is close", and the question on whether or not the sun meets the horizon is an integral part of that topic.
I could add that this magnification theory seems to work quite strangely. First, the sun looks like its size doesn't change at all: it is claimed that this is because its apparent shrinking (due to perspective) and the magnification nullify each other. But then, when it seems to meet the horizon, it actually starts shrinking, but not evenly: it's like a chord starts cutting horizontal slices off the sun, bottom to top. But even at the moment when this chord coincides with the diameter – when the sun actually looks like a semi-circle – the long diameter of that semi-circle is still practically the same as anytime during the day, despite half of the sun having disappeared.
And then the sun shrinks even more, until the point when it finally disappears, and from that moment on the magnification phenomenom has completely ended.
The time interval during which the sun is reduced from a full circle to nothing is not very long: few minutes, depending on the latitude. Before those few minutes, the magnification works perfectly. After those few minutes, it doesn't work at all. Not even the best telescopes cannot bring the sun back to sight.
The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.
-
The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.
First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true. Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset. Or to sunrise. Or to anything about the sun at all. Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.
Second, even if it had been in there it would mean nothing, since a lot of the statements in that tired old text are outright fabrications. For example, the following is a list (with links) of other preposterous things also "noted in Earth Not a Globe":
A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_189), and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_179) anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_193) above the Biblical lake of fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_192)
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_191) as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_115)
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_117)
F) Sunlight puts out fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_142)
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_141)
Any ONE of these ludicrous propositions is enough to discredit him; the fact that they're all in the same book makes one wonder if he was trying to let people know it was all a big joke.
-
The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.
First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true. Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset. Or to sunrise. Or to anything about the sun at all. Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.
Lie? You have apparently have not read the material. What I mentioned is at the end of the chapter Tangential Horizon: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
The above remarks are made considering the water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit
p. 275
of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig97.jpg)
FIG. 97.
A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.
This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.
-
The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.
First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true. Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset. Or to sunrise. Or to anything about the sun at all. Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.
Second, even if it had been in there it would mean nothing, since a lot of the statements in that tired old text are outright fabrications. For example, the following is a list (with links) of other preposterous things also "noted in Earth Not a Globe":
A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_189), and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_179) anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_193) above the Biblical lake of fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_192)
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_191) as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_115)
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_117)
F) Sunlight puts out fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_142)
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_141)
Any ONE of these ludicrous propositions is enough to discredit him; the fact that they're all in the same book makes one wonder if he was trying to let people know it was all a big joke.
Just about any ONE thing on this website makes one wonder if this website is the "One big hoax or one big joke" which seems to be a widespread opinion on the Internet.
-
The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.
First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true. Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset. Or to sunrise. Or to anything about the sun at all. Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.
Second, even if it had been in there it would mean nothing, since a lot of the statements in that tired old text are outright fabrications. For example, the following is a list (with links) of other preposterous things also "noted in Earth Not a Globe":
A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_189), and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_179) anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_193) above the Biblical lake of fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_192)
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_191) as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_115)
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_117)
F) Sunlight puts out fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_142)
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_141)
Any ONE of these ludicrous propositions is enough to discredit him; the fact that they're all in the same book makes one wonder if he was trying to let people know it was all a big joke.
Add the illustration on the next reply (#33) to the "ludicrous" list. It should be obvious why. Note that point D is apparently at a point where the water level is depressed in the center.
(F) & (G) Also.....While sunlight will put out a fire, moonlight will support it.
A beam of light from the moon focused on a thermometer will cause the temperature to drop on a thermometer.
-
The horizon is not perfectly flat, which means that the sun will disappear behind any slight imperfections on the earth's surface as the perspective lines converge. It is noted in Earth Not a Globe that it has long been known that the sunset over water takes longer when the waters are calmer compared to when they are choppy.
First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true. Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset. Or to sunrise. Or to anything about the sun at all. Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.
Second, even if it had been in there it would mean nothing, since a lot of the statements in that tired old text are outright fabrications. For example, the following is a list (with links) of other preposterous things also "noted in Earth Not a Globe":
A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_189), and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_179) anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_193) above the Biblical lake of fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_192)
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_191) as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_115)
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_117)
F) Sunlight puts out fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_142)
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_141)
Any ONE of these ludicrous propositions is enough to discredit him; the fact that they're all in the same book makes one wonder if he was trying to let people know it was all a big joke.
One more example of derailing the OP (If the sun is close) with off-topic gibberish.
-
First, if you're going to say something like this, it needs to be true. Nowhere in ENaG can I find anything relating water or waves to sunset. Or to sunrise. Or to anything about the sun at all. Honestly, Tom, we round earthers read your stupid book more often than you do, you're going to get called out when you lie about its contents.
Lie? You have apparently have not read the material. What I mentioned is at the end of the chapter Tangential Horizon: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
My mistake, thank you for the link.
Now, explain why Rowbotham is allowed to use a side-view 2D drawing, when your video narrator says those kinds of drawings are worthless.
Also explain why the TFES wiki uses the same kind of drawing.
-
That doesn't work...if these light ray distortion effects make the sun look bigger than it is, they'd also make the gap between the sun and the horizon look bigger too...or are you telling us that there are different kinds of light rays - those which are magnified by the atmosphere and those which are not?
Be careful how you answer this one because my next question will be about the magnification of the moon, airplanes and clouds close to the horizon...and the slightest mistake in your reply will produce a horrible inconsistency in your theory...and you can be quite sure I'll catch it!
If you read through the sun magnification article closely you will find that it says that only light sources of a certain intensity in the far field can catch onto the atmosphere and magnify. There is a highway scene with headlights that stay consistent in size as they go into the the distance next to red tail lights in the next lane over which are appropriately shrinking into the distance. The headlights are bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere and the tail lights in the adjacent lanes are not.
So the idea here is that dim objects would get smaller as perspective shrinks them towards the horizon - but bright objects remain the same size, no matter the effect of perspective?
This produces two major problems for your theory:
1) When the sun is at zenith - (and you say that it's 30 miles wide and 3000 miles overhead) - how come it doesn't completely fill the sky? If it's immune to perspective - then even though it's 3000 miles above us - it should look just like the city of New York parked right over our heads - it should extend all the way from horizon to horizon. You have to understand that what makes a 30 mile-across sun that's 3000 miles away (at zenith) look like it's the size of a quarter held out at arm's length, is perspective. But you say that when it's at zenith over the Sahara, but on the horizon in Texas - and it's 6,000 miles away from Texas and perspective is failing to reduce it to something half that size.
2) How dim to objects have to be to be immune from perspective? The moon has a "visual magnitude" that makes it 400,000 times dimmer than the sun. Big planets like Jupiter and Saturn can be seen as a disk with even a small backyard telescope but are barely visible to the naked eye - but Jupiter and Saturn appear the same size at the horizon as they do at zenith too. So clearly VERY dim objects get the benefit of "perspective immunity" - yet things like aircraft in daylight evidently do not.
So the FE rule of perspective is VERY difficult to lay out...it turns off for objects that are "bright" (including Jupiter and Saturn - but not including airplanes) - it doesn't turn off for even the brightest objects unless they are more than 3000 miles but less than 6000 miles away.
But even that doesn't work...but let me give you a chance to respond before I explain the other reasons.