#### 9 out of 10 doctors agree

• 269
##### Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« on: April 20, 2018, 06:38:56 PM »
Quote from: Sun Tzu's Art of War, chapter 6
For should the enemy strengthen his van, he will weaken his rear; should he strengthen his rear, he will weaken his van; should he strengthen his left, he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right, he will weaken his left. If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak.

Flat Earthers claim that refraction makes the sun set, curving light upwards something like this:

Hold on… optical systems are reversible. Let's try this one out with the Bedford level experiment. According to Dr. Rowbotham's observations, light passes through all three poles:

Now let's go to Round Earth. Under Round Earth's refraction model, a simple temperature inversion might give this path for light:

Flat Earthers, I have just taken your flagship proof, and shown that, by your own model, it actually proves the Earth's convexity. The ball is now very definitely in your court.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 04:12:46 PM by 9 out of 10 doctors agree »
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6940
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2018, 07:26:34 PM »
In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham describes perspective as the cause for the sunset, not bending light rays. Light travels in straight lines.

Bending light rays is an alternative explanation given by some people for why the sun sets.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### 9 out of 10 doctors agree

• 269
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2018, 07:49:03 PM »
In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham describes perspective as the cause for the sunset, not bending light rays. Light travels in straight lines.
The problem being, as explained on many other threads, that the sun actually touches the horizon. Refraction+magnification is the only solution I've seen for that from the FE side.

And no, light doesn't travel in straight lines. I am wearing something right now that soundly disproves the notion.
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6940
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2018, 01:41:22 AM »
In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham describes perspective as the cause for the sunset, not bending light rays. Light travels in straight lines.
The problem being, as explained on many other threads, that the sun actually touches the horizon. Refraction+magnification is the only solution I've seen for that from the FE side.

And no, light doesn't travel in straight lines. I am wearing something right now that soundly disproves the notion.

Perspective also explains it. Elucid's version of perspective is continuous, which is a  concept perspective proponents tend to disagree with. I am planning on rewriting the perspective pages in the Wiki at some point, hopefully soon, which better describes the sunset.

I've explained the concept here on this forum in the past. Do a forum search for "dime" by the user "Tom Bishop" if you are curious on what I have written on the subject.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2018, 02:47:28 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### 9 out of 10 doctors agree

• 269
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2018, 02:24:17 AM »
Explain to me a model of perspective that allows a sunset then. Right here, right now. Or else you have no argument.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 07:53:25 PM by 9 out of 10 doctors agree »
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

#### 9 out of 10 doctors agree

• 269
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2018, 05:16:45 PM »
It's been well over a week now. Tom, are you going to take me up on this, or should this line in the Wiki be removed?

Quote
although a few have claimed otherwise they have been soundly disproved by Flat Earthers.
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2018, 05:53:20 PM »
Perspective also explains it. Elucid's version of perspective is continuous, which is a  concept perspective proponents tend to disagree with. I am planning on rewriting the perspective pages in the Wiki at some point, hopefully soon, which better describes the sunset.

I've explained the concept here on this forum in the past. Do a forum search for "dime" by the user "Tom Bishop" if you are curious on what I have written on the subject.

I look forward to the rewrite. Seriously; because the explaining the observable phenomena of the setting sun (and moon) in a flat earth model is of most interest to me.

And I will look for your previous posts. Thanks.

#### Westprog

• 213
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2018, 05:57:23 PM »
I've explained the concept here on this forum in the past. Do a forum search for "dime" by the user "Tom Bishop" if you are curious on what I have written on the subject.

I did that and I really don't want to go through that again.There was a whole lot of stuff there about the rotation of the Earth around the Sun and how it isn't a whole number of days and hence flat Earth. Please at least give a page number.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2018, 06:49:34 PM »

#### Westprog

• 213
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2018, 11:25:11 PM »
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8949.0

Thank you. This appears to show considerable confusion of mind by trying to combine an unproven and undoubtedly incorrect idea (the supposed magnification of the Sun) with a misunderstanding of perspective in a way that doesn't actually work on either terms.

It shows the problem in refuting these concepts - there's not enough substance to grasp at to show where the many errors lie. I'll try to give some idea of it in due course.

#### Tontogary

• 431
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2018, 06:48:27 AM »
Yet another hour of my life wasted trying to follow a thread where Tom is really only showing his ignorance and blind faith in EnaG!

Nowhere in the linked thread does any FEer try to explain how you can see a sun half or 3/4 hidden behind the horizon, other than “by waves”

I have posted pictures of sunsets i have seen on board my ship, and the camera was zoomed to maximum, but guess what? The view i saw with my naked eye, was the same view i captured with the camera, as well as the same view i saw with binoculars. Ie half, 3/4 and finally 9/10 of the sun below the horizon, finally no sun.

There was never any “gap” to the horizon where the “perspective lines” were nearly meeting, nor was the sun restored by looking at it through binoculars.

Very often i knew my exact hieght of eye above the water, (34M) and can easily show that there was now way a 34M wave between the sun and myself. In fact the highest wave would have been about 1M high. That on the horizon at 12 miles away, could never obscure the sun (even if it is “only” 30 miles across)

So I would love for someone to explain the OP post, and refrain from citing EnaG as definitive, or trying to use the “dime hides and elephant” trick, because the thread linked did not show any proof from the FEers at all.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

#### philthy

##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2018, 09:01:34 AM »
Has anyone done the Sunset Vs height experiment?
Blackpool UK has a tower 518 ft on the sea front. An online calculator shows 2-3 mins later for the sunset at the top than on the beach in front.
If so this kills FET dead

#### Tontogary

• 431
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #12 on: May 03, 2018, 11:27:58 AM »
Has anyone done the Sunset Vs height experiment?
Blackpool UK has a tower 518 ft on the sea front. An online calculator shows 2-3 mins later for the sunset at the top than on the beach in front.
If so this kills FET dead

Probably cant get to the top quick enough, BUT it would be possible to have a friend up there with a mobile phone. Would need a good clear horizon at the same time.

I am not near there so cannot help, sorry.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2018, 12:56:34 AM »
Tom: Rowbotham does not understand perspective. This is how perspective works:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9513.0

So again, how does a sun set on the horizon without shrinking to a dot? You could think of the "top point" and the "bottom point" of the sun as objects that should ALSO be affected by perspective yes? Why wouldn't the distance between the top point and the bottom point decrease just like the distance between the bottom point and the horizon does?

Time to realise that Rowbotham wasn't a very smart man.
Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3