[frisbee]

If the "sunset" on the FE is when "the sun gets so far away it fades away into the distant" it would seem that the apparent diameter of the sun would be smallest at sunrise, largest at noon and smallest at sunset ?

Bingo. Just look out your window, er, well maybe not this time.

[Pete Svarrior]

If the "sunset" on the FE is when "the sun gets so far away it fades away into the distant" it would seem that the apparent diameter of the sun would be smallest at sunrise, largest at noon and smallest at sunset ?

Of course not, that would mean that the reason the Sun vanishes is due to its angular size diminishing. I hope frisbee is the only person here who didn't immediately notice how ridiculous that is. The Sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the atmoplane.

[frisbee]

If the "sunset" on the FE is when "the sun gets so far away it fades away into the distant" it would seem that the apparent diameter of the sun would be smallest at sunrise, largest at noon and smallest at sunset ?

Of course not, that would mean that the reason the Sun vanishes is due to its angular size diminishing. I hope frisbee is the only person here who didn't immediately notice how ridiculous that is. The Sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the atmoplane.

The sun in FE is 3000 miles overhead. When it moves 5,196 miles away it will be twice as far from you (30-60-90 triangle, ignoring the curved flight path in FE for the moment).
The angular size of the sun is about 1/2 degree, just a fact in either model.
If it is 3,000 miles away when directly overhead then it must be 26 miles in actual diameter, FE.
And 26 miles at 6,000 miles away gives you an angular size of 0.25 degree, FE.

So the apparent size of the sun should vary in FE as it moves about only 3,000 miles above the earth surface, because the distance to the sun varies significantly in FE.

[markjo]

The Sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the atmoplane.

Interesting.  I always thought that the sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the horizon.

[geckothegeek]

The Sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the atmoplane.

Interesting.  I always thought that the sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the horizon.

Interesting. I always thought that it was a combination of the intransparency of the atmoplane combined with the distance to the horizon, which is infinite in the FE, which causes the sun to vanish. That and the FE idea about perspective.

[Pete Svarrior]

Interesting.  I always thought that the sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the horizon.

You weren't too far off, given that the horizon's existence is also caused by the intransparency of the atmoplane. You just mixed up the cause and effect.

[markjo]

Interesting.  I always thought that the sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the horizon.

You weren't too far off, given that the horizon's existence is also caused by the intransparency of the atmosphere. You just mixed up the cause and effect.

Okay, I'll bite.  Just how does the intransparency (is that even a real word?) of the atmoplane cause the existence of the horizon?

[Pongo]

Think about it like this.  A car can drive around. A plane can fly around and when it's on the ground, it can drive around like a car.  Now, if I tell you that a plane is like a car in that it can drive around, would you be correct in denying that statement by asking how it's like a car if it can fly?

In this model, the moon is like a spot light in that it can shine done on the earth in a spotlight pattern, like how a plane is like a car in that it can drive around.  Also, the sun can shine on other things in the same sense that a plane can also fly while a car (or a normal spotlight) could not.

Does that circuitous explanation clear things up?

Not really.  Would you please explain why it's so vital to FET that the sun and moon act like spotlights when they so obvious that they don't, regardless of how much you torture the definitions of "spot" or "spotlight"?

Why do you have a problem accepting that two things can act like two different things at the same time?  Aren't you a rabid supporter of quantum physics?  Oh, I forgot, only round-earth science gets to state not-yet-understood observations as fact.

RE science: This acts as both a particle and a wave, how strange and impossible.
Reaction: ZOMG HAVE A NOBEL PRIZE!!

FE science: The sun appears to act as a spotlight and not at the same time.
Reaction: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, N00B.  GO LIVE IN A CAVE.

[sakura]

RE science: This acts as both a particle and a wave, how strange and impossible.
Reaction: ZOMG HAVE A NOBEL PRIZE!!

FE science: The sun appears to act as a spotlight and not at the same time.
Reaction: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, N00B.  GO LIVE IN A CAVE.

The first one can be experimentally tested and proven by every scientist with the necessery equipment.

The second one is just flat earthers beeing flat earthers, no offense.

Get experimental evidence for this and you they will give you not only the nobel prize but the entire fucking nobel foundation.

[Pete Svarrior]

Okay, I'll bite.

No, I'm the one doing the "biting" here. You're just trying to waste people's time, as demonstrated in the quote below:

(is that even a real word?)

Depends on what you consider "real", really. A quick Google search suggests that it appears in some dictionaries, although not the ones I'd normally use. If it makes you feel better, I'll use "opacity" in the rest of this post.

Just how does the intransparency of the atmoplane cause the existence of the horizon?

Let me try to explain this with a thought experiment (although you're welcome to try it out in real life). Picture an empty orange Tic Tac® box. We'll use the orange flavour to make the effect more apparent.



As you can see, the box is somewhat translucent, but not entirely transparent. It is, to an extent, opaque.  This means that any light you see through it will be less luminous than it was at the point of incidence. Because the box is orange, this will be most noticeable for blue and cyan lights, but since perfectly transparent materials don't currently exist, it could also be measured for light of any colour. If you were to look through this box, the world around you would look considerably more orange, and overall somewhat darker.

Now, imagine two such boxes lined together. As you can hopefully imagine (or verify yourself if you feel like getting a bunch of Tic Tac®), looking through two boxes would make things seem even more orange, but also more dark.

Now, imagine many boxes. Like, plenty of boxes. Make sure your kids aren't looking, 'cause if they find out those dental bills are gonna be insane.



Try looking through all of those in a straight line. Can you see anything at the end? Chances are the answer is "no". If the answer is "yes", please add more boxes to the simulation until the desired effect has been observed.

To nobody's surprise, opaque materials are opaque. The atmolayer is opaque. Once light passes through enough of it, it eventually dims out completely.

The sun in FE is 3000 miles overhead. When it moves 5,196 miles away it will be twice as far from you (30-60-90 triangle, ignoring the curved flight path in FE for the moment).

You seem to assume that the Sun will be directly overhead at some point. Of course, it never comes anywhere close to that. It's almost as if you were trying to create your own FET just so that you can "debunk" it. Almost.

But yes, if you ventured far into the lands beyond the Ice Wall, it's quite likely that you would observe this.

[markjo]

Think about it like this.  A car can drive around. A plane can fly around and when it's on the ground, it can drive around like a car.  Now, if I tell you that a plane is like a car in that it can drive around, would you be correct in denying that statement by asking how it's like a car if it can fly?

In this model, the moon is like a spot light in that it can shine done on the earth in a spotlight pattern, like how a plane is like a car in that it can drive around.  Also, the sun can shine on other things in the same sense that a plane can also fly while a car (or a normal spotlight) could not.

Does that circuitous explanation clear things up?

Not really.  Would you please explain why it's so vital to FET that the sun and moon act like spotlights when they so obvious that they don't, regardless of how much you torture the definitions of "spot" or "spotlight"?

Why do you have a problem accepting that two things can act like two different things at the same time? 

Who said that I did?

Aren't you a rabid supporter of quantum physics? 

Rabid supporter?  No, not really.  To be honest, I never really got that much into quantum physics.  I'm more of a classical Newtonian mechanics kind of guy, but I do understand where QM and GR address Newton's shortcomings.

Oh, I forgot, only round-earth science gets to state not-yet-understood observations as fact.

How does one observe the sun acting as a spotlight?

RE science: This acts as both a particle and a wave, how strange and impossible.
Reaction: ZOMG HAVE A NOBEL PRIZE!!

FE science: The sun appears to act as a spotlight and not at the same time.
Reaction: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, N00B.  GO LIVE IN A CAVE.

The only problem with your analogy is that light can be demonstrated to have characteristics that fit the definitions of both a wave and a particle.  What characteristics does a 3000 mile high, 32 mile diameter, omnidirectional light source that illuminates an area several thousand miles in diameter have that fit the definition of a spotlight?

[markjo]

Just how does the intransparency of the atmoplane cause the existence of the horizon?

Let me try to explain this with a thought experiment (although you're welcome to try it out in real life). Picture an empty orange Tic Tac® box. We'll use the orange flavour to make the effect more apparent.



As you can see, the box is somewhat translucent, but not entirely transparent. It is, to an extent, opaque.

No.  If you can see through it, then it's transparent, even if the image changes color.  If you can't see through it, but light can still get through, then it's translucent.  If light can't pass through at all, then it's opaque.  These are very different conditions that should not be confused or used interchangeably.

This means that any light you see through it will be less luminous than it was at the point of incidence. Because the box is orange, this will be most noticeable for blue and cyan lights, but since perfectly transparent materials don't currently exist, it could also be measured for light of any colour. If you were to look through this box, the world around you would look considerably more orange, and overall somewhat darker.

Now, imagine two such boxes lined together. As you can hopefully imagine (or verify yourself if you feel like getting a bunch of Tic Tac®), looking through two boxes would make things seem even more orange, but also more dark.

Now, imagine many boxes. Like, plenty of boxes. Make sure your kids aren't looking, 'cause if they find out those dental bills are gonna be insane.



Try looking through all of those in a straight line. Can you see anything at the end? Chances are the answer is "no". If the answer is "yes", please add more boxes to the simulation until the desired effect has been observed.

Ummm... Okay.

To nobody's surprise, opaque materials are opaque. The atmolayer is opaque. Once light passes through enough of it, it eventually dims out completely.

No, that isn't what opaque means.  You can't see several miles through an opaque material.  It would be more accurate to say that the atmolayer is transparent at short distances but becomes translucent at long distances.

[geckothegeek]

Interesting.  I always thought that the sun vanishes due to the intransparency of the horizon.

You weren't too far off, given that the horizon's existence is also caused by the intransparency of the atmosphere. You just mixed up the cause and effect.

Okay, I'll bite.  Just how does the intransparency (is that even a real word?) of the atmoplane cause the existence of the horizon?

How about "atmoplane" ?
(Is that even a real word ?)

[Pete Svarrior]

No.  If you can see through it, then it's transparent, even if the image changes color.  If you can't see through it, but light can still get through, then it's translucent.  If light can't pass through at all, then it's opaque.  These are very different conditions that should not be confused or used interchangeably.

You are kind of correct, at least as far as the colloquial definition is concerned. See the more technical definition I was using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opacity_(optics)#Quantitative_definition. My bad. Instead of trying to appease your pedantry, I should have just told you to piss off straight away.

No, that isn't what opaque means.  You can't see several miles through an opaque material.  It would be more accurate to say that the atmolayer is transparent at short distances but becomes translucent at long distances.

Yes, great, you think I used the wrong word because you didn't pay attention in high school physics. Luckily you heroically came to your own rescue and pointed it out. Now the explanation is complete even in your mind, and, as I can see, you have no other objections to it.

Oh, and just to prevent you from teaching people more incorrect definitions of words: "translucent" means it diffuses light. While the atmolayer is also translucent, that's irrelevant to this discussion. And no, gases don't become translucent at a distance. Refer back to the Tic Tac® example: the effect is always there, you just don't perceive it until it becomes significant enough.

[frisbee]

You seem to assume that the Sun will be directly overhead at some point. Of course, it never comes anywhere close to that.

So nobody lives at the equator in FE? Nor directly under the sun's path as it wanders north and south? Really? What flat Earth model do you subscribe to and where is it's wiki?

[Pete Svarrior]

So nobody lives at the equator in FE?

What?

Nor directly under the sun's path as it wanders north and south?

Yes.

Really?

Depends on what you're asking about, really, but the answer is probably "yes".

What flat Earth model do you subscribe to and where is it's wiki?

Our model has been described in quite many threads throughout the two fora. Exercise those keen observational abilities of yours and perform a few searches. I'm not digging through 4-year-old threads for someone as wilfully obtuse as you.

[frisbee]

You seem to assume that the Sun will be directly overhead at some point. Of course, it never comes anywhere close to that.

So nobody lives at the equator in FE?

What?

Nor directly under the sun's path as it wanders north and south?

Yes.

So your interpretation of "directly overhead" was sitting on top of your scalp rather than being positioned vertically above your head at 3,000 miles? Cute.
And when the sun is directly overhead (as in 3,000 in the vertical direction) of someone standing 5,196 miles away from me, the sun is twice as far away from me as before and should appear about half as big across. Why isn't there any variation in the apparent size of the sun? Because the sun is 93 million miles away, not 3,000 miles away.

[Pete Svarrior]

So your interpretation of "directly overhead" was sitting on top of your scalp rather than being positioned vertically above your head at 3,000 miles? Cute.

Where on Earth did you get that from? Have you gone insane, or are you doing the thing where you make shit up again?

[frisbee]

So your interpretation of "directly overhead" was sitting on top of your scalp rather than being positioned vertically above your head at 3,000 miles? Cute.

Where on Earth did you get that from? Have you gone insane, or are you doing the thing where you make shit up again?

So you have no explanation for why the apparent size of the sun in FE remains the same wherever it is above the flat earth. Got it. Thanks.

[markjo]

No.  If you can see through it, then it's transparent, even if the image changes color.  If you can't see through it, but light can still get through, then it's translucent.  If light can't pass through at all, then it's opaque.  These are very different conditions that should not be confused or used interchangeably.

You are kind of correct, at least as far as the colloquial definition is concerned. See the more technical definition I was using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opacity_(optics)#Quantitative_definition.

If you want to use the quantitative definition, then why don't you go one step further and calculate the opacity of the atmoplane and tell us at what distance the opacity becomes enough to cause the appearance of the horizon?