[edreesmangel]

If the sun does not set, instead it moves further away until it vanishes having a vanishing point, is that vanishing point in respect of the human eye only or is it a vanishing point for the telescope as well?

if it is not a vanishing point for the telescope does that mean we would be able to see it in the night with a powerful telescope?

and if not than why are we able to see stars that are considered to be on or beyond the Dome?

Note: i do not believe in the round earth but still have questions related to the flat earth.

[edreesmangel]

Literally ZERO replies People?? FE's please help me out here!!!

[andruszkow]

Question: If you have questions like this with fairly obvious answers, how can you still claim, with certainty, that you don't believe the earth to be round?

[phayes9891]

Question: If you have questions like this with fairly obvious answers, how can you still claim, with certainty, that you don't believe the earth to be round?

There are no obvious answers, you would be able to see the sun (a star) without a telescope, just as you can see the other stars if the earth were flat and day/night worked the way it is described in the wiki.

[andruszkow]

Question: If you have questions like this with fairly obvious answers, how can you still claim, with certainty, that you don't believe the earth to be round?

There are no obvious answers, you would be able to see the sun (a star) without a telescope, just as you can see the other stars if the earth were flat and day/night worked the way it is described in the wiki.

Hence, the obvious answer is that the sun doesn't move away from you, but sets as a result of standing on a spinning sphere.

[Tom Bishop]

Imperfections on the earth's surface intersect the perspective lines of the sun once the sun is close enough to the geometric horizon of the plane earth.

[andruszkow]

Imperfections on the earth's surface intersect the perspective lines of the sun once the sun is close enough to the geometric horizon of the plane earth.

There's no geometric horizon on a flat plane in relation to the sun unless the sun actually sinks or otherwise lowers its altitude to the point it's behind, say, a mountain.

[Tom Bishop]

Imperfections on the earth's surface intersect the perspective lines of the sun once the sun is close enough to the geometric horizon of the plane earth.

There's no geometric horizon on a flat plane in relation to the sun unless the sun actually sinks or otherwise lowers its altitude to the point it's behind, say, a mountain.

Perspective lines can shrink behind something in the foreground. Easily. Consider that if you hold a dime in front of your face you can obscure an elephant in the distance.

No matter how small of an imperfection above the surface of the earth, the sun can eventually get behind it as the perspective lines of the sun and the earth merge.

[rabinoz]

Imperfections on the earth's surface intersect the perspective lines of the sun once the sun is close enough to the geometric horizon of the plane earth.

There's no geometric horizon on a flat plane in relation to the sun unless the sun actually sinks or otherwise lowers its altitude to the point it's behind, say, a mountain.

Perspective lines can shrink behind something in the foreground. Easily. Consider that if you hold a dime in front of your face you can obscure an elephant in the distance.

No matter how small of an imperfection above the surface of the earth, the sun can eventually get behind it as the perspective lines of the sun and the earth merge.

Really? This does not seem to fit with Rowbotham's statement here on "the law of perspective"

In the first place it is easily demonstrable that, as shown in the following diagrams, fig. 71, lines which are equi-distant

FIG. 71.

"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."
The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following: when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.
From: Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' CHAPTER XIV.

The sun's diameter is claimed to be 32 miles, so the sun should be visible (according to Rowbotham) for a distance of 3,000 x 32 = 96,000 miles!

But on the flat earth at sunset it is easy enough to show (at least on the equator at an equinox) that the distance to the sun is about 9,400 miles.
At this distance the angle the sun "subtends at the eye of the observer" is

arcsin(32/9400) = 12 minutes of arc. In other words, according to Rowbotham, very clearly visible.

Mind you, I would claim that the angular size of the sun does not change during the day as I tried to demonstrate in The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun.

Not only that but the sun is supposedly at about 3,200 miles in height.
At a distance of 9,400 miles (provided, as you claim these "photons travel in straight lines") that is still at an elevation of 20° - nowhere near the horizon!

So it would seem that according to Rowbotham's "law of perspective" you statement:

"No matter how small of an imperfection above the surface of the earth, the sun can eventually get behind it as the perspective lines of the sun and the earth merge."

cannot possibly be correct.

[Tom Bishop]

That math doesn't really work when it comes to perspective. I refer you to the following video:

[rabinoz]

That math doesn't really work when it comes to perspective. I refer you to the following video:

No that video is wrong!

You, and that video assume that the horizon is the vanishing point, but there is much evidence, even in many Flat Earth Youtube videos that categorically prove that it is not.



<<added a bit, no time now for more >>

[Tom Bishop]

No that video is wrong!

Compelling.

[rabinoz]

No that video is wrong!

Compelling.

Well, you asked for it. This is what I mean.

Obviously you will explain it away, but I find it compelling because it agrees exactly with what I expect to see.

To me that ship, those buildings and those tanks certainly are further away than the visible horizon an none are at anywhere near their vanishing point.

08-Weipa Sunset

13-Weipa Sunset

Horizon Zoom Boom Earth Flat Video

And that sun at sunset and these other buildings (from a Flat Earth video) certainly look further than the horizon, yet are very visible.

As Rowbotham clearly states, the vanishing point for an object depends entirely on the size of the object - large objects can be seen when much away.

That is why I claim that the video is wrong. It tries to show that the size of the should gradually reduce until it finally reduces to nothing at the horizon.

It does not do that! I did not want to clutter things up with this, but these are photos taken through a filter to remove the glare.

But from actual observations the angular size the sun does not change during the day. It certainly does not reduce in size as your video claims.
Have a look at this thread The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun.
Here is a bit of the OP:
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!

Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!

The "sun does not appear to change its size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

[Tom Bishop]

No that video is wrong!

Compelling.

Well, you asked for it. This is what I mean.

Obviously you will explain it away, but I find it compelling because it agrees exactly with what I expect to see.Horizon Zoom Boom Earth Flat Video

And that sun at sunset and these other buildings (from a Flat Earth video) certainly look further than the horizon, yet are very visible.

As Rowbotham clearly states, the vanishing point for an object depends entirely on the size of the object - large objects can be seen when much away.

To me that ship, those buildings and those tanks certainly are further away than the visible horizon an none are at anywhere near their vanishing point.

That would be because there is stuff on the horizon to hide behind, if an object is far enough away behind it, just as a dime can obscure an elephant. The plane of the earth is not perfectly flat.

That is why I claim that the video is wrong. It tries to show that the size of the should gradually reduce until it finally reduces to nothing at the horizon.

It does not do that! I did not want to clutter things up with this, but these are photos taken through a filter to remove the glare.

But from actual observations the angular size the sun does not change during the day. It certainly does not reduce in size as your video claims.
Have a look at this thread The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun.
Here is a bit of the OP:
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!

Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!

The "sun does not appear to change its size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

The size of the sun at sunset is described here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

[rabinoz]

No that video is wrong!

Compelling.

Well, you asked for it. This is what I mean.

Obviously you will explain it away, but I find it compelling because it agrees exactly with what I expect to see.Horizon Zoom Boom Earth Flat Video

And that sun at sunset and these other buildings (from a Flat Earth video) certainly look further than the horizon, yet are very visible.

As Rowbotham clearly states, the vanishing point for an object depends entirely on the size of the object - large objects can be seen when much away.

To me that ship, those buildings and those tanks certainly are further away than the visible horizon an none are at anywhere near their vanishing point.

That would be because there is stuff on the horizon to hide behind, if an object is far enough away behind it, just as a dime can obscure an elephant. The plane of the earth is not perfectly flat.

But,
1. The sun sets every night and at a very predictable time. Are you really going to claim that every night everywhere there just ahppens to be a convenient object to hide the sun?

2. There is no way that a sun some 3,200 miles high can get to anywhere near the horizon! Remember Rowbotham's Law of Perspective!

That is why I claim that the video is wrong. It tries to show that the size of the should gradually reduce until it finally reduces to nothing at the horizon.

It does not do that! I did not want to clutter things up with this, but these are photos taken through a filter to remove the glare.

But from actual observations the angular size the sun does not change during the day. It certainly does not reduce in size as your video claims.
Have a look at this thread The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun.
Here is a bit of the OP:
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!

Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!

The "sun does not appear to change its size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

The size of the sun at sunset is described here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Yes, I have read and studied that, but there is no way that "known magnification due the glare . . . . . . " explains the sin's staying exactly the same size!

But you stick to you Sacred Texts! And you claim that belief in the Flat Earth is not a religion.

[Rounder]

To me that ship, those buildings and those tanks certainly are further away than the visible horizon and none are at anywhere near their vanishing point.

That would be because there is stuff on the horizon to hide behind, if an object is far enough away behind it, just as a dime can obscure an elephant. The plane of the earth is not perfectly flat.

What "stuff" is on the horizon, exactly?  Oh, you mean the ocean?  The flat, self levelling, ocean?  The ocean with (in these photos) tiny little waves on it?  Is that the "stuff" hiding tall objects?

You keep repeating the "elephant behind a dime" analogy, you must think it's effective.    I don't understand why you think so.   If you stand a dime up on the ground a long ways off, the elephant cannot hide behind it no matter how far away he is.  As you yourself have told us:

The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.

However, in order for light from a tall animal like an elephant to hide behind a small object like a dime, the light would have to violate your rule, and instead dip down to dime level before rising again to eye level.  Same with tall objects (like cruise ships, skyscrapers, and storage tanks) and waves; in order for a wave located a mile away from me to hide from my sight a cruise ship a hundred feet or more above the surface, the light must curve.

[Tom Bishop]

But,
1. The sun sets every night and at a very predictable time. Are you really going to claim that every night everywhere there just ahppens to be a convenient object to hide the sun?

There are always waves and swells on the surface of the sea, hundreds of them, thousands of them, so many that at the horizon they become a solid line, unable to distinguish. Of course there is always something to hide behind.

2. There is no way that a sun some 3,200 miles high can get to anywhere near the horizon! Remember Rowbotham's Law of Perspective!

You have not yet debunked the video I provided which shows that the geometrical side view math is not accurate.

Yes, I have read and studied that, but there is no way that "known magnification due the glare . . . . . . " explains the sin's staying exactly the same size!

Sure it does. The explanations and supporting evidence is pretty clear.

[Tom Bishop]

What "stuff" is on the horizon, exactly?  Oh, you mean the ocean?  The flat, self levelling, ocean?  The ocean with (in these photos) tiny little waves on it?  Is that the "stuff" hiding tall objects?

You keep repeating the "elephant behind a dime" analogy, you must think it's effective.    I don't understand why you think so.   If you stand a dime up on the ground a long ways off, the elephant cannot hide behind it no matter how far away he is.  As you yourself have told us:

The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.

However, in order for light from a tall animal like an elephant to hide behind a small object like a dime, the light would have to violate your rule, and instead dip down to dime level before rising again to eye level.  Same with tall objects (like cruise ships, skyscrapers, and storage tanks) and waves; in order for a wave located a mile away from me to hide from my sight a cruise ship a hundred feet or more above the surface, the light must curve.

Yes, but if you look out at the world you will notice that perspective causes the surface to ascend in height until the horizon is at eye level with the observer. And if you were to take a protractor you could see that the horizon is at a 90 degree angle to the ground.

From http://wiki.tfes.org/Basic_Perspective -

A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.

Here's a text about horizon line and eye level, from Chapter 5 from the Perspective Handbook:

Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level.

It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.

One easy experiment you can do for yourself is find a computer game which can render large 3D maps. Move your character to one end of the map, center your crosshair on the line of the horizon, and turn on noclip. Without moving the mouse, ascend in height and notice how the line of the horizon will stay centered on the crosshair until you run out of land to see.

While a game is not comparable to life, this easily observable perspective effect is enough to satisfy the observer as to its workings and should be apparent and visible in most modern computer games.

[rabinoz]

. . . . . . . . . . .
Yes, but if you look out at the world you will notice that perspective causes the surface to ascend in height until the horizon is at eye level with the observer. And if you were to take a protractor you could see that the horizon is at a 90 degree angle to the ground.

Again I have to disagree!

Perspective does not "cause anything", it is only a visual effect. It makes things appear in a certain way.

It is far more accurate to say "that perspective causes the surface appear to ascend in height until the horizon appears to be almost at eye level to the observer."
When standing
on the seashore with the eye-level about 5' above sea-level, the horizon is about 3.2 miles away and about 10' below eye-level, but 10' in 3.2 miles is only about 2' of arc.
but when on a 1000' mountain,  the horizon is about 45 miles away and about 10' below eye-level, now 2,000' in 45 miles is only about 29' of arc, not noticeable, but quite measurable.

An yes, this "dip angle to the horizon" is real, and quite easily measured. Al Biruni measured the radius by measuring the dip angle to the horizon as in Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment: How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth?

I gave an extract from that site in Re: Total area of Earth, but it would be better to read the original.
This reference gives a critical review of Al Biruni's work, including putting realistic estimates on his methods and accuracy in the light of modern knowledge:

AL BASAIR ISLAMIC MEDIA, AL BIRUNI’S MEASUREMENT ON THE EARTH

This video shows measurements of the dip angle to the horizon up as far as 30,000 ft. I would prefer better equipment, but at 30,000 ft it is quite substantial.

Flat Earth Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level

Simply claiming, without evidence, "that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer." is not correct.

But, even if it was. It has nothing to do with the case. At sunset, the eye is at near enough to the same level as the horizon, give or take a few feet, but the sun is still 3,200 miles about your horizon!

According to Rowbotham's Law of Perspective that 3,200 miles subtends an angle at the eye of around 20° (depending on where the observer is).

[crutonius]

It's very simple. According to robothans law of perspective object disappearing over the horizon can be restored with a sufficiently powerful telescope.

Just line up your telescope to the object in question and when it disappears keep cranking up the zoom until it's restored.

Hope that helps.