Offline Science Supporter

  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Globe Earth is Only Earth
    • View Profile
Law Of Perspective
« on: April 04, 2019, 02:36:26 AM »
Need to know stuff;
-FE Wiki states the Sun's diameter is 32 miles and the Sun is 3200 miles high.
-Lets assume the Sun is circling above the equator during the Equinoxes.
-Circumference of the orbit is 39000 miles
-Sun is moving at 1625 mph

Using the Law of Perspective, a=2*arctan(g/2r) where:
a=angular size
g=size of the object
r=distance to the object

Noon

a=2*arctan(g/2r)
a=2*arctan(32/6400)
a=.57 degrees

Sunrise
Since the observer is on the equator, the radius of the orbit is 6213 miles. We need to find the hypotenuse of a right isosceles triangle. Using pythagorean theorem:
a^2 + b^2 = c^2
c=8786 miles
Concluding, the distance from the observer to the sun during sunrise is 8786 miles.
Now, going back to the Law of Perspective equation,
a=2*arctan(32/17573)
a=.206

.206/.57=2.7

The size of the Sun is supposed to change 2.7x during the day.

That doesn't happen.

Please correct my math if I made a mistake.
"A person who is good at making excuses is seldom good at anything else."
-Benjamin Franklin

Offline Science Supporter

  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Globe Earth is Only Earth
    • View Profile
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2019, 03:47:16 AM »
It appears that this thread has nearly 100 views, and no replies. But to test that the angular size of the Sun is constant, here are some videos I found online:





And there's probably many, many more videos.

These videos clearly show the Sun not enlarging/shrinking at all. It proves that the angular size of the Sun does not change.

"A person who is good at making excuses is seldom good at anything else."
-Benjamin Franklin

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6110
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2019, 04:41:25 AM »
What does the Wiki say about the size of the sun throughout the day?

*

Online QED

  • *
  • Posts: 703
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2019, 04:41:55 AM »
I suppose one could easily explain this discrepancy by invoking atmospheric refraction, the FEer panacea.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

Tom Bishop

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • View Profile
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2019, 09:24:46 AM »
What does the Wiki say about the size of the sun throughout the day?

The wiki states:

"The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth."

Since we only see the sun throughout the day and the wiki states that it is 32 miles in diameter, measured, I presume, during the day. Then in FET, it has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth, throughout the day.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9091
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2019, 09:44:54 AM »
Stack, one would hope that after spending so much time here you'd be better at browsing the Wiki.

I suspect Tom wasn't looking for an FAQ quote, but was rather encouraging you to read the various articles about the Sun. For example, this one:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6110
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2019, 05:36:46 PM »
I think that Stack knows what the Wiki says. We've only discussed it many times... It's the same argument that was in Earth Not a Globe.

FET should be severely criticized, as it can only help it. No one gets banned for that here. But some effort should be made to look into the materials about it if it is to be critiqued. Knowing what those arguments or explanations say, and then ignoring them is, to my opinion, a bit of a disingenuous approach.

Addressing the arguments will help to create better ones, and anyone participating in that process is supported on that matter. That seems pretty fair.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 06:14:41 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online QED

  • *
  • Posts: 703
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2019, 06:14:58 PM »
I think that Stack knows what the Wiki says. We've only discussed it many times... It's the same argument that was in Earth Not a Globe.

FET should be severely criticized, as it can only help it. No one gets banned for that here. But some effort should be made to look into the materials about it if it is to be critiqued. Knowing what those arguments or explanations say, and then ignoring them is, to my opinion, a bit of a disingenuous approach.

Addressing the arguments will help to create better ones, and anyone participating in that process is supported on that matter. I think that is pretty fair.

I agree with you 100%, which is why I often encourage you to learn proper physics and scientific methods.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

Tom Bishop

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • View Profile
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2019, 12:48:50 AM »
Stack, one would hope that after spending so much time here you'd be better at browsing the Wiki.

I suspect Tom wasn't looking for an FAQ quote, but was rather encouraging you to read the various articles about the Sun. For example, this one:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Tom asked, "What does the Wiki say about the size of the sun throughout the day?” I answered correctly. If he was specifically referring to the magnification of the sun, rather than quipping, he should have suggested so specifically.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • View Profile
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2019, 01:08:32 AM »
I think that Stack knows what the Wiki says. We've only discussed it many times... It's the same argument that was in Earth Not a Globe.

FET should be severely criticized, as it can only help it. No one gets banned for that here. But some effort should be made to look into the materials about it if it is to be critiqued. Knowing what those arguments or explanations say, and then ignoring them is, to my opinion, a bit of a disingenuous approach.

Addressing the arguments will help to create better ones, and anyone participating in that process is supported on that matter. That seems pretty fair.

I am familiar with the wiki and ENAG. To address the argument in full both the wiki and ENAG are appealing to atmospheric interference in regard as to why a setting (or rising) sun appear relatively the same size throughout the day. In FET we should see it shrink due to perspective but we don’t due to, as SBR stated in ENAG, Chapter 10: 

"It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour.”

For one, it’s kind of ironic that atmospheric interference, diffraction/refraction, is the cause for why the sun should be smaller from a perspective standpoint but it is not to the observer, when over in the Salt Lake City Observations thread you're saying "The fact is that the observation does not support RET and a mechanism that curves light is needed to make it match.”

A couple of edits and your sentence applies here, "The fact is that the observation does not support RET FET and a mechanism that curves magnifies light is needed to make it match."

For two, the wiki and ENAG do not sufficiently explain the sun size at sunset/sunrise via atmospheric magnification and perspective. The sun does not shrink from perspective and get magnified by the atmosphere back to size. A 32 mile diameter, 3000 mile high sun simply cannot set or rise on a flat plane regardless of magic magnification.  This demonstration shows how it can’t physically and perspectively happen:


Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Online QED

  • *
  • Posts: 703
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2019, 02:47:49 AM »
I like your gif showing the situation. I agree that magnification cannot set the Sun on a FE. I think what Tom May be suggesting though is that refraction can bend the light, in the same way that we can still see the sun after it has already set or before it rises (for a short time).

Standard refraction calculations prohibit this effect from being able to bend light enough to set a sun that is definitely above the horizon.

It is my estimation that FET must develop a modified law of refraction that permits the exaggerated bend needed, while simultaneously accounting for the conditions when this happens - since clearly it is not operative during a substantial fraction of a 24 hour period.

I wish someone should attempt to build this model, rather than continuing qualitative arguments which often derail into dead-end tangential bickering (although I confess that some branchings do produce interesting discussions and I often partake).
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

Tom Bishop

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2019, 11:44:31 PM »
I would go with the light bending. If you want to use the UN/polar projection map, you must make it possible for someone on the equator at 0 degrees latitude to see the sun in the on the horizon at the same time that someone at 90 degrees W would see it directly overhead, at 180 degrees, eastern horizon. Plot out where those people will see the sun an a UN/polar projection map, and you will see you are going to need more than 90 degrees bending.

I wonder how perspective works with light bending that much. I believe all FE maps will need quite a bit of light bending.

Dead end tangential bickering is better than having your idea invalidated. My experience is that long logic chains and precise exploration of details is not good for some ideas.

Re: Law Of Perspective
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2019, 07:11:56 AM »
Addressing the arguments will help to create better ones, and anyone participating in that process is supported on that matter. That seems pretty fair.
That is pretty fair.
In fact it’s exactly how progress has been made in science. People have made hypotheses and tested them. If the tests indicate the hypotheses are correct then they become theories but - and this is the crucial bit - then other people repeat the tests or create new tests. If the tests fail then the theory must be amended or, possibly, discarded entirely and replaced.
For a long time the geocentric model reigned and when observations of planets contradicted the idea that everything goes around us and we are the centre of everything the geocentric model wasn’t immediately discarded. So hard baked into scientific ideas was it that many attempts were made to fix the model so it matched the observations. Ultimately, only the heliocentric model worked so became accepted. I know you disagree that it works but those disagreements are mostly you not understanding the model.

The problem here is you treat Rowbotham’s work with a reverence usually reserved for Scripture. You repeatedly show you are not interested in anything which contradicts ENaG. He claims that horizon rises to eye level so that is what you believe. You have been shown multiple times using several different methods that it does not. The consistent results from all these tests are:
Horizon dips below eye level
The amount of dip increases with altitude.

All you’ve done in response is flail around trying to discredit the methods - you’ve actually created a Wiki page to do so. And the Wiki page about horizon remains unchanged.
You haven’t “created better arguments”, no progress has been made. Rowbotham’s ideas are sacrosanct to you so anything which contradicts them must be wrong. Worst of all, you refuse to do any tests yourself.
No progress has been made.

Back to the topic at hand, Rowbotham is wrong about perspective. I have explained why and drawn diagrams and done tests showing this. You use perspective as an explanation why clouds can be lit from below. I have demonstrated that your explanation doesn’t work but your opinion and arguments remain unchanged.

You claim you welcome challenges to your or Rowbotham’s ideas but actually you treat them as dogma and that is why there is no progress or coherent FE theory. I have never seen you cede ground on any topic no matter how clearly you’re shown to be wrong. And you’ve never done any tests yourself to demonstrate your ideas.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.