*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2019, 10:16:35 AM »
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Define the horizon, then.

If there's grass, bushes, trees or other vegetation on the horizon, where do you say the horizon is? The line following the tops of the various growths, or that of the land below them? 

"The horizon isn't at the top of the grass, it's at the ground"

You think the horizon is somewhere BELOW the hill, not at the top of it? You don't think it follows the hill line?

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-sun-setting-behind-boma-national-park-hills-boma-jonglei-state-south-36257574.html

???
« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 10:25:01 AM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2019, 11:45:56 AM »
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:



But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.



So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...

The air is always more dense at ground level.

You cannot provide an obviously filtered image of a sunset as evidence, call it, "...nice and crisp...", and expect that to fly.

Might as well have posted a picture of an apple...

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2019, 03:32:19 PM »
You cannot provide an obviously filtered image of a sunset as evidence, call it, "...nice and crisp...", and expect that to fly.

Why not?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2019, 04:34:14 PM »
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:



But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.



So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...

The air is always more dense at ground level.

You cannot provide an obviously filtered image of a sunset as evidence, call it, "...nice and crisp...", and expect that to fly.

Might as well have posted a picture of an apple...

You are decidedly incorrect. The air is not always more dense at ground level. As I explained above, various atmospheric effects can cause various optical effects, like mirages. Certain mirage effects require less dense air to be below denser air, i.e. closer to the ground. So your "always" statement is uninformed and factually incorrect.



And what's wrong with a filtered image? It certainly doesn't change the fact that the sunset occurs from the bottom up and completely disappears for 12 hours. Would you say you are looking at an apple if viewing an eclipse through a solar filter? Doesn't look like an apple...



And hey, where did the sun go:



Do a little research and try and get some facts on your side before you pop in with absolutes that are anything but.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2019, 06:22:33 PM »
Most flat earth theories state that the zetetic observations arrive at the conclusion that the sun is 32 miles in diameter and revolves at an altitude of 3000 miles above the earth - even though this is merely a regurgitation of Rowbotham, and not zetetic observation.  When placed against the real zetetic observation, and the observation and belief of ancient thinkers - which is that the sun sinks below the surface of the earth, one must come up with the ad hoc explanation that the true size of the sun is obscured by some mystical physics of the atmoplane, bendy light, and perspective. I am not sure how everyone does not see this as ad hoc. 
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2019, 12:39:53 AM »
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?



The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.



You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 01:24:54 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2019, 03:46:36 AM »
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?



The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.



You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.

Nice try. But where did the sun go? Why does it rise up at my back approximately 12 hours later.
Sure both sides claim some sort of refraction. The sunset can be seen a minute or so longer than it should due to refraction. But what about the other 11 hours & 58 minutes?
Try harder.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2019, 10:46:39 AM »
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:



But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.



So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...

The air is always more dense at ground level.

You are decidedly incorrect. The air is not always more dense at ground level.

Do a little research and try and get some facts on your side before you pop in with absolutes that are anything but.
Funny, I found absolute bupkus supporting your statement and everything supporting mine.

The air is always more dense at ground level.

Further, every object, starting from the bottom, eventually disappears from view, just like I wrote.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2019, 12:31:02 PM »
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?



The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.



You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.

Refraction causing the sun to appear above the horizon after it's already physically behind it is a quantitative change in exactly when the sunset occurs, and does very little to change the qualitative behaviour of the sunset. This discussion is about the qualitative behaviour of the sunset, not small quantitative changes in time of sunset or apparent position of the sun.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2019, 03:25:38 PM »
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?



The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.



You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.

Refraction causing the sun to appear above the horizon after it's already physically behind it is a quantitative change in exactly when the sunset occurs, and does very little to change the qualitative behaviour of the sunset. This discussion is about the qualitative behaviour of the sunset, not small quantitative changes in time of sunset or apparent position of the sun.
I would submit anything that changes or causes an appearance of change in quantity certainly affects the perceived quality of the thing or things perceived.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2019, 03:55:55 PM »
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?



The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.



You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.

Refraction causing the sun to appear above the horizon after it's already physically behind it is a quantitative change in exactly when the sunset occurs, and does very little to change the qualitative behaviour of the sunset. This discussion is about the qualitative behaviour of the sunset, not small quantitative changes in time of sunset or apparent position of the sun.
I would submit anything that changes or causes an appearance of change in quantity certainly affects the perceived quality of the thing or things perceived.

I said "very little" qualitative change, not zero. Small quantitative changes generally lead to extremely small qualitative changes. My point is that the sun being perceived as being some fraction of a degree away from its "real" position is a small quantitative change, and does not lead to any significant qualitative change in the sunset, certainly not enough to invalidate any claims that Tom has claimed that it does.

You could take this argument to its extreme and say that technically in any observation, the light is travelling through some non-perfect vacuum and so it distorted by some tiny amount before reaching your measurement device, therefore your observation is invalid.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 04:00:20 PM by Tim Alphabeaver »
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #51 on: May 15, 2019, 06:13:22 PM »
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:



But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.



So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...

The air is always more dense at ground level.

You are decidedly incorrect. The air is not always more dense at ground level.

Do a little research and try and get some facts on your side before you pop in with absolutes that are anything but.
Funny, I found absolute bupkus supporting your statement and everything supporting mine.

The air is always more dense at ground level.

As always from you, just your incorrect opinion, never evidence. Try again.


Further, every object, starting from the bottom, eventually disappears from view, just like I wrote.

Correct, like a sunset. Slipping down beneath the horizon. Then 12 or so hours later, it rises up behind me top first. Go figure. The same doesn't seem to work on a flat plane.

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

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3841
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #52 on: May 16, 2019, 12:46:59 AM »
The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.
Tom, is an FE sunset any less of an illusion than an RE sunset?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #53 on: May 16, 2019, 10:44:57 AM »
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:



But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.



So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Au contraire...

The air is always more dense at ground level.

You are decidedly incorrect. The air is not always more dense at ground level.

Do a little research and try and get some facts on your side before you pop in with absolutes that are anything but.
Funny, I found absolute bupkus supporting your statement and everything supporting mine.

The air is always more dense at ground level.

As always from you, just your incorrect opinion, never evidence. Try again.
Anybody and everybody can get online and look for any evidence indicating the air is somehow less dense at ground level, including you.

I will save them some time...

There is none.

I made a statement of fact.

My statement is supported by every reference I have ever read.

You got something different?

Pony up.

Further, every object, starting from the bottom, eventually disappears from view, just like I wrote.

Correct, like a sunset. Slipping down beneath the horizon. Then 12 or so hours later, it rises up behind me top first. Go figure. The same doesn't seem to work on a flat plane.


Also correct for an object circling high overhead can appear/disappear from view.

You want to post a graphic analysis composed by some jackwagon who thinks he/she possesses the ability to detail the operations of an environment they categorically dismiss as possible; all in the expectation that should be accepted as a gospel rendition of what it would look like?

Sorry Copernicus...not gonna fly...
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 12:23:29 PM by totallackey »

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #54 on: May 16, 2019, 10:52:57 AM »
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?



The Round Earth Theory states that the sun is already under the horizon all throughout that animation via an illusion.



You are showing us what is claimed to be illusion. Pretty odd that you would use an illusion to show us that there is not an illusion occurring at sunset. Screaming that there is no illusion while simultaneously showing us one from your model makes your argument rather invalid.

Refraction causing the sun to appear above the horizon after it's already physically behind it is a quantitative change in exactly when the sunset occurs, and does very little to change the qualitative behaviour of the sunset. This discussion is about the qualitative behaviour of the sunset, not small quantitative changes in time of sunset or apparent position of the sun.
I would submit anything that changes or causes an appearance of change in quantity certainly affects the perceived quality of the thing or things perceived.

I said "very little" qualitative change, not zero. Small quantitative changes generally lead to extremely small qualitative changes. My point is that the sun being perceived as being some fraction of a degree away from its "real" position is a small quantitative change, and does not lead to any significant qualitative change in the sunset, certainly not enough to invalidate any claims that Tom has claimed that it does.

You could take this argument to its extreme and say that technically in any observation, the light is travelling through some non-perfect vacuum and so it distorted by some tiny amount before reaching your measurement device, therefore your observation is invalid.
Thanks.

Now the entirety of your point is predictably shown as purely subjective.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #55 on: May 16, 2019, 11:02:55 AM »
Nice try. But where did the sun go? Why does it rise up at my back approximately 12 hours later.
Sure both sides claim some sort of refraction. The sunset can be seen a minute or so longer than it should due to refraction. But what about the other 11 hours & 58 minutes?
Try harder.

The size of your earth is based on the sun, so you are just begging the question with your argument that it is only a small illusion.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 03:48:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #56 on: May 16, 2019, 03:37:38 PM »
Quote
Thanks.

Now the entirety of your point is predictably shown as purely subjective.

Yes, the points I've made so far have been subjective. The post I was originally replying to was subjective, and your comments have also been entirely subjective. I really don't see how that lets you sidestep the discussion. If you'd like to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion instead of getting in a quick dig, that would be great.

Can we do a thought experiment? Image a ball rolling across your field of vision such that at some point it rolls behind a wall, and is hidden by the wall. Now repeat this, except some refraction (or whatever, the mechanism doesn't really matter) means that the ball appears to be 1 degree behind its "true" position. Would this meaningfully change any of the qualitative behaviour of the ball being hidden by the wall? I don't think it would. The ball will still disappear leading-side first, it will still be hidden at the same rate etc. The only difference would be that it happens slightly later.
Do you think this is meaningfully different to the sunset case?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 03:51:54 PM by Tim Alphabeaver »
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2019, 05:26:21 PM »
The size of your earth is based on the sun ...

Says who, apart from you? Or says which textbook or other written work?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #58 on: May 16, 2019, 06:12:38 PM »
Nice try. But where did the sun go? Why does it rise up at my back approximately 12 hours later.
Sure both sides claim some sort of refraction. The sunset can be seen a minute or so longer than it should due to refraction. But what about the other 11 hours & 58 minutes?
Try harder.

The size of your earth is based on the sun, so you are just begging the question with your argument that it is only a small illusion.

What does that even mean? You're not making any sense.

I see no illusion at all in a setting sun. It disappears completely. It doesn't recede and get smaller and then 'blink', disappear into some perspective vanishing point. It slowly sinks, maintaining its size, disappearing bottom up until its gone. For some 12 hours from me. The process reverses from behind me the next morning. It's really quite simple and requires no illusions, no "atmoplane projections" no made up "laws of perspective", no magic magnification. It's quite a pure thing in fact. And it happens like clockwork every day for all 8 billion of us to observe if we so choose.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #59 on: May 16, 2019, 06:27:27 PM »
You are proposing multiple illusions.

You are claiming that the earth is rotating, when we visibly see the sun moving.

You are claiming that the earth is a sphere with a far away sun dropping behind it, when we clearly see that the earth is flat.

You are claiming that we are seeing the sun go below the horizon, when we visibly see it go into the horizon.

You are claiming that light travels in straight lines over long distances -- a complete imagination, without evidence, and contradicts our experience that straight lines do not exist in nature and that elements in motion are always perturbed.

All of it is either illusion or unjustified to get your argument that no illusion is occuring and prop up your absurd heliocentric fantasy.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 06:41:27 PM by Tom Bishop »