Explain sunset times

Jroa claims that the cause of sunsets is the sun moving far enough from an observer that its light can no longer reach us, due to atmospheric absorption. (Reference, see this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62906.msg1663242#msg1663242)

If this is the case, how come the time of sunset and sunrise can be accurately predicted to the minute regardless of atmospheric conditions? Some days are much hazier than others, and yet the sun does not rise sooner or set later on a clearer day. We watch it appear and disappear at precisely the time predicted. Yet it is impossible to predict atmospheric clarity like that.
Answering by referring to the overall brightness of the day and things like residual twilight is unacceptable - I'm talking about when the sun can be witnessed to rise and set.

I would also like to know how the flat Earthers think the Sun is always the same aperent size and brightness throughout the day and how the Sun appears to go below the horizon instead of fade away in the distance.  FET has more holes then Swiss cheese.

I'd also like to add: http://imgur.com/a/39EgX

Also, at the equinox an equatorial observer will see the Sun set due west but the FE "swingball without a string" model clearly has a setting Sun a long way off the tangent that is west.

The window of my "study" where I am sat typing this, faces Due West with an approximately 180 degree field of view.
This means I can, if I wish, see the sunset every day of the year and have been able to do s for over 30 years.
In all that time at each Solstice the sun sets in exactly the same point every year, without fail - almost spooky eh?

Living the the mountains, as I do, I find sunset times to be generalizations at best. So many factors contribute to sunset times that I don't know how you can say they are accurate. Anyways, that's my answer.

Living the the mountains, as I do, I find sunset times to be generalizations at best. So many factors contribute to sunset times that I don't know how you can say they are accurate. Anyways, that's my answer.

Q1:  What does "living in the mountains" have to do with the timings of sunset?  As compared to living on the flatlands?

Q2:  What span of time covers your "generalisations"?  A variation of a minute or two, or 30 minutes or more say?

Living the the mountains, as I do, I find sunset times to be generalizations at best. So many factors contribute to sunset times that I don't know how you can say they are accurate. Anyways, that's my answer.

Living in a river valley, I find that sunset times are accurate to within a minute or so when I'm on top on a hill and have a clear view of the horizon.

If you think about it, a flat Earth scenario (assuming that it somehow spears to set despite logic) the Sun would set in the north-west and rise in the north-east.  If you don't believe me just think about where the Sun would be at those times.

Jroa claims that the cause of sunsets is the sun moving far enough from an observer that its light can no longer reach us, due to atmospheric absorption. (Reference, see this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62906.msg1663242#msg1663242)

If this is the case, how come the time of sunset and sunrise can be accurately predicted to the minute regardless of atmospheric conditions? Some days are much hazier than others, and yet the sun does not rise sooner or set later on a clearer day. We watch it appear and disappear at precisely the time predicted. Yet it is impossible to predict atmospheric clarity like that.
Answering by referring to the overall brightness of the day and things like residual twilight is unacceptable - I'm talking about when the sun can be witnessed to rise and set.

Perspective.  The sun moves beyond the horizon line, and it cannot be seen any further......unless a person increases their altitude.....thereby increasing their horizon line distance. 

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 22, 2015, 10:35:04 AM

Jroa claims that the cause of sunsets is the sun moving far enough from an observer that its light can no longer reach us, due to atmospheric absorption. (Reference, see this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62906.msg1663242#msg1663242)

If this is the case, how come the time of sunset and sunrise can be accurately predicted to the minute regardless of atmospheric conditions? Some days are much hazier than others, and yet the sun does not rise sooner or set later on a clearer day. We watch it appear and disappear at precisely the time predicted. Yet it is impossible to predict atmospheric clarity like that.
Answering by referring to the overall brightness of the day and things like residual twilight is unacceptable - I'm talking about when the sun can be witnessed to rise and set.

Perspective.  The sun moves beyond the horizon line, and it cannot be seen any further......unless a person increases their altitude.....thereby increasing their horizon line distance.

Q1: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move more than a dozen degrees below the horizon on a flat Earth, therefore deeming sunsets impossible?
Q2: By increasing in altitude, you admit that you are increasing the distance to the horizon line. How would that allow you to see the sun again if it's technically further away?

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:02:32 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 22, 2015, 10:35:04 AM

Jroa claims that the cause of sunsets is the sun moving far enough from an observer that its light can no longer reach us, due to atmospheric absorption. (Reference, see this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62906.msg1663242#msg1663242)

If this is the case, how come the time of sunset and sunrise can be accurately predicted to the minute regardless of atmospheric conditions? Some days are much hazier than others, and yet the sun does not rise sooner or set later on a clearer day. We watch it appear and disappear at precisely the time predicted. Yet it is impossible to predict atmospheric clarity like that.
Answering by referring to the overall brightness of the day and things like residual twilight is unacceptable - I'm talking about when the sun can be witnessed to rise and set.

Perspective.  The sun moves beyond the horizon line, and it cannot be seen any further......unless a person increases their altitude.....thereby increasing their horizon line distance.

Q1: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move more than a dozen degrees below the horizon on a flat Earth, therefore deeming sunsets impossible?
Q2: By increasing in altitude, you admit that you are increasing the distance to the horizon line. How would that allow you to see the sun again if it's technically further away?

#1- The sun does not move below anything.  It moves beyond the horizon line.  Sunsets happen.  It is not a matter of whether or not they happen, only the how.

#2- The horizon line increases in distance.  I think maybe you don't understand what a horizon line is.  We are not talking about the theoretical location that the sun drops below on a ball earth.  We are talking about the perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane.

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 08:09:31 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:02:32 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 22, 2015, 10:35:04 AM

Jroa claims that the cause of sunsets is the sun moving far enough from an observer that its light can no longer reach us, due to atmospheric absorption. (Reference, see this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62906.msg1663242#msg1663242)

If this is the case, how come the time of sunset and sunrise can be accurately predicted to the minute regardless of atmospheric conditions? Some days are much hazier than others, and yet the sun does not rise sooner or set later on a clearer day. We watch it appear and disappear at precisely the time predicted. Yet it is impossible to predict atmospheric clarity like that.
Answering by referring to the overall brightness of the day and things like residual twilight is unacceptable - I'm talking about when the sun can be witnessed to rise and set.

Perspective.  The sun moves beyond the horizon line, and it cannot be seen any further......unless a person increases their altitude.....thereby increasing their horizon line distance.

Q1: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move more than a dozen degrees below the horizon on a flat Earth, therefore deeming sunsets impossible?
Q2: By increasing in altitude, you admit that you are increasing the distance to the horizon line. How would that allow you to see the sun again if it's technically further away?

#1- The sun does not move below anything.  It moves beyond the horizon line.  Sunsets happen.  It is not a matter of whether or not they happen, only the how.

#2- The horizon line increases in distance.  I think maybe you don't understand what a horizon line is.  We are not talking about the theoretical location that the sun drops below on a ball earth.  We are talking about the perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane.

Q1: Let me rephrase the question: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move within a few dozen degrees from the horizon on a flat Earth? Trig proves that the sun, even between the furthest distances on the pizza, physically cannot appear to get as close to the horizon as in reality.
Q2: If you are increasing the distance between you and the "perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane," would that not mean that the object is no longer visible? So by increasing your altitude, thereby increasing the distance to the horizon, you would not be able to see the sun again?

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:17:13 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 08:09:31 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:02:32 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 22, 2015, 10:35:04 AM

Jroa claims that the cause of sunsets is the sun moving far enough from an observer that its light can no longer reach us, due to atmospheric absorption. (Reference, see this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62906.msg1663242#msg1663242)

If this is the case, how come the time of sunset and sunrise can be accurately predicted to the minute regardless of atmospheric conditions? Some days are much hazier than others, and yet the sun does not rise sooner or set later on a clearer day. We watch it appear and disappear at precisely the time predicted. Yet it is impossible to predict atmospheric clarity like that.
Answering by referring to the overall brightness of the day and things like residual twilight is unacceptable - I'm talking about when the sun can be witnessed to rise and set.

Perspective.  The sun moves beyond the horizon line, and it cannot be seen any further......unless a person increases their altitude.....thereby increasing their horizon line distance.

Q1: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move more than a dozen degrees below the horizon on a flat Earth, therefore deeming sunsets impossible?
Q2: By increasing in altitude, you admit that you are increasing the distance to the horizon line. How would that allow you to see the sun again if it's technically further away?

#1- The sun does not move below anything.  It moves beyond the horizon line.  Sunsets happen.  It is not a matter of whether or not they happen, only the how.

#2- The horizon line increases in distance.  I think maybe you don't understand what a horizon line is.  We are not talking about the theoretical location that the sun drops below on a ball earth.  We are talking about the perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane.

Q1: Let me rephrase the question: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move within a few dozen degrees from the horizon on a flat Earth? Trig proves that the sun, even between the furthest distances on the pizza, physically cannot appear to get as close to the horizon as in reality.
Q2: If you are increasing the distance between you and the "perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane," would that not mean that the object is no longer visible? So by increasing your altitude, thereby increasing the distance to the horizon, you would not be able to see the sun again?

#1-  The answer is the same.  I think the problem is, you don't actually know what the question really is.  This is very common for people that are locked into a 'thought box'.  You are trying to judge the FET based on knowledge you have about the RET.  As I said previously, the sun does not go down, it moves beyond.

#2- That is precisely what it means.  Thus....as I previously stated....if a person watches the sun set, and then increases their viewing altitude, i.e. laying down then standing up, then horizon line is extended, bringing the sun back into view......until the sun, yet again, moves beyond the horizon line.

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 08:23:21 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:17:13 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 08:09:31 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:02:32 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 22, 2015, 10:35:04 AM

Jroa claims that the cause of sunsets is the sun moving far enough from an observer that its light can no longer reach us, due to atmospheric absorption. (Reference, see this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62906.msg1663242#msg1663242)

If this is the case, how come the time of sunset and sunrise can be accurately predicted to the minute regardless of atmospheric conditions? Some days are much hazier than others, and yet the sun does not rise sooner or set later on a clearer day. We watch it appear and disappear at precisely the time predicted. Yet it is impossible to predict atmospheric clarity like that.
Answering by referring to the overall brightness of the day and things like residual twilight is unacceptable - I'm talking about when the sun can be witnessed to rise and set.

Perspective.  The sun moves beyond the horizon line, and it cannot be seen any further......unless a person increases their altitude.....thereby increasing their horizon line distance.

Q1: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move more than a dozen degrees below the horizon on a flat Earth, therefore deeming sunsets impossible?
Q2: By increasing in altitude, you admit that you are increasing the distance to the horizon line. How would that allow you to see the sun again if it's technically further away?

#1- The sun does not move below anything.  It moves beyond the horizon line.  Sunsets happen.  It is not a matter of whether or not they happen, only the how.

#2- The horizon line increases in distance.  I think maybe you don't understand what a horizon line is.  We are not talking about the theoretical location that the sun drops below on a ball earth.  We are talking about the perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane.

Q1: Let me rephrase the question: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move within a few dozen degrees from the horizon on a flat Earth? Trig proves that the sun, even between the furthest distances on the pizza, physically cannot appear to get as close to the horizon as in reality.
Q2: If you are increasing the distance between you and the "perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane," would that not mean that the object is no longer visible? So by increasing your altitude, thereby increasing the distance to the horizon, you would not be able to see the sun again?

#1-  The answer is the same.  I think the problem is, you don't actually know what the question really is.  This is very common for people that are locked into a 'thought box'.  You are trying to judge the FET based on knowledge you have about the RET.  As I said previously, the sun does not go down, it moves beyond.

#2- That is precisely what it means.  Thus....as I previously stated....if a person watches the sun set, and then increases their viewing altitude, i.e. laying down then standing up, then horizon line is extended, bringing the sun back into view......until the sun, yet again, moves beyond the horizon line.

Q1: You seem to be in your own "thought box" and/or lack basic reading comprehension. I never said the sun goes down in your model. I know you say it gets further away, and thus it appears lower. But it will never appear as low as it does in reality. Once again: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move within a few dozen degrees from the horizon on a flat Earth? Trig proves that the sun, even between the furthest distances on the pizza, physically cannot appear to get as close to the horizon as in reality.

Q2:Basic trig, once again, shows that by increasing your altitude, you are not nearing the horizon, you are getting further away from it. Your horizon would get closer as you increase in altitude, not further away. All moving higher would do is increasing your viewing angle and moving the horizon closer. Therefore, the sun would not appear twice by increasing your altitude. How do you explain this?

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:59:05 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 08:23:21 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:17:13 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 08:09:31 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:02:32 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 22, 2015, 10:35:04 AM

Jroa claims that the cause of sunsets is the sun moving far enough from an observer that its light can no longer reach us, due to atmospheric absorption. (Reference, see this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62906.msg1663242#msg1663242)

If this is the case, how come the time of sunset and sunrise can be accurately predicted to the minute regardless of atmospheric conditions? Some days are much hazier than others, and yet the sun does not rise sooner or set later on a clearer day. We watch it appear and disappear at precisely the time predicted. Yet it is impossible to predict atmospheric clarity like that.
Answering by referring to the overall brightness of the day and things like residual twilight is unacceptable - I'm talking about when the sun can be witnessed to rise and set.

Perspective.  The sun moves beyond the horizon line, and it cannot be seen any further......unless a person increases their altitude.....thereby increasing their horizon line distance.

Q1: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move more than a dozen degrees below the horizon on a flat Earth, therefore deeming sunsets impossible?
Q2: By increasing in altitude, you admit that you are increasing the distance to the horizon line. How would that allow you to see the sun again if it's technically further away?

#1- The sun does not move below anything.  It moves beyond the horizon line.  Sunsets happen.  It is not a matter of whether or not they happen, only the how.

#2- The horizon line increases in distance.  I think maybe you don't understand what a horizon line is.  We are not talking about the theoretical location that the sun drops below on a ball earth.  We are talking about the perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane.

Q1: Let me rephrase the question: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move within a few dozen degrees from the horizon on a flat Earth? Trig proves that the sun, even between the furthest distances on the pizza, physically cannot appear to get as close to the horizon as in reality.
Q2: If you are increasing the distance between you and the "perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane," would that not mean that the object is no longer visible? So by increasing your altitude, thereby increasing the distance to the horizon, you would not be able to see the sun again?

#1-  The answer is the same.  I think the problem is, you don't actually know what the question really is.  This is very common for people that are locked into a 'thought box'.  You are trying to judge the FET based on knowledge you have about the RET.  As I said previously, the sun does not go down, it moves beyond.

#2- That is precisely what it means.  Thus....as I previously stated....if a person watches the sun set, and then increases their viewing altitude, i.e. laying down then standing up, then horizon line is extended, bringing the sun back into view......until the sun, yet again, moves beyond the horizon line.

Q1: You seem to be in your own "thought box" and/or lack basic reading comprehension. I never said the sun goes down in your model. I know you say it gets further away, and thus it appears lower. But it will never appear as low as it does in reality. Once again: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move within a few dozen degrees from the horizon on a flat Earth? Trig proves that the sun, even between the furthest distances on the pizza, physically cannot appear to get as close to the horizon as in reality.

Q2:Basic trig, once again, shows that by increasing your altitude, you are not nearing the horizon, you are getting further away from it. Your horizon would get closer as you increase in altitude, not further away. All moving higher would do is increasing your viewing angle and moving the horizon closer. Therefore, the sun would not appear twice by increasing your altitude. How do you explain this?

#1--- Ah..... I see your problem.  You are talking about a theoretical scenario, and I am talking about the real world.  The sun DOES move the few dozen degrees you say it does not.  If you need video proof, I am certain I can find some youtube videos of sunsets for you to watch.  They really do happen.  You can probably find one locally within the next 24hours.   I understand trig perfectly.  I know exactly what you are saying.  You can't comprehend what I am trying to explain to you.  I am sorry, but I don't know how to simplify it any further.....at least not yet.  I will think on it and see if I can think of a better way to explain it so that you will understand.

#2--- Yeah...you just proved what I said earlier.  You don't understand.  You are trying to judge the FET based on RET knowledge.  This is not a derogatory statement toward you....you are not currently capable of understanding the FET.  It is beyond your capacity for understanding.  You are so completely locked in to the RET mindset that you literally cannot conceive of the concepts I am trying to explain.  I know, because I did the exact same thing when I first encountered the FET.  Literally....your argument is familiar to me because I have used it before.  I will think on it and try to determine a different method of explain this, such that you will be able to see why you don't understand.  Once you realize it, you will feel stupid for not seeing it earlier.  Until then, you will be completely convinced by your current knowledge.

It is fairly likely I won't bother trying to explain this further, until I can determine a more efficient method to portray this scenario.  So, if I don't reply, I am not ignoring you, I just haven't figured out how to help you yet.

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 09:04:56 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:59:05 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 08:23:21 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:17:13 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 08:09:31 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:02:32 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 22, 2015, 10:35:04 AM

Jroa claims that the cause of sunsets is the sun moving far enough from an observer that its light can no longer reach us, due to atmospheric absorption. (Reference, see this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62906.msg1663242#msg1663242)

If this is the case, how come the time of sunset and sunrise can be accurately predicted to the minute regardless of atmospheric conditions? Some days are much hazier than others, and yet the sun does not rise sooner or set later on a clearer day. We watch it appear and disappear at precisely the time predicted. Yet it is impossible to predict atmospheric clarity like that.
Answering by referring to the overall brightness of the day and things like residual twilight is unacceptable - I'm talking about when the sun can be witnessed to rise and set.

Perspective.  The sun moves beyond the horizon line, and it cannot be seen any further......unless a person increases their altitude.....thereby increasing their horizon line distance.

Q1: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move more than a dozen degrees below the horizon on a flat Earth, therefore deeming sunsets impossible?
Q2: By increasing in altitude, you admit that you are increasing the distance to the horizon line. How would that allow you to see the sun again if it's technically further away?

#1- The sun does not move below anything.  It moves beyond the horizon line.  Sunsets happen.  It is not a matter of whether or not they happen, only the how.

#2- The horizon line increases in distance.  I think maybe you don't understand what a horizon line is.  We are not talking about the theoretical location that the sun drops below on a ball earth.  We are talking about the perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane.

Q1: Let me rephrase the question: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move within a few dozen degrees from the horizon on a flat Earth? Trig proves that the sun, even between the furthest distances on the pizza, physically cannot appear to get as close to the horizon as in reality.
Q2: If you are increasing the distance between you and the "perspective point at which an object is no longer visible on a plane," would that not mean that the object is no longer visible? So by increasing your altitude, thereby increasing the distance to the horizon, you would not be able to see the sun again?

#1-  The answer is the same.  I think the problem is, you don't actually know what the question really is.  This is very common for people that are locked into a 'thought box'.  You are trying to judge the FET based on knowledge you have about the RET.  As I said previously, the sun does not go down, it moves beyond.

#2- That is precisely what it means.  Thus....as I previously stated....if a person watches the sun set, and then increases their viewing altitude, i.e. laying down then standing up, then horizon line is extended, bringing the sun back into view......until the sun, yet again, moves beyond the horizon line.

Q1: You seem to be in your own "thought box" and/or lack basic reading comprehension. I never said the sun goes down in your model. I know you say it gets further away, and thus it appears lower. But it will never appear as low as it does in reality. Once again: How do you explain the fact that the sun cannot move within a few dozen degrees from the horizon on a flat Earth? Trig proves that the sun, even between the furthest distances on the pizza, physically cannot appear to get as close to the horizon as in reality.

Q2:Basic trig, once again, shows that by increasing your altitude, you are not nearing the horizon, you are getting further away from it. Your horizon would get closer as you increase in altitude, not further away. All moving higher would do is increasing your viewing angle and moving the horizon closer. Therefore, the sun would not appear twice by increasing your altitude. How do you explain this?

#1--- Ah..... I see your problem.  You are talking about a theoretical scenario, and I am talking about the real world.  The sun DOES move the few dozen degrees you say it does not.  If you need video proof, I am certain I can find some youtube videos of sunsets for you to watch.  They really do happen.  You can probably find one locally within the next 24hours.   I understand trig perfectly.  I know exactly what you are saying.  You can't comprehend what I am trying to explain to you.  I am sorry, but I don't know how to simplify it any further.....at least not yet.  I will think on it and see if I can think of a better way to explain it so that you will understand.

#2--- Yeah...you just proved what I said earlier.  You don't understand.  You are trying to judge the FET based on RET knowledge.  This is not a derogatory statement toward you....you are not currently capable of understanding the FET.  It is beyond your capacity for understanding.  You are so completely locked in to the RET mindset that you literally cannot conceive of the concepts I am trying to explain.  I know, because I did the exact same thing when I first encountered the FET.  Literally....your argument is familiar to me because I have used it before.  I will think on it and try to determine a different method of explain this, such that you will be able to see why you don't understand.  Once you realize it, you will feel stupid for not seeing it earlier.  Until then, you will be completely convinced by your current knowledge.

It is fairly likely I won't bother trying to explain this further, until I can determine a more efficient method to portray this scenario.  So, if I don't reply, I am not ignoring you, I just haven't figured out how to help you yet.

Q1: No, I am not denying sunsets, you once again misunderstood. Sunsets happen, therefore your model is wrong. Let me explain.

Let's use the furthest possible two points on your pizza I could possibly use-the diameter of the flat Earth. Meaning I am giving you more of a chance for the sun to near the horizon, however the distance between you and the sun in your model will never reach these distances.

Distance between the sun and you: 25000 miles¹
Sun height: 3000 miles²
3000/25000=.12
tan^-1(.12)=6.8

This means that if the sun was at the furthest possible distance from you in your model, it would still appear to be around 6.8 degrees above the horizon. Illustrated here at more realistic distances.

Q2: If you're going to deny basic facts, then I'll prove it to you. That way if you keep denying them you'll just look like a fool.

Let's say that you're 500 miles away from this disappearing horizon of yours. Anything further than 500 miles will not be seen (Doesn't matter what number you plug in, the conclusion will always be the same). So what happens if you raise your altitude by 1 mile?

a²+b²=c²
1²+500²=c²
c=500.001

That .001 difference is about 6 feet. By raising your altitude, you increase your distance to your horizon.

1: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Distance+of+the+Sun
2: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Diameter

Q1: No, I am not denying sunsets, you once again misunderstood. Sunsets happen, therefore your model is wrong. Let me explain.

Let's use the furthest possible two points on your pizza I could possibly use-the diameter of the flat Earth. Meaning I am giving you more of a chance for the sun to near the horizon, however the distance between you and the sun in your model will never reach these distances.

Distance between the sun and you: 25000 miles¹
Sun height: 3000 miles²
3000/25000=.12
tan^-1(.12)=6.8

This means that if the sun was at the furthest possible distance from you in your model, it would still appear to be around 6.8 degrees above the horizon. Illustrated here at more realistic distances.

Q2: If you're going to deny basic facts, then I'll prove it to you. That way if you keep denying them you'll just look like a fool.

Let's say that you're 500 miles away from this disappearing horizon of yours. Anything further than 500 miles will not be seen (Doesn't matter what number you plug in, the conclusion will always be the same). So what happens if you raise your altitude by 1 mile?

a²+b²=c²
1²+500²=c²
c=500.001

That .001 difference is about 6 feet. By raising your altitude, you increase your distance to your horizon.

1: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Distance+of+the+Sun
2: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Diameter

Old news.  Like I said, I already understand what you are trying to say.  The problem is, your mind cannot comprehend the issue.  This is so far outside your paradigm that you cannot conceive of it.  I am sorry that I haven't found a way to dumb it down further, yet.    Anyway, feel free to imply i don't know what I am talking about.  I have done enough engineering that you won't damage my ego.

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 09:48:57 PM

Q1: No, I am not denying sunsets, you once again misunderstood. Sunsets happen, therefore your model is wrong. Let me explain.

Let's use the furthest possible two points on your pizza I could possibly use-the diameter of the flat Earth. Meaning I am giving you more of a chance for the sun to near the horizon, however the distance between you and the sun in your model will never reach these distances.

Distance between the sun and you: 25000 miles¹
Sun height: 3000 miles²
3000/25000=.12
tan^-1(.12)=6.8

This means that if the sun was at the furthest possible distance from you in your model, it would still appear to be around 6.8 degrees above the horizon. Illustrated here at more realistic distances.

Q2: If you're going to deny basic facts, then I'll prove it to you. That way if you keep denying them you'll just look like a fool.

Let's say that you're 500 miles away from this disappearing horizon of yours. Anything further than 500 miles will not be seen (Doesn't matter what number you plug in, the conclusion will always be the same). So what happens if you raise your altitude by 1 mile?

a²+b²=c²
1²+500²=c²
c=500.001

That .001 difference is about 6 feet. By raising your altitude, you increase your distance to your horizon.

1: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Distance+of+the+Sun
2: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Diameter

Old news.  Like I said, I already understand what you are trying to say.  The problem is, your mind cannot comprehend the issue.  This is so far outside your paradigm that you cannot conceive of it.  I am sorry that I haven't found a way to dumb it down further, yet.    Anyway, feel free to imply i don't know what I am talking about.  I have done enough engineering that you won't damage my ego.

You literally have explained nothing, you have only asked for clarifications.

#1- The sun does not move below anything.  It moves beyond the horizon line.  Sunsets happen.  It is not a matter of whether or not they happen, only the how.

Misunderstood my question, no explanation

#1-  The answer is the same.  I think the problem is, you don't actually know what the question really is.  This is very common for people that are locked into a 'thought box'.  You are trying to judge the FET based on knowledge you have about the RET.  As I said previously, the sun does not go down, it moves beyond.

No explanation here

#1--- Ah..... I see your problem.  You are talking about a theoretical scenario, and I am talking about the real world.  The sun DOES move the few dozen degrees you say it does not.  If you need video proof, I am certain I can find some youtube videos of sunsets for you to watch.  They really do happen.  You can probably find one locally within the next 24hours.   I understand trig perfectly.  I know exactly what you are saying.  You can't comprehend what I am trying to explain to you.  I am sorry, but I don't know how to simplify it any further.....at least not yet.  I will think on it and see if I can think of a better way to explain it so that you will understand.

Misunderstood my question, no explanation

I have done enough engineering that you won't damage my ego.

Hm. Then why would you keep replying when you said you wouldn't? You're weak.

Aww, it was just getting to the good part.  The name calling is about to begin, Jet has clearly tried to ask the right questions, Grind is trying to deflect by basically saying Jet is too feeble minded to understand or something along those lines. 
Trigonometry Google it.  Use your own wiki here that proves the distance to the sun and the size of the disc you say we are on. 
What he is saying in question 2 is that if the sun disappears due to distance from  you caused by "atmoplane"(LMAO at this term) then increasing your altitude will not increase your view distance.  The only way that you can increase the depth of the observable horizon when increasing altitude is if the Earth's surface is curved downward away from you, hence a round Earth.  As for his first question, he even modeled it for you.  The sun, if its 3000 miles above us circling above a flat disc cannot get close enough to the horizon before it would blink out of your ability to see it when using the "things disappear because light can't travel that far" argument. 
Lensing effects are caused by a medium bending light from multiple directions causing those light to either appear at a closer or further focal point than their original path.  This is accomplished because the medium it is traveling through makes the light travel slower than through it, kind of like water in an Olympic style swimming pool makes the lines marking the lanes distorted.  If I am wrong on the lensing please feel free to correct me as I am not copy pasting someone else's explaination.

It's glaringly obvious they are incapable of solving this one. The only flat earthers to respond are Pongo (who just tried to say sunset times are wrong, which is debate and does not provide an answer) and Grindstone, who just said "The reason is too complicated for you so I'm not going to tell you" whilst posting in the style of someone still at the high school educational level.
I would like jroa to come and explain it, he has been in this thread to slap people's wrists, and as I point out in the OP, it's his theory that atmospheric haze-out is the cause of sunsets.

here ya go Neil, just in case the bendy light argument comes up again.  Kinda interesting read
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/models/flat.html

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:59:05 PM

It is fairly likely I won't bother trying to explain this further, until I can determine a more efficient method to portray this scenario.  So, if I don't reply, I am not ignoring you, I just haven't figured out how to help you yet.

Hm. Then why would you keep replying when you said you wouldn't? You're weak.

You are starting to get yourself tripped up.   Weak?  Could you explain exactly how my decision to respond makes me weak.  I am just curious...since you somehow have twisted it around so that my quote above .....somehow......states that I said something to the effect that I would not be responding to you. 

Oh, and no.  I have not yet figured out a way to dumb this concept down enough so that you will understand it. 

Also.....I am responding because I can.  Maybe it just so happens that I like troll taunting and I am trying to start a serious fight.

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 10:05:13 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:59:05 PM

It is fairly likely I won't bother trying to explain this further, until I can determine a more efficient method to portray this scenario.  So, if I don't reply, I am not ignoring you, I just haven't figured out how to help you yet.

Hm. Then why would you keep replying when you said you wouldn't? You're weak.

You are starting to get yourself tripped up.   Weak?  Could you explain exactly how my decision to respond makes me weak.  I am just curious...since you somehow have twisted it around so that my quote above .....somehow......states that I said something to the effect that I would not be responding to you. 

Oh, and no.  I have not yet figured out a way to dumb this concept down enough so that you will understand it. 

Also.....I am responding because I can.  Maybe it just so happens that I like troll taunting and I am trying to start a serious fight.

Keep replying. Keep it coming, you've already made a fool of yourself- keep going. You're weak.

There is nothing else to fight about. You have admitted you can't explain sunsets. I have mathematically proven that they are impossible on a flat Earth. I won, you lost.

Quote from: GrindStone on February 25, 2015, 05:49:43 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 10:05:13 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:59:05 PM

It is fairly likely I won't bother trying to explain this further, until I can determine a more efficient method to portray this scenario.  So, if I don't reply, I am not ignoring you, I just haven't figured out how to help you yet.

Hm. Then why would you keep replying when you said you wouldn't? You're weak.

You are starting to get yourself tripped up.   Weak?  Could you explain exactly how my decision to respond makes me weak.  I am just curious...since you somehow have twisted it around so that my quote above .....somehow......states that I said something to the effect that I would not be responding to you. 

Oh, and no.  I have not yet figured out a way to dumb this concept down enough so that you will understand it. 

Also.....I am responding because I can.  Maybe it just so happens that I like troll taunting and I am trying to start a serious fight.

Keep replying. Keep it coming, you've already made a fool of yourself- keep going. You're weak.

There is nothing else to fight about. You have admitted you can't explain sunsets. I have mathematically proven that they are impossible on a flat Earth. I won, you lost.

Well, technically speaking, you are wrong again.  You have a solid track record going, may as well keep it running.  Anyway....I did explain the sunset.  Your lack of ability to comprehend the scenario is keeping you from understanding how it works.  This is your personal failing.  I am not saying you aren't smart enough to be able to understand it.  My point has been, you are so completely locked in on your religious view of this matter, that you cannot see beyond your trained limits.  It is like training a flea.  You put it in a jar, and put a lid on the jar.  They jump and jump, always slamming into the lid.  After a while they stop jumping so high.  Then you can remove the lid, and the flea will not jump outside the jar.  It is self-inhibited.  This is your situation.  You have been placed in the popular science jar, and trained to not think beyond the lid.  Now that the lid is off....you can't think beyond the lid.

As for your math, you did a fine job, based on what you have been told.  Maybe this will help.  You are thinking in two dimensions.  The scenario I am describing is three dimensional.  Multi-planar.  Horizons don't terminate at the same point on each plane.  Hopefully that helps you see beyond the "popular science lid".

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 25, 2015, 05:55:36 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 25, 2015, 05:49:43 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 24, 2015, 10:05:13 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:59:05 PM

It is fairly likely I won't bother trying to explain this further, until I can determine a more efficient method to portray this scenario.  So, if I don't reply, I am not ignoring you, I just haven't figured out how to help you yet.

Hm. Then why would you keep replying when you said you wouldn't? You're weak.

You are starting to get yourself tripped up.   Weak?  Could you explain exactly how my decision to respond makes me weak.  I am just curious...since you somehow have twisted it around so that my quote above .....somehow......states that I said something to the effect that I would not be responding to you. 

Oh, and no.  I have not yet figured out a way to dumb this concept down enough so that you will understand it. 

Also.....I am responding because I can.  Maybe it just so happens that I like troll taunting and I am trying to start a serious fight.

Keep replying. Keep it coming, you've already made a fool of yourself- keep going. You're weak.

There is nothing else to fight about. You have admitted you can't explain sunsets. I have mathematically proven that they are impossible on a flat Earth. I won, you lost.

Well, technically speaking, you are wrong again.  You have a solid track record going, may as well keep it running.  Anyway....I did explain the sunset.  Your lack of ability to comprehend the scenario is keeping you from understanding how it works.  This is your personal failing.  I am not saying you aren't smart enough to be able to understand it.  My point has been, you are so completely locked in on your religious view of this matter, that you cannot see beyond your trained limits.  It is like training a flea.  You put it in a jar, and put a lid on the jar.  They jump and jump, always slamming into the lid.  After a while they stop jumping so high.  Then you can remove the lid, and the flea will not jump outside the jar.  It is self-inhibited.  This is your situation.  You have been placed in the popular science jar, and trained to not think beyond the lid.  Now that the lid is off....you can't think beyond the lid.

As for your math, you did a fine job, based on what you have been told.  Maybe this will help.  You are thinking in two dimensions.  The scenario I am describing is three dimensional.  Multi-planar.  Horizons don't terminate at the same point on each plane.  Hopefully that helps you see beyond the "popular science lid".

Still waiting for an answer. You haven't explained anything.

Still waiting for an answer. You haven't explained anything.

Your lack of understanding has no bearing on my previous explanation.  There are others who do understand the FET that would fully comprehend my explanation.  The lid is gone now.  Jump higher.

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 25, 2015, 06:14:20 PM

Still waiting for an answer. You haven't explained anything.

Your lack of understanding has no bearing on my previous explanation.  There are others who do understand the FET that would fully comprehend my explanation.  The lid is gone now.  Jump higher.

Quote your explanation.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills has no bearing on how horribly you failed.

Quote from: GrindStone on February 25, 2015, 06:27:51 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 25, 2015, 06:14:20 PM

Still waiting for an answer. You haven't explained anything.

Your lack of understanding has no bearing on my previous explanation.  There are others who do understand the FET that would fully comprehend my explanation.  The lid is gone now.  Jump higher.

Quote your explanation.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills has no bearing on how horribly you failed.

Ahahahahahaha!  No, it was never a lack of reading comprehension on my part.  The common term for it is "sarcasm".  But you never caught on to that.

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 25, 2015, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 25, 2015, 06:27:51 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 25, 2015, 06:14:20 PM

Still waiting for an answer. You haven't explained anything.

Your lack of understanding has no bearing on my previous explanation.  There are others who do understand the FET that would fully comprehend my explanation.  The lid is gone now.  Jump higher.

Quote your explanation.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills has no bearing on how horribly you failed.

Ahahahahahaha!  No, it was never a lack of reading comprehension on my part.  The common term for it is "sarcasm".  But you never caught on to that.

You are admitting you are a troll?