[Rayzor]

Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".

Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?

I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.

Amazing input.

I thought it was probably low content and irrelevant,  and then I realized he was probably referring to those newly arrived flat earth youtube bunnies.   The ones that think the sun is 4-5 times larger at sunset, and things getting bigger as they move away due to perspective.

Still waiting to see if anyone has picked up the point I'm making about the observed refraction of sight lines close to the horizon, not being possible on a flat earth,   but always occurs on a globe earth.

[andruszkow]

Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".

Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?

I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.

Amazing input.

I thought it was probably low content and irrelevant,  and then I realized he was probably referring to those newly arrived flat earth youtube bunnies.   The ones that think the sun is 4-5 times larger at sunset, and things getting bigger as they move away due to perspective.

Still waiting to see if anyone has picked up the point I'm making about the observed refraction of sight lines close to the horizon, not being possible on a flat earth,   but always occurs on a globe earth.

Not sure how long you've been here but you can't fight this crazy. Math and science beyond the scope of addition, let alone substantial evidence is disregarded as fantasy

[juner]

Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".

Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?

I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.

Amazing input.

I thought it was probably low content and irrelevant,  and then I realized he was probably referring to those newly arrived flat earth youtube bunnies.   The ones that think the sun is 4-5 times larger at sunset, and things getting bigger as they move away due to perspective.

Still waiting to see if anyone has picked up the point I'm making about the observed refraction of sight lines close to the horizon, not being possible on a flat earth,   but always occurs on a globe earth.

Not sure how long you've been here but you can't fight this crazy. Math and science beyond the scope of addition, let alone substantial evidence is disregarded as fantasy

There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.

I'll also add that the "upper fora" are more moderated than the more casual fora. Low content posting such as this isn't allowed. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting.

[andruszkow]

Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".

Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?

I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.

Amazing input.

I thought it was probably low content and irrelevant,  and then I realized he was probably referring to those newly arrived flat earth youtube bunnies.   The ones that think the sun is 4-5 times larger at sunset, and things getting bigger as they move away due to perspective.

Still waiting to see if anyone has picked up the point I'm making about the observed refraction of sight lines close to the horizon, not being possible on a flat earth,   but always occurs on a globe earth.

Not sure how long you've been here but you can't fight this crazy. Math and science beyond the scope of addition, let alone substantial evidence is disregarded as fantasy

There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.

I'll also add, that the "upper fora" are more moderated than the more casual fora. Low content posting such as this isn't allowed. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting.

No sweat. However, you've commented on my posts in the past, posts where I've been much more dedicated and involved, especially on the fact side. But even when you can prove that the math is faulty, FEers tend to write you off as a shill or just say you have kindergarten level of knowledge. Even when you prove and show off practical skills, you claim I lie.

It gets tiresome, it resembles the rationality of a child. FEers are probably the least open community of them all

[juner]

Well, it is the Flat Earth Society. The premise going in is that the earth is flat. Most of the regulars here like to engage it actual discussion, and you won't see them calling anyone a shill. However, there have been multiple FE communities that have converged here, so there's personalities of all kinds, and that's fine. The moderators/admins here look to keep the discussion open, however there's only a few of us in comparison to the hundreds of RErs who come in demanding we provide them some proof they think they're obligated to from us. We have laid things out very well, but answering the same questions over and over gets old. I'm all for open discussion, but do grow weary of trolls and people who think they're a lot smarter than they really are. No one forces anyone to come here and post, and we don't owe anything to anyone.

[model 29]

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers.

I've never seen it appear 4-5 times larger.  I've seen it appear slightly larger at sunset during dusty or smokey conditions, but during normal clear conditions it appears the same size.  Do you have any examples of it appearing that big?

[Rayzor]

[There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.

I'm interested in learning more about this advanced maths that can produce refraction of sight lines close to the horizon on a flat earth.   

I assert that it's not possible.  For light paths to refract there needs to be a change in refractive index,  which requires the sight line to traverse a change in air density.  The standard adiabatic lapse rate on a curved earth means the density varies with altitude,  that change in refractive index combined with the earth's curvature, causes sight lines to be refracted downwards.   If the sight lines are across water, then a temperature gradient of 0.11 degrees C per meter can refract sight lines downwards sufficiently to match the earth's curvature.   Again not possible on a flat earth.

While a flat earth may have the same lapse rate, it lacks the curvature for the sight lines to be refracted.

[juner]

[There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.

I'm interested in learning more about this advanced maths that can produce refraction of sight lines close to the horizon on a flat earth.   

I assert that it's not possible.  For light paths to refract there needs to be a change in refractive index,  which requires the sight line to traverse a change in air density.  The standard adiabatic lapse rate on a curved earth means the density varies with altitude,  that change in refractive index combined with the earth's curvature, causes sight lines to be refracted downwards.   If the sight lines are across water, then a temperature gradient of 0.11 degrees C per meter can refract sight lines downwards sufficiently to match the earth's curvature.   Again not possible on a flat earth.

While a flat earth may have the same lapse rate, it lacks the curvature for the sight lines to be refracted.

The bending of light is not exactly a new concept. Here is a sample from an old member on the "old" site:

Success!  I have derived an equation for the path of light from the north star in the north south direction that exhibits the above assumptions.

y(x) = h - x Cot[r/h] - (x^2 (3 h - 2 r Cot[r/h] - r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^2 - (x^3 (-2 h + r Cot[r/h] + r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^3

y is the height of the light beam as a function of x, the distance from the north pole.  h is the height of the Sun.  r is distance of a ground observer of the light beam from the north pole.  R is the distance from the equator to the north pole.

This is a cubic equation.  Further degrees of polynomials could be used up to an infinite Taylor series, but they would require more unknown parameters.  Perhaps a theory for cause of bendy light could provide values for these unknown parameters.  Quadratic and lower polynomials are unable to satisfy the assumptions.

[Rayzor]

[There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.

I'm interested in learning more about this advanced maths that can produce refraction of sight lines close to the horizon on a flat earth.   

I assert that it's not possible.  For light paths to refract there needs to be a change in refractive index,  which requires the sight line to traverse a change in air density.  The standard adiabatic lapse rate on a curved earth means the density varies with altitude,  that change in refractive index combined with the earth's curvature, causes sight lines to be refracted downwards.   If the sight lines are across water, then a temperature gradient of 0.11 degrees C per meter can refract sight lines downwards sufficiently to match the earth's curvature.   Again not possible on a flat earth.

While a flat earth may have the same lapse rate, it lacks the curvature for the sight lines to be refracted.

The bending of light is not exactly a new concept. Here is a sample from an old member on the "old" site:

Success!  I have derived an equation for the path of light from the north star in the north south direction that exhibits the above assumptions.

y(x) = h - x Cot[r/h] - (x^2 (3 h - 2 r Cot[r/h] - r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^2 - (x^3 (-2 h + r Cot[r/h] + r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^3

y is the height of the light beam as a function of x, the distance from the north pole.  h is the height of the Sun.  r is distance of a ground observer of the light beam from the north pole.  R is the distance from the equator to the north pole.

This is a cubic equation.  Further degrees of polynomials could be used up to an infinite Taylor series, but they would require more unknown parameters.  Perhaps a theory for cause of bendy light could provide values for these unknown parameters.  Quadratic and lower polynomials are unable to satisfy the assumptions.

Thanks for that,  I was half expecting a bendy light solution,  is there a theory for what is causing the light to bend.   

[Rayzor]

I plotted that equation,  and it shows light paths being bent away from the earth,  asymptotically towards Polaris.  So that from the North Pole you would see nothing at all since all the light is being bent away.    This is not what we observe at the north pole.

I also read the original thread here..  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.0#.Vps1r6iUdGE

First,  the mechanism proposed is the EA  Electromagnetic Accelerator,   and second, Euclid's formula is purely a empirical derivation.

The round earth explanation of the observed refraction is simpler and easily verified from multiple sources.   

[Rayzor]

....Crickets.....

[juner]

....Crickets.....

Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. What is it you want? The only question within your last double post was regarding the mechanism behind the UA and bending light. The simple answer for that is dark energy. The more complicated answer is that we still do not know.

[Rayzor]

....Crickets.....

Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. What is it you want? The only question within your last double post was regarding the mechanism behind the UA and bending light. The simple answer for that is dark energy. The more complicated answer is that we still do not know.

My apologies,   perhaps you could enlighten me as to what is the benchmark for "low content"    Is it the number of words,  the implied meaning,  the depth of the question or something else. 

.... crickets ...     is full of meaning, and depth,  but lacking in number of words.

I'll take the "We don't know"  as the definitive answer,   I suspect  Sandokhan might have a different view.

[juner]

....Crickets.....

Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. What is it you want? The only question within your last double post was regarding the mechanism behind the UA and bending light. The simple answer for that is dark energy. The more complicated answer is that we still do not know.

My apologies,   perhaps you could enlighten me as to what is the benchmark for "low content"    Is it the number of words,  the implied meaning,  the depth of the question or something else. 

.... crickets ...     is full of meaning, and depth,  but lacking in number of words.

I'll take the "We don't know"  as the definitive answer,   I suspect  Sandokhan might have a different view.

Low-content is a post that adds nothing to the conversation, which your comment was an example of.

Dark energy is ultimately the answer. Sandokhan can chime in if he wants to, but he does not to subscribe to the electromagnetic accelerator. I am sure he will be happy to teach you about the aether and telluric currents.

[rabinoz]

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers.

I know I am very late on replying to the OP, but so many answers seem to be getting nowhere.  My simple answer is that I have never seen the sun 4 to 5 times larger at sunset.
I have seen it appear a little larger when very close to the horizon, but that is a simple optical illusion and any measurements have shown no change. 
This is the well known "Ponzo Illusion", see http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/exmoon.htm, though this is for the moon.

Also the sun is often quite distorted and sometimes "bloated" when just on the horizon, simply due to diffraction in heated air near the earth's surface.

So, what about some evidence that it really is 4 to 5 times larger before any further ideas are hatched on either side.