Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« on: August 30, 2017, 11:42:56 AM »
I know FE'ers are rather fond of experimental results from hundreds of years ago - and just last night, while reading "The Invention of Clouds" by Richard Hamblyn (who is a meteorologist) I came upon a description of some of the very early balloon experiments:

https://books.google.com/books?id=HbajgFGBrTEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=see+sunset+twice+balloon+ride&source=bl&ots=b-2QpwoRKd&sig=otJxoQR7GPiBF24maUDQ5vDR9Dg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOz6eO6v7VAhUr2IMKHeG1ArEQ6AEIejAR#v=onepage&q=see%20sunset%20twice%20balloon%20ride&f=false



SUMMARY: In 1783, the (now famous) scientist Jacques Charles took a number of flights in an early hydrogen balloon.   On one occasion, they launched the balloon slight after sunset - and as the balloon rose in alititude, saw the sun rise back up above the horizon - and then slowly set again.

This is actually not a particularly novel phenomenon - you can see it happen on airline flight that take off at dusk...and it's particularly noticeable in helicopter flight because they ascend vertically.  Modern hot-air balloonists don't usually see it because the wind conditions right at sunset are typically not good for safe balloon flight.  There is one company in California that used to offer double-sunset flights to newly-weds - but they seem to have stopped the practice, and I can understand why.  But suffice to say that this is not a rare phenomenon.

So - why is it important?

In RET, as you rise in altitude, you can see further around the curve of the Earth - so the once-hidden sun becomes visible again - until the Earth's rotation carries the balloon further around the curvature of the planet and the sun sets for a second time.

In FET, there is a rather severe problem.   As you RISE in altitude, the angle of the sun to your horizontal is getting SMALLER...and whatever mechanism it is that makes sunsets work would push the sun CLOSER to the horizon, and not further away from it.   Assuming either "refraction", or Tom's "alternative perspective" or even "electromagnetic acceleration" - this should be impossible.

So double-sunsets like this are a very simple proof that the Earth isn't Flat - no matter what hokey reason is given for how sunsets work.

QED.

Is anyone getting bored with all of these killer proofs yet?  I have quite a few more to go yet...and I keep coming up with new ones. It would be nice if the FE'ers would concede defeat so we could go back to posting amusing cat photos!
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 11:46:03 AM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6522
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2017, 04:36:03 PM »
If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?

Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2017, 04:54:54 PM »
If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?
If perspective lines converge at X distance, why would we be able to see past that distance no matter what height one is at? Perspective has caused the sun to vanish behind the line of the Earth we stand upon. How does going higher change this fact?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2017, 05:48:21 PM »
If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?

I've been looking at those "altered perspective" diagrams of yours...and from what I can tell - that's what they say.  Incidentally, you never did respond to the thread I wrote which prove that the sun cannot set using nothing but light travelling in straight lines and the law of similar triangles.

Did I win that debate or do you still believe the world is flat despite the clearest proof imaginable?

Here is a repost of my (super simple) diagram:



If I move the camera vertically upwards and leave the sun alone - the image gets closer to the horizon - not further away.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 05:56:11 PM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6522
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2017, 07:43:36 PM »
If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?
If perspective lines converge at X distance, why would we be able to see past that distance no matter what height one is at? Perspective has caused the sun to vanish behind the line of the Earth we stand upon. How does going higher change this fact?

If you ascend in height you are changing (broadening) your perspective lines and revealing more distant lands from the vanishing point. It is for this reason you can see further when you are higher.

If you are looking at a railroad perspective scene with the tracks going into the horizon, when you increase your height you will see more lands and the track would need to continue onwards for a further distance to reach into the new vanishing point.

Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2017, 08:47:13 PM »
If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?
If perspective lines converge at X distance, why would we be able to see past that distance no matter what height one is at? Perspective has caused the sun to vanish behind the line of the Earth we stand upon. How does going higher change this fact?

If you ascend in height you are changing (broadening) your perspective lines and revealing more distant lands from the vanishing point. It is for this reason you can see further when you are higher.

If you are looking at a railroad perspective scene with the tracks going into the horizon, when you increase your height you will see more lands and the track would need to continue onwards for a further distance to reach into the new vanishing point.
How does a change in height change the vanishing point? The perspective lines above were all leading to that same vanishing point. Why would they stop doing that just because I'm higher up? If the vanishing point is there because photons can't fit there in more definition, moving higher wouldn't fix that either.

I know what happens in the real world. Why does the vanishing point of perspective change when I go higher? For either example/reason that has been covered your height shouldn't matter.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2017, 09:02:20 PM »
If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?
If perspective lines converge at X distance, why would we be able to see past that distance no matter what height one is at? Perspective has caused the sun to vanish behind the line of the Earth we stand upon. How does going higher change this fact?

If you ascend in height you are changing (broadening) your perspective lines and revealing more distant lands from the vanishing point. It is for this reason you can see further when you are higher.

If you are looking at a railroad perspective scene with the tracks going into the horizon, when you increase your height you will see more lands and the track would need to continue onwards for a further distance to reach into the new vanishing point.

All of this stuff about "vanishing points" is very confusing (possibly intentionally so).  It's MUCH simpler to just look at my pinhole camera diagram and talk about what happens in there.

If your assertion that light travels in straight lines is true - then that is every bit as valid as the "vanishing point" thing - but it's MUCH easier to discuss and reason about.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2017, 08:51:11 AM »
If the sun is descending into the horizon to perspective, what makes you think that if you were to increase your height shortly after sunset that you would not be able to see the sun again?
If perspective lines converge at X distance, why would we be able to see past that distance no matter what height one is at? Perspective has caused the sun to vanish behind the line of the Earth we stand upon. How does going higher change this fact?

If you ascend in height you are changing (broadening) your perspective lines and revealing more distant lands from the vanishing point. It is for this reason you can see further when you are higher.

If you are looking at a railroad perspective scene with the tracks going into the horizon, when you increase your height you will see more lands and the track would need to continue onwards for a further distance to reach into the new vanishing point.

Tom, you are correct that we see further as we go higher up.

But what i think is being questioned is why or how can we see the sun if it's already past a vanishing point?

Think of an aircraft flying away from you. It gets smaller and smaller as it moves further away. An increase in viewing height would not bring it back into view.

So if the sun, according to the FE model, is 'flying' away from us like an aircraft then how can we bring it back into view by increasing our height?

Also, why doesn't the sun get smaller in size as its 'flying' away form you?

« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 08:53:12 AM by Serious_Lee »

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2017, 02:43:41 PM »
Tom, you are correct that we see further as we go higher up.
...on a Round Earth, that's because being higher allows you to see past the curvature of the Earth.   In Flat Earth, that's not the case.  You should be able to see exactly the same distance no matter how high you are - because (we're told) the clarity of the atmosphere is the limiting factor.   If that were true then if you're looking at things on the ground, you'd actually be able to see LESS far as you gain in height.

Quote
But what i think is being questioned is why or how can we see the sun if it's already past a vanishing point?
Except that this "vanishing point" thing (along with "perspective") is just confusing the poor FE'ers.   Talking about how light is projected onto the back of the eye (or a pinhole camera) makes for a MUCH simpler argument.   The thing is that Tom doesn't want a much simpler argument - he needs something that he hopes will confuse people sufficiently to throw them off the scent.

Quote
Think of an aircraft flying away from you. It gets smaller and smaller as it moves further away. An increase in viewing height would not bring it back into view.

In FET, that should be true - but weird-perspective can do anything Tom decrees it should do...so all bets are off.

Quote
So if the sun, according to the FE model, is 'flying' away from us like an aircraft then how can we bring it back into view by increasing our height?

Also, why doesn't the sun get smaller in size as its 'flying' away form you?

Exactly.   And Tom's altered perspective has a SERIOUS problem.   If it worked equally in all directions - then the effect should scrunch things off to the sides of your field of view into the center - resulting in a weird curvature of things like long straight train tracks.   If it only works in the vertical direction and it's an optical effect inside your eye/brain - then viewing the sun while laying on your side would allow you to see the sun high in the sky at "sunset".   If it only works in the vertical direction (as in perpendicular to the flat plane of the Earth) - then the sun would become more and more elliptical as it approached the horizon - and distant trees and buldings would appear to be flattened.

Since NONE of these three things happen - we know that Tom's argument is nonsense.

But since he refuses to elaborate beyond posting a diagram with a bunch of lines going ever which way from a 150 year old book (which itself does nothing to elaborate on the issues with the concept) - we're left with nothing to go on.

Hence, let's just go back to first principles and ask how the sun forms an image onto the back of a simple pinhole camera.   That is the simplest possible optical system that exhibits perspective - and from it we can deduce a mathematical statement of how perspective operates - and thereby demonstrate beyond doubt that the sun doesn't set on the round earth.

Which puts Tom back with the antiquated FE claim that electromagnetic acceleration explains the sunset by allowing light rays to curve...which then produces the same set of problems that I outlined above.   If electromagnetic acceleration was the cause of sunsets - then the sun would be circular only when directly overhead - and would become increasingly elliptical as it moved toward the horizon.   Ditto for the moon.    Worse still, it would compress the star field towards the horizon and there would be a LOT more stars at the horizon than overhead at any given time of the day or night.

You can push this flat earth horseshit only just so far - and then it breaks.   That's because it's not true!   Truth will out!
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2017, 09:11:45 PM »
Even a single sunset (or sunrise for that matter) is enough to prove that the Earth is round. How can we possibly see only half the sun if it's supposedly circling over a flat plane?

Is there another thread where this is discussed by any chance? I started one, but it turned out to be too angry for the sensitive flerfer souls. I'm working on toning it down :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6522
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2017, 06:53:43 PM »


If I move the camera vertically upwards and leave the sun alone - the image gets closer to the horizon - not further away.

Your pinhole camera argument is not very clear. This is why I haven't replied to it. If you move the camera upwards "the image gets closer to the horizon". What does this mean?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2017, 07:38:43 PM »
If I move the camera vertically upwards and leave the sun alone - the image gets closer to the horizon - not further away.

Your pinhole camera argument is not very clear. This is why I haven't replied to it. If you move the camera upwards "the image gets closer to the horizon". What does this mean?
OK - so here is that same diagram - only showing the camera before and after I move it upwards.


Remember that the image inside a film/pinhole camera is always upside down...right?

So as I move the camera from the bottom position to the higher position, the rays of light, coming from the sun hit the back of the camera (where the film would be) higher up the photographic plate...which means that (when you turn the photograph right-side-up) the sun would be closer to the middle of the plate...so in a Flat Earth setting - when the balloon rises upwards, the sun would appear to go DOWNWARDS...not upwards...on the photographic plate.

However, if you don't understand my pinhole camera diagram at all - then may I suggest that we discuss this in https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785 instead of here - because this business of moving the camera around is just confusing the original concept that the diagram is attempting to explain.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 07:41:23 PM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6522
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2017, 07:56:36 PM »
I am commenting on your argument in that thread.

Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2017, 01:07:35 AM »
Seems that a lot of these threads are bumping up against the issue of "perspective". Flat-earthers seem to think that it's a magical force that makes all the things they wish weren't true disappear. Perhaps we should start another thread where we can try to define this concept together? Here's the dictionary definition: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perspective notice, no mention of mysterious forces here..

One obvious flaw with the FE argument is that they seem to think that perspective causes parallel lines to actually touch or maybe even cross, whereas this is not at all what happens. There is no evidence of this happening, and common sense & logic tell us that this is impossible. In another thread, I think Tom was getting close to saying that perspective somehow changes reality (which it so obviously doesn't, it only affects the viewer's perception of reality). Perhaps we need to start with the concept of asymptote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote -- In essence, while the parallel lines do seem to converge at a distance, they never actually meet, and the certainly do not cross. By the way, as an aside, this explains the whole "light spreading through the clouds" phenomenon, that flerfers like to use as supposed "proof" that the sun is way closer than science tell us it is. [sarcasm] After all, why do we need observations, measurements, logic, and reasoning, when it just looks like it's closer? [/sarcasm]

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2017, 06:40:13 PM »
Seems that a lot of these threads are bumping up against the issue of "perspective". Flat-earthers seem to think that it's a magical force that makes all the things they wish weren't true disappear. Perhaps we should start another thread where we can try to define this concept together? Here's the dictionary definition: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perspective notice, no mention of mysterious forces here..

Tom appears to want to discuss it on this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6785.0 ...which is fine because that's where I started to debate it.   Tom also likes to post a video that "explains" it.  I've debunked that in this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7001.0

Quote
One obvious flaw with the FE argument is that they seem to think that perspective causes parallel lines to actually touch or maybe even cross, whereas this is not at all what happens. There is no evidence of this happening, and common sense & logic tell us that this is impossible.

Well, the problem is deeper than that.

In my view - perspective isn't a "thing" in it's own right.  It's an "emergent property".   Kinda like a "traffic jam" is only a property of the motions of cars.

I can easily reproduce the effects of normal perspective (why things look smaller in the distance, etc) with a simple pinhole camera analogy - and using only the fact that light travels in straight lines and the law of similar triangles.

This produces an equation that is used throughout computer graphics, movie making, lens design, etc.

But Tom (NOT all RE'ers) seems to think that perspective is a fundamental property of light.   In the video he references (again, see my debunking here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7001.0 ) the FE'ers are making a simple error:  They are using the "emergent property" of perspective and ADDING ON a second layer of perspective!   This double-counting is the root cause of their misunderstanding.

The video (and my debunking thereof) makes this error crystal clear - and when I correct the error, lo and behold, FE sunsets don't work anymore.

I actually have more respect for the "Electromagnetic accelerator" concept that was Tom's old idea for how FE sunsets happen.  It's a lot harder to disprove...but he says that he now disfavors it.

Honestly, in his position, I'd back up and go with it because it's a lot easier to believe.

Quote
In another thread, I think Tom was getting close to saying that perspective somehow changes reality (which it so obviously doesn't, it only affects the viewer's perception of reality). Perhaps we need to start with the concept of asymptote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote -- In essence, while the parallel lines do seem to converge at a distance, they never actually meet, and the certainly do not cross. By the way, as an aside, this explains the whole "light spreading through the clouds" phenomenon, that flerfers like to use as supposed "proof" that the sun is way closer than science tell us it is. [sarcasm] After all, why do we need observations, measurements, logic, and reasoning, when it just looks like it's closer? [/sarcasm]
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Disproof of FET: Two sunsets by balloon.
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2017, 05:25:16 AM »
FE sunsets don't work anymore.

Have they ever? As I mentioned in other threads, the sunset and sunrise are the simplest, most absolute, and easiest to observe evidence that we live on a globe.  And the whole "perspective" thing the FE apologists keep coming back to is just a pretty hilarious collection of fuzzy logic designed to convince the [fill in your favorite adjective] masses. Show me a coherent explanation for why we'd see half the sun above a flat plane, and I will convert.