[stevecanuck]

My understanding is that the sun 'appears' to set because sighting tangentially along the curved ray caused by EA would cause such an optical illusion. If that's wrong then this question doesn't apply.

Assuming I'm right about sighting along the EA-caused tangent, then a person in an airplane over California who's flying just under the red cloud would see the sun setting INTO Texas. How is this explained by FET?

[Tom Bishop]

The horizon also dips a bit at high altitudes. There is a section on that on the EA page.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Horizon_Dip

[stevecanuck]

The horizon also dips a bit at high altitudes. There is a section on that on the EA page.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Horizon_Dip

From the link (emphasis mine):

The Electromagnetic Accelerator predicts that at high altitudes where one can see further (Note: one sees 'farther', not 'further') into the distance, the horizon will dip below eye level. Light which travels parallel from the limits of vision will be pulled upwards and miss the eye of the observer. The rays the observer will see are those rays which are transmitted at a lower angle and pulled upwards to meet the observer, resulting in a horizon which is slightly below eye level.

No. The reason the horizon is below eye level is that the person is at a higher altitude. Up is higher than down.

[Pete Svarrior]

(Note: one sees 'farther', not 'further')

Not everyone speaks American English. If you'd like to get educated on the historical interchangeability of the two words, as well as the pointlessness of this American grammaranism, I strongly recommend this Merriam-Webster article.

No. The reason the horizon is below eye level is that the person is at a higher altitude. Up is higher than down.

If your only response is "NUH UH RET IS FACT", then I implore you to stop posting here. If you cannot make a coherent argument, stay out of the upper fora.

[stevecanuck]

(Note: one sees 'farther', not 'further')

Not everyone speaks American English. If you'd like to get educated on the historical interchangeability of the two words, as well as the pointlessness of this American grammaranism, I strongly recommend this Merriam-Webster article.

No. The reason the horizon is below eye level is that the person is at a higher altitude. Up is higher than down.

If your only response is "NUH UH RET IS FACT", then I implore you to stop posting here. If you cannot make a coherent argument, stay out of the upper fora.

If a person is at a high altitude, then other things at lower altitudes will appear to be down. Again, up is higher than down. EA if true, would increase the effect of the other object appearing to be down, but it's not necessary.

[SteelyBob]

The sun setting is another easily observable phenomenon that FE fails to explain. The challenge is how to explain a typical a sunset, where we see, say, half the sun above the horizon. Why can we only see half the sun? The wiki, and most FE proponents, seem to argue along some vague perspective lines, suggesting that the sun is receding into the distance and is therefore appearing to lower in the sky, just as distant objects appear to disappear towards a vanishing point. There is then an extra bit of argument tacked on to explain why it remains the same apparent size while all this happening.

There is so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start - maybe that's the point. Yes, objects in the distance on flat terrain appear to disappear at horizon level. But they can be brought back into view with a magnifying device - a telescope, for example, or a zoom lens such as the ones on the Nikon cameras beloved of the FE community. And when they are brought back into view, they are completely in view unless they are so far away they start to become obscured but eh earth's curvature, unlike the setting sun, which will always be below partially occluded by the horizon regardless of how powerful a device you use to view it.

The same is true of ships sailing away from an observer. FE proponents seem to obsess over how far away things are when they are still visible, and the debate descends into whether or not refraction can explain the apparent anomalies. But the more obvious point is that ships always (yes, always) disappear from view hull first. You can bring the masts or funnels back into view with a good lens on your camera, but you can't see the hull. There is no credible explanation for this.

[iamcpc]

No. The reason the horizon is below eye level is that the person is at a higher altitude. Up is higher than down.

This very well could be true. The problem that I have with that is that there have been documented observations which suggest that the horizon can go up or down with the same altitude. You have to have an open mind. I'm not asking you to believe the earth is flat. I'm not asking you to believe the earth is not round. In this instance, I'm asking that you at least admit that things like refraction, or the path the light takes,  can have an effect on the perceived height of the horizon. Once you admit that then any sort of claims about the perceived height of the horizon really should have detailed light path/refraction analysis done to go along with those claims.




See the video below? Notice how, throughout the video, the horizon goes up and down with the altitude staying the same? Time and time again people have some and said that our human perception of the horizon, it going up, it going down, or things disappearing behind it are because the earth is round. Based on that kind of flawed thinking watching the video below would lead you to believe that the earth is changing shape. It goes from being flat to being round. Which i have not found one FE or RE person who believes.

[SteelyBob]

The change in horizon throughout the day from a fixed viewing position is precisely what we would expect to see. Two factors are at play here. Firstly, visibility varies as light conditions and particulate matter or moisture in the atmosphere builds up or dissipates. Secondly, the refractive index of the atmosphere changes with temperature, pressure and humidity, meaning the range at which you can see over-the-horizon objects changes as well. The earth is not changing shape in that video. The earth is not flat either.

I have never, ever seen a video, photo, diagram or anything posted by a FE proponent that satisfactorily explains why ships disappear hull first, or why the sun disappears bottom half first over the horizon at sunset. All we get are strange table-top experiments where the camera is blatantly below the surface height of the table, or outside scenes where the viewpoint is deep in grass or undergrowth. It's just ridiculous. If you have a viewpoint just a small height above a completely flat surface, looking horizontally, then objects will never disappear from sight, no matter how far they get from the viewer. If they go so far as to subtend an angle beyond human visual acuity, you will always be able to bring them back into full view using a lens system of some sort - you won't find yourself looking at the lower half of the person, lamppost, sun or ship, for example...unless the surface is curved, of course.

[stevecanuck]

No. The reason the horizon is below eye level is that the person is at a higher altitude. Up is higher than down.

This very well could be true. The problem that I have with that is that there have been documented observations which suggest that the horizon can go up or down with the same altitude. You have to have an open mind. I'm not asking you to believe the earth is flat. I'm not asking you to believe the earth is not round. In this instance, I'm asking that you at least admit that things like refraction, or the path the light takes,  can have an effect on the perceived height of the horizon. Once you admit that then any sort of claims about the perceived height of the horizon really should have detailed light path/refraction analysis done to go along with those claims.





See the video below? Notice how, throughout the video, the horizon goes up and down with the altitude staying the same? Time and time again people have some and said that our human perception of the horizon, it going up, it going down, or things disappearing behind it are because the earth is round. Based on that kind of flawed thinking watching the video below would lead you to believe that the earth is changing shape. It goes from being flat to being round. Which i have not found one FE or RE person who believes.

That video shows the shimmer caused by moisture in the air. If you look at the buildings, you will see them 'changing shape' and appearing to move up and down. Light moving through moist air causes that phenomenon. Same with the hills and cliffs on the right. They appear to be moving like a major earth quaked was going on. Easy Peasy.

[iamcpc]

The change in horizon throughout the day from a fixed viewing position is precisely what we would expect to see. Two factors are at play here. Firstly, visibility varies as light conditions and particulate matter or moisture in the atmosphere builds up or dissipates. Secondly, the refractive index of the atmosphere changes with temperature, pressure and humidity, meaning the range at which you can see over-the-horizon objects changes as well. The earth is not changing shape in that video. The earth is not flat either.

Exactly! So you acknowledge that the perceived position of the horizon is clearly affected by chaotic optical atmospheric conditions.


This is different than your claim here in which you fail to acknowledge that the chaotic optical atmospheric conditions at a high altitude are different than a low altitude:

If a person is at a high altitude, then other things at lower altitudes will appear to be down. Again, up is higher than down. EA if true, would increase the effect of the other object appearing to be down, but it's not necessary.

It seems to me that it could be possible that, at a higher altitude, the atmospheric conditions are so vastly different that it accounts for the variance of the perceived horizon instead of the altitude. Maybe the difference in perceived horizon position is 80% optics 20% altitude? Maybe it's 50/50. I highly doubt that it's 100% altitude and 0% optics. You should really edit the post above to at least account for the optical conditions

[AATW]

The horizon also dips a bit at high altitudes. There is a section on that on the EA page.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Horizon_Dip

Interesting.
You spent quite a lot of time back in the day arguing that the horizon remained at eye level, despite being shown experiments which demonstrated the reverse and you repeatedly refused to do your own tests.
I note that the Wiki Page about Horizon remaining at eye level now redirects to one about horizon dip.
Can you explain what experiments you did, or have seen, which led you to change your mind about this?

[SteelyBob]

The change in horizon throughout the day from a fixed viewing position is precisely what we would expect to see. Two factors are at play here. Firstly, visibility varies as light conditions and particulate matter or moisture in the atmosphere builds up or dissipates. Secondly, the refractive index of the atmosphere changes with temperature, pressure and humidity, meaning the range at which you can see over-the-horizon objects changes as well. The earth is not changing shape in that video. The earth is not flat either.

Exactly! So you acknowledge that the perceived position of the horizon is clearly affected by chaotic optical atmospheric conditions.


This is different than your claim here in which you fail to acknowledge that the chaotic optical atmospheric conditions at a high altitude are different than a low altitude:

If a person is at a high altitude, then other things at lower altitudes will appear to be down. Again, up is higher than down. EA if true, would increase the effect of the other object appearing to be down, but it's not necessary.

It seems to me that it could be possible that, at a higher altitude, the atmospheric conditions are so vastly different that it accounts for the variance of the perceived horizon instead of the altitude. Maybe the difference in perceived horizon position is 80% optics 20% altitude? Maybe it's 50/50. I highly doubt that it's 100% altitude and 0% optics. You should really edit the post above to at least account for the optical conditions

If you carefully read the two quotes you have triumphantly used to demonstrate my apparent self-contradiction, you will notice that they are by two different people.

[Tumeni]

So you acknowledge that the perceived position of the horizon is clearly affected by chaotic optical atmospheric conditions.

This is, of course, not a proof that the position of the horizon, in comparison with other objects in view, is sufficiently mis-perceived as to render the observation invalid. Chaotic optical atmospheric conditions are not universal to all observations.

Agree?

[iamcpc]

This is, of course, not a proof that the position of the horizon, in comparison with other objects in view, is sufficiently mis-perceived as to render the observation invalid. Chaotic optical atmospheric conditions are not universal to all observations.

Agree?

Chaotic optical atmospheric conditions are universal to ALL observations made on light which passes through our atmosphere. The more time the light spends passing through our atmosphere, and the more varied the conditions of the atmosphere that the light is passing through,  the more pronounced the effects that our atmosphere has on the light and thus our perception. 


Observations made on light traveling one meter indoors in a house through a relatively stable and constant set of atmospheric conditions is going to be largely unaffected by the atmosphere.

Observations made on light traveling many miles outdoors  through many different zones of different atmospheric conditions is going to be much more significantly affected by the atmosphere.

[stack]

This is, of course, not a proof that the position of the horizon, in comparison with other objects in view, is sufficiently mis-perceived as to render the observation invalid. Chaotic optical atmospheric conditions are not universal to all observations.

Agree?

Chaotic optical atmospheric conditions are universal to ALL observations made on light which passes through our atmosphere. The more time the light spends passing through our atmosphere, and the more varied the conditions of the atmosphere that the light is passing through,  the more pronounced the effects that our atmosphere has on the light and thus our perception. 


Observations made on light traveling one meter indoors in a house through a relatively stable and constant set of atmospheric conditions is going to be largely unaffected by the atmosphere.

Observations made on light traveling many miles outdoors  through many different zones of different atmospheric conditions is going to be much more significantly affected by the atmosphere.

How are you defining "chaotic"?

[Tumeni]

Observations made on light traveling many miles outdoors  through many different zones of different atmospheric conditions is going to be much more significantly affected by the atmosphere.

So those made over lesser distances would be less affected by the atmosphere. Just like I said, not all observations affected by these conditions such that the observation is rendered invalid. The effect may be inconsequential on a shorter-range observation.

Agree?

[iamcpc]

How are you defining "chaotic"?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaotic
" having outcomes that can vary widely due to extremely small changes in initial conditions"

"A physical system—a weather system, say—is chaotic if a very slight change in initial conditions sends the system off on a very different course."

So those made over lesser distances would be less affected by the atmosphere. Just like I said, not all observations affected by these conditions such that the observation is rendered invalid. The effect may be inconsequential on a shorter-range observation.

Agree?

No. Those observations made over lesser distances are less likely to be greatly affected by optical conditions. Take the observation on the arrow in the video below.

In the atmosphere the light is passing though glass, a zone of 100% humidity, and glass and those zones of refraction GREATLY affect the observations made on the direction the arrow is facing even through the light is only traveling a few feet at most.

[Iceman]

A wildly irrelevant analogy.

100% humidity is not the same as 100% water and it's the curved shape of the glass and water within it that causes the "weird" effect in the video.

Look at (or better yet, through) an aquarium - one that has flat sides. The arrow won't change directions, and as long as the angle of incidence is near normal, the shape and apparent position wont be altered much.

None of these examples are particularly useful when discussing the issues of long range observations through the atmosphere. Humidity, pressure gradients absolutely affect the apparent position of things - that's why we get mirages. But those represent the cumulative effects of small scale changes in refractive index of air as light travels through it.

[Tumeni]

So those made over lesser distances would be less affected by the atmosphere. Just like I said, not all observations affected by these conditions such that the observation is rendered invalid. The effect may be inconsequential on a shorter-range observation.

Agree?

No. Those observations made over lesser distances are less likely to be greatly affected by optical conditions.

You say no, but your subsequent statement agrees with what I said.

Take the observation on the arrow in the video below.

Hardly relevant to discussion of simple observation through atmosphere. Yes, refraction will change appearances if you look through a number of contrasting materials, but we're not talking about that...

[iamcpc]

None of these examples are particularly useful when discussing the issues of long range observations through the atmosphere. Humidity, pressure gradients absolutely affect the apparent position of things - that's why we get mirages. But those represent the cumulative effects of small scale changes in refractive index of air as light travels through it.

The example is that, when making observations based on your visual cortex's interpretation of the signal from your optic nerve, you need to account for the path the light took before reaching your eye regardless of the distance the light traveled. In the video I linked it appears the light is traveling only a few feet and the observations are changed SIGNIFICANTLY based on the path the light took before hitting our eye. Could light traveling through our atmosphere pass through glass before it hits your eye? Absolutely. Could light traveling through our atmosphere pass through rain (water) and glass before hitting your eye? It sure can!

So those made over lesser distances would be less affected by the atmosphere. Just like I said, not all observations affected by these conditions such that the observation is rendered invalid. The effect may be inconsequential on a shorter-range observation.

Agree?

Here you are saying that observations made over a smaller distance would be less affected by the atmosphere. I gave examples of situations where light, which was traveling through things like glass and water were HIGHLY affected even though the distance was VERY small. Meaning that the claim that smaller distance = smaller refraction is not true.