#### rabinoz

• 1436
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #40 on: February 20, 2016, 06:00:54 AM »
the problem with this theory is that if the sun and moon are flat like some of the youtube videos say they are then we wouldn't get the crescent moon we get sometimes
One of troubles with a disk sun or moon is that both the sun and moon appear the same size and shape from all parts of the earth.
A disk would have to appear elliptical when it it not overhead.
We get told that bright lights get bigger in a the distance through a diffusive atmosphere, but this does not explain the crisp sharp sunsets we often often observe, nor does it the explain same effect with the moon which does not have this extreme brightness.
We get told that the atmosphere magnifies the distant sun and moon, but how can that be by the 3 or 4 times needed is never justified.
All we seem to be told is "Look uo the Wiki!" as if that was the ultimate repository of human knowledge!

#### TheTruthIsOnHere

• 943
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #41 on: February 20, 2016, 06:03:21 PM »
the problem with this theory is that if the sun and moon are flat like some of the youtube videos say they are then we wouldn't get the crescent moon we get sometimes
One of troubles with heliocentric theory's sun or moon is that both the sun and moon appear the same size and shape from all parts of the earth.

Ftfy.

So even though the sun and moon appear the same size from all parts of earth shouldnt the moon in the very least, look smaller from a vantage point in north America when it's over Europe? Even slightly? Shouldn't we ever see a slightly different angle of the face? With that aside, are we instead to believe that even though they appear the same size, it's just an illusion, one is actually 93 million miles away and the other is much closer, and even though their movements look very similar, one revolving around the earth opposite the direction we actually observe, while the other inexplicably stationary? Doesn't it just sound stupid? I guess if you have the chalkboard full of equations you can pass anything off as truth huh.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2016, 06:10:20 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6551
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #42 on: February 20, 2016, 07:41:11 PM »
An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Quote
Beam Divergence

This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.

From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence we read:

Quote
"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."

#### Unsure101

• 142
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2016, 09:21:43 AM »
An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Quote
Beam Divergence

This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.

From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence we read:

Quote
"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."

Thanks Tom, that could explain why the sun appears larger as it sets, but it would still have to be pointed directly at the observer to appear round.

#### rabinoz

• 1436
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2016, 10:18:35 AM »
the problem with this theory is that if the sun and moon are flat like some of the youtube videos say they are then we wouldn't get the crescent moon we get sometimes
One of troubles with heliocentric theory's sun or moon is that both the sun and moon appear the same size and shape from all parts of the earth.

Ftfy.

So even though the sun and moon appear the same size from all parts of earth shouldnt the moon in the very least, look smaller from a vantage point in north America when it's over Europe? Even slightly? Shouldn't we ever see a slightly different angle of the face? With that aside, are we instead to believe that even though they appear the same size, it's just an illusion, one is actually 93 million miles away and the other is much closer, and even though their movements look very similar, one revolving around the earth opposite the direction we actually observe, while the other inexplicably stationary? Doesn't it just sound stupid? I guess if you have the chalkboard full of equations you can pass anything off as truth huh.
You are sort of correct with "shouldnt the moon in the very least, look smaller from a vantage point in north America when it's over Europe? Even slightly? Shouldn't we ever see a slightly different angle of the face?"  The moon is slightly further away at the horizon than when it is overhead. The change in size is around 1.6%, measurable, but hardly noticeable. And, yes again we would see a "slightly different angle of the face" from places on the opposite sides of the earth,  visible if comparing photographs.
For someone of earth of course, the sun appears to rotate just once per day and the moon appears to rotate in about 24 hours and 53 minutes.
Most of this movement is the earth's rotation with the moon rotating "backwards" once in a bit over a month.

No, it "doesn't. . . .  sound stupid" and no chalkboard full of equations! Gee, must be a couple of decades since I used a chalkboard!
Mind you I completely fail to see how any of the observations of the sun and moon, with eclipses and moon phases fit with a sun and moon "circling" at almost the same height above us.
Quote from: the Wiki, The Phases of the Moon
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs
When I try to visuallise this geometry I am afraid it simply does not explain what I observe!

#### rabinoz

• 1436
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2016, 10:45:15 AM »
An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Quote
Beam Divergence

This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.

From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence we read:

Quote
"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."
You say "Supposedly 'straight' rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances". There is no "Supposedly straight" about it! The "rays of light" simply are straight! In a diverging beam the light is still travelling in straight lines (unless bent by diffraction or refraction).

This beam divergence is of absolutely no relevance to the supposed "magnification of the Sun at sunset". Of course the rays of light from any light source diverge! In most cases, such as the flat earth sun, the divergence has to be very large to illuminate half the earth! So, why on earth are you bringing lasers into it. The sun is nothing like a laser.
I have never seen anything further removed from the Zetetic idea than the surmise and guesswork that goes into explaining away real observations.
Still, what would I know? Carry on guessing!

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6551
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2016, 07:48:41 PM »
Despite what you want to think of the effect, that its a result of imperfect craftsmanship, or whatever, the fact is that the effect exists and that laser beams enlarge over distance. The effect is, therefore, a credit to the idea that light rays enlarge over distance as claimed in the Wiki.

#### rabinoz

• 1436
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #47 on: February 21, 2016, 08:14:35 PM »
Despite what you want to think of the effect, that its a result of imperfect craftsmanship, or whatever, the fact is that the effect exists and that laser beams enlarge over distance. The effect is, therefore, a credit to the idea that light rays enlarge over distance as claimed in the Wiki.
Would you please read what is actually said! It was
"Of course the rays of light from any light source diverge!
In most cases, such as the flat earth sun, the divergence has to be very large to illuminate half the earth! So, why on earth are you bringing lasers into it."
My claim was that the rays of light travel straight, and that is exactly what they do "unless bent by diffraction or refraction."

Nobody, least of all myself, is claiming that laser beams do not diverge. The light form an common light bulb diverges over about half sphere, enough for a ceiling bulb to illuminate a whole room.

But none of this in any way affects the apparent size of the light source!

You are just so smug in the idea that you know everything, yet make most outrageously incorrect statements.

#### Charming Anarchist

• 159
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2016, 09:45:59 PM »
So the sun is a giant magnifying glass??
No.
I believe the reflective surface of the firmament acts as a parabolic mirror of which the sun is the focal point.  The sun's rays are converging down from the firmament.
I thought you followed "Zetetic Cosmology".
Irrelevent.

I supposed you have observed this mirror and if the sun is the focal point please explain how we see the sun not as a "point" but as a disc around 0.5° in diameter.
--- because your eyeball is a sphere.

And, where is the energy source that this "mirror" is focusing?
I am not sure but I am convinced that the frozen horizon goes on and on and on and on.  I think it is credible to believe that there are other pockets with spinning sun's and moons.  The aggregate is likely shining lots of light upwards to the firmament.  That is what we are seeing in the moon ---- a reflection of the earth up upon the firmament.  We are probably a tiny speck in 1 of the moon craters.

Also if "reflective surface of the firmament acts as a parabolic mirror" what makes the sun appear to move?
The magnetic field of the earth probably has something to do with it.
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

#### model 29

• 397
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #49 on: February 29, 2016, 12:25:57 AM »
An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Quote
Beam Divergence

This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.

From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence we read:

Quote
"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."
If I setup a laser, travel a hundred meters out in front of it, and look back at the source, will I see the source as a tiny source of light, or will I see it enlarged.  If I double the distance, will it appear even bigger (enough that it appears the same size as it did at the hundred meter mark)?

Or to clarify, if I go out far enough that the beam is 1 meter wide, if I look back with a spotting scope, will the source of the beam appear to be 1 meter wide also, instead of 1mm (or whatever size it is physically)?
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 05:38:58 PM by model 29 »

#### atlantech

• 1
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #50 on: March 02, 2016, 02:02:51 PM »
A few of questions that have not been explained in the forum or wiki.

1. If the sun is a focal point, how do you explain the existence of solar flares?

2. What shape is the focal point?

3. Because there is no sign of the light source in the sky, the source must come from below the horizon. That would indicate that the focal point must be a mirror. How is it possible for the focal point to move without changing the angle of the mirror?

The only way this would be possible is if the focal point is stationary and it is the earth that moves.

Thank you.

#### Unsure101

• 142
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #51 on: March 07, 2016, 01:08:13 PM »
An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Quote
Beam Divergence

This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.

From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence we read:

Quote
"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."
If I setup a laser, travel a hundred meters out in front of it, and look back at the source, will I see the source as a tiny source of light, or will I see it enlarged.  If I double the distance, will it appear even bigger (enough that it appears the same size as it did at the hundred meter mark)?

Or to clarify, if I go out far enough that the beam is 1 meter wide, if I look back with a spotting scope, will the source of the beam appear to be 1 meter wide also, instead of 1mm (or whatever size it is physically)?
Firstly, I wouldn't advise looking into a laser beam with a spotting scope as this will likely give you some serious eye troubles.
Secondly, if you were able to, and still see afterwards, you would see a focused point as the scope would focus the laser onto your eyes. As the beam has diverged you could move the scope around the diverged beam and see the same result.

#### model 29

• 397
##### Re: Sun and Moon shape
« Reply #52 on: March 07, 2016, 07:43:03 PM »

Firstly, I wouldn't advise looking into a laser beam with a spotting scope as this will likely give you some serious eye troubles.
Obviously

Quote
Secondly, if you were able to, and still see afterwards, you would see a focused point as the scope would focus the laser onto your eyes. As the beam has diverged you could move the scope around the diverged beam and see the same result.
So you're saying the source would appear enlarged, and not just as a result of using a scope?  Perhaps placing a 1 meter wide circle of cardboard next to the laser, heading out to where the beam has spread to a diameter of a meter, and then observing if the source of the beam appears as wide as the cardboard.  (standing just to the side of the beam of course, for safety's sake..... or using a dark lens.  That would also reduce glare)