A Logical Inconsistency

My apologies if this has been brought up before, but I couldn't find anything that was directly on point.  Some of these topics have definitely been covered tangentially, but I'm curious about how they interact.  I'm adding numbers only to make it clear what stuff belongs to what arguments.

1.  The wiki says that FEers can calculate the distance to the Sun to be 3,000 miles, triangulating its position from the equator and from 45 deg of latitude.  It quotes an article on this experiment to measure the circumference of the Earth that says,

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun

That is, as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparant size of the sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work.

That is to say, if the Earth were flat and the Sun near the surface, its angular size would regularly change.  The angular size of the Sun never changes, therefore the premise cannot be true.

2.  FEers counter this by arguing that the atmosphere magnifies the angular size of the Sun as it recedes from us.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?

A. The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere.

3.  In order to explain nighttime in an FE model, something must block the Sun's rays from being visible to half of the Earth at any given time.  The wiki argues that it is blocked by the atmosphere:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun

The cause of night is simply due to a non-transparent atmosphere. As the sun recedes its light is dimmed and lost to the increasing number of atoms and molecules which intersect the light rays.

4.  The contradiction should be obvious.  Numbers 2 and 3 cannot both be true.  If the atmosphere magnifies the angular size of the Sun as the Sun recedes from us on a flat Earth, then we would live in permanent daylight, especially if its angular size is magnified exactly proportionally to its distance from any observer (required for FET).

If the atmosphere blocks light from the Sun to create nighttime, then the angular size of the Sun would change as it recedes from us.

I don't see how this can be resolved.  Clearly, FET directly conflicts with our most basic daily experiences.

Bendy light resolves this.

I'd also note that the sun always appearing the same size is direct, sensorial evidence that it's staying roughly the same distance away at all times, or is so far away that these differences in distance don't affect how large it appears.  Zeteticism tells us to trust our senses, yet supposedly zetetic FEers adopt a model that goes against them in this case.

Bendy light resolves this.

AKA "magic never explained light".

Bendy light resolves this.

I don't see how.  Please explain.

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is 'magnified' by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.  If one of them if not true, then FET is directly incongruous with one of the most universal human experiences. 

Don't ask about logic here. It doesn't exist in this stupid trick.

FES+RE=NASA=J+K

Bendy light resolves this.

Next time, please have the courtesy of explaining claims such as these. garygreen has provided a very good argument, and you've responded with something that has no grounds. You may be right, but thus far, you really haven't proven anything, and instead, you are giving RE'ers an advantage.

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is 'magnified' by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.  If one of them if not true, then FET is directly incongruous with one of the most universal human experiences.

Those explanations are not central to FET, and bendy light makes them unnecessary. I am not arguing that what you are saying is wrong, I am saying that it does not invalidate FET because there is an alternative explanation.

Put simply, light curves upward in an arc, such that vertical light never bends (light going up can't go any more up, and light going down doesn't have any one direction that would take it more up than any other direction), and horizontal light bends the most. This means that when the Sun is at the horizon, it is actually still high in the sky -- the Sunlight starts off travelling down, and curves upward until it meets your eye travelling horizontally.

As the Sun moves still further away, the light would need to take a path through the solid Earth in order to reach you, and so you are quite literally in Earth's shadow.

Bendy light is still very much a work in progress, but you can find an approximate description of the curvature here.

Quote from: garygreen on July 15, 2012, 08:37:53 AM

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is 'magnified' by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.  If one of them if not true, then FET is directly incongruous with one of the most universal human experiences.

Those explanations are not central to FET, and bendy light makes them unnecessary. I am not arguing that what you are saying is wrong, I am saying that it does not invalidate FET because there is an alternative explanation.

Put simply, light curves upward in an arc, such that vertical light never bends (light going up can't go any more up, and light going down doesn't have any one direction that would take it more up than any other direction), and horizontal light bends the most. This means that when the Sun is at the horizon, it is actually still high in the sky -- the Sunlight starts off travelling down, and curves upward until it meets your eye travelling horizontally.

As the Sun moves still further away, the light would need to take a path through the solid Earth in order to reach you, and so you are quite literally in Earth's shadow.

Bendy light is still very much a work in progress, but you can find an approximate description of the curvature here.

I still don't see how bendy light resolves the conflict.  I could be missing a nuance to your argument, but I don't see how bendy light would create a magnification effect, especially if the effect is applied evenly on all rays of light traveling to a single observer.  Maybe it would change the apparent location, but I don't see how it could change the angular diameter.  But, I might have misunderstood your description. 

FET requires a mechanism to magnify the angular size of an object like the Sun or Moon as it recedes from us on a flat plane.  It then requires another mechanism to prevent that magnification from making them visible to everyone all the time.  I suppose I can see how bendy light might, at a glance, be the latter mechanism, but it doesn't solve the magnification problem.

That said, your description of bendy light creates more questions than it answers.  You yourself admit in your thread that your equation is largely inaccurate, and it contains a constant you can't verify or measure.  I see no empirical data or experiments to verify its accuracy, or even to verify an anomaly with the status quo description of light.  You don't even provide a derivation of the equation.  You wrote a lot more words, but your explanation hasn't actually risen above "because bendy light."

Quote from: Parsifal on July 16, 2012, 01:46:33 AM

Quote from: garygreen on July 15, 2012, 08:37:53 AM

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is 'magnified' by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.  If one of them if not true, then FET is directly incongruous with one of the most universal human experiences.

Those explanations are not central to FET, and bendy light makes them unnecessary. I am not arguing that what you are saying is wrong, I am saying that it does not invalidate FET because there is an alternative explanation.

Put simply, light curves upward in an arc, such that vertical light never bends (light going up can't go any more up, and light going down doesn't have any one direction that would take it more up than any other direction), and horizontal light bends the most. This means that when the Sun is at the horizon, it is actually still high in the sky -- the Sunlight starts off travelling down, and curves upward until it meets your eye travelling horizontally.

As the Sun moves still further away, the light would need to take a path through the solid Earth in order to reach you, and so you are quite literally in Earth's shadow.

Bendy light is still very much a work in progress, but you can find an approximate description of the curvature here.

I still don't see how bendy light resolves the conflict.  I could be missing a nuance to your argument, but I don't see how bendy light would create a magnification effect, especially if the effect is applied evenly on all rays of light traveling to a single observer.  Maybe it would change the apparent location, but I don't see how it could change the angular diameter.  But, I might have misunderstood your description. 

FET requires a mechanism to magnify the angular size of an object like the Sun or Moon as it recedes from us on a flat plane.  It then requires another mechanism to prevent that magnification from making them visible to everyone all the time.  I suppose I can see how bendy light might, at a glance, be the latter mechanism, but it doesn't solve the magnification problem.

That said, your description of bendy light creates more questions than it answers.  You yourself admit in your thread that your equation is largely inaccurate, and it contains a constant you can't verify or measure.  I see no empirical data or experiments to verify its accuracy, or even to verify an anomaly with the status quo description of light.  You don't even provide a derivation of the equation.  You wrote a lot more words, but your explanation hasn't actually risen above "because bendy light."

And it gets worse as you think it more carefully. Anyone with a minimum knowledge of Optics knows that with magnification you also get a reduction in luminosity because the same amount of light is stretched into a much larger image. For example, if you look at the Moon with a 10x configuration in a 4 inch telescope you get an image that is almost too bright to watch comfortably. Then you change the eyepiece to get a 200x magnification and the same light from the same 4 inch objective is almost too dim to see all the details you want.

The same would happen with the bendy light "magnification". You would have painfully bright days when the Sun is at the zenith, but you would need to turn your lights on one or two hours before dawn, just to drive a car or read a book.

This is called the principle of conservation of energy, and without it the whole subject of Physics, as we know it, breaks to pieces.

Quote from: garygreen on July 16, 2012, 11:29:27 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on July 16, 2012, 01:46:33 AM

Quote from: garygreen on July 15, 2012, 08:37:53 AM

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is 'magnified' by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.  If one of them if not true, then FET is directly incongruous with one of the most universal human experiences.

Those explanations are not central to FET, and bendy light makes them unnecessary. I am not arguing that what you are saying is wrong, I am saying that it does not invalidate FET because there is an alternative explanation.

Put simply, light curves upward in an arc, such that vertical light never bends (light going up can't go any more up, and light going down doesn't have any one direction that would take it more up than any other direction), and horizontal light bends the most. This means that when the Sun is at the horizon, it is actually still high in the sky -- the Sunlight starts off travelling down, and curves upward until it meets your eye travelling horizontally.

As the Sun moves still further away, the light would need to take a path through the solid Earth in order to reach you, and so you are quite literally in Earth's shadow.

Bendy light is still very much a work in progress, but you can find an approximate description of the curvature here.

I still don't see how bendy light resolves the conflict.  I could be missing a nuance to your argument, but I don't see how bendy light would create a magnification effect, especially if the effect is applied evenly on all rays of light traveling to a single observer.  Maybe it would change the apparent location, but I don't see how it could change the angular diameter.  But, I might have misunderstood your description. 

FET requires a mechanism to magnify the angular size of an object like the Sun or Moon as it recedes from us on a flat plane.  It then requires another mechanism to prevent that magnification from making them visible to everyone all the time.  I suppose I can see how bendy light might, at a glance, be the latter mechanism, but it doesn't solve the magnification problem.

That said, your description of bendy light creates more questions than it answers.  You yourself admit in your thread that your equation is largely inaccurate, and it contains a constant you can't verify or measure.  I see no empirical data or experiments to verify its accuracy, or even to verify an anomaly with the status quo description of light.  You don't even provide a derivation of the equation.  You wrote a lot more words, but your explanation hasn't actually risen above "because bendy light."

And it gets worse as you think it more carefully. Anyone with a minimum knowledge of Optics knows that with magnification you also get a reduction in luminosity because the same amount of light is stretched into a much larger image. For example, if you look at the Moon with a 10x configuration in a 4 inch telescope you get an image that is almost too bright to watch comfortably. Then you change the eyepiece to get a 200x magnification and the same light from the same 4 inch objective is almost too dim to see all the details you want.

The same would happen with the bendy light "magnification". You would have painfully bright days when the Sun is at the zenith, but you would need to turn your lights on one or two hours before dawn, just to drive a car or read a book.

This is called the principle of conservation of energy, and without it the whole subject of Physics, as we know it, breaks to pieces.

erm it does. at sunset you can look directly at the sun, eventually you need to turn the lights on.

The same would happen with the bendy light "magnification". You would have painfully bright days when the Sun is at the zenith, but you would need to turn your lights on one or two hours before dawn, just to drive a car or read a book.

This is almost exactly what I experience everyday.

And still! We have no explanation for the huge discrepancy in the calculated distance between Sydney and Adelaide under the Flat Earth Hypothesis and the measured distance in the REAL WORLD.

Flat Earth Hypothesis? Calculated by determining the circumference of the disk at the latitude of the two cities and then the ratio of the circumference against the longitude delta between the two cities.

Flat Earth Hypothesis calculation: 1878 miles (3005 km)

Real world. Maps are published with this info. These maps are used EVERY DAY by people traveling about Australia.

Real World: 740 miles (1184 km)

Marconi, for one, this is the third time I've seen this, and for two, this is not the place for that. I'm reporting this.

It's ridiculous that you attempt to point out a contradiction without being aware of the laws of optics. Your post shows that you are ignorant of the most basic fundamentals of optics, and it is consequently no surprise that you see a contradiction.

Imagine a child who doesn't know how to walk. He therefore comes up with a theory that everybody else can walk and he can't. Then, when they tell him that everyone can learn to walk, he points out a "contradiction," he can't walk and they can!

The reason that the child is wrong is his ignorance of the laws of walking, and his argument in inherently lacking.

It's ridiculous that you attempt to point out a contradiction without being aware of the laws of optics. Your post shows that you are ignorant of the most basic fundamentals of optics, and it is consequently no surprise that you see a contradiction.

Imagine a child who doesn't know how to walk. He therefore comes up with a theory that everybody else can walk and he can't. Then, when they tell him that everyone can learn to walk, he points out a "contradiction," he can't walk and they can!

The reason that the child is wrong is his ignorance of the laws of walking, and his argument in inherently lacking.

To whom are you referring?

The opening post, I need to start quoting. Sorry.

Well garygreen seems to have a good grasp of what he was talking about. I'm no optics expert, but there seems to be some understanding of what was said.

Well garygreen seems to have a good grasp of what he was talking about. I'm no optics expert, but there seems to be some understanding of what was said.

"Some"?

An insect has "some" understanding of optics. What he needs is enough understanding to see the truth.

An insect shows no evidence of sentient thought, therefore it cannot have understanding. Please provide a citation to prove me wrong.

It's ridiculous that you attempt to point out a contradiction without being aware of the laws of optics. Your post shows that you are ignorant of the most basic fundamentals of optics, and it is consequently no surprise that you see a contradiction.

Imagine a child who doesn't know how to walk. He therefore comes up with a theory that everybody else can walk and he can't. Then, when they tell him that everyone can learn to walk, he points out a "contradiction," he can't walk and they can!

The reason that the child is wrong is his ignorance of the laws of walking, and his argument in inherently lacking.

I'm happy to listen to why I'm wrong, but you'll have to be more specific.

The sun's rays are magnified in certain ways and rduced in other ways, resulting in the observations you make daily. These are immediate results from basic tenets of optical law. Any honest scientist will admit that this is the case.

The sun's rays are magnified in certain ways and rduced in other ways, resulting in the observations you make daily. These are immediate results from basic tenets of optical law. Any honest scientist will admit that this is the case.

Please be more specific. Which optical laws?

Quote from: Pyriew on July 20, 2012, 01:54:57 PM

The sun's rays are magnified in certain ways and rduced in other ways, resulting in the observations you make daily. These are immediate results from basic tenets of optical law. Any honest scientist will admit that this is the case.

Please be more specific. Which optical laws?

The laws of refraction and parallax.

Quote from: trig on July 16, 2012, 12:24:29 PM

And it gets worse as you think it more carefully. Anyone with a minimum knowledge of Optics knows that with magnification you also get a reduction in luminosity because the same amount of light is stretched into a much larger image. For example, if you look at the Moon with a 10x configuration in a 4 inch telescope you get an image that is almost too bright to watch comfortably. Then you change the eyepiece to get a 200x magnification and the same light from the same 4 inch objective is almost too dim to see all the details you want.

The same would happen with the bendy light "magnification". You would have painfully bright days when the Sun is at the zenith, but you would need to turn your lights on one or two hours before dawn, just to drive a car or read a book.

This is called the principle of conservation of energy, and without it the whole subject of Physics, as we know it, breaks to pieces.

erm it does. at sunset you can look directly at the sun, eventually you need to turn the lights on.

So, you can look directly at the Sun one or two hours before sunset? You have to go ASAP to the ophthalmologist because you either have cataracts as big as dimes in both eyes or have already burnt big gashes in your retinas with your unprotected sun gazing.

Those of us who still have some eyesight can tell you that you have to wait until the very last minutes of dusk to look directly to the Sun without damaging your retinas.

Also, those who have some knowledge of photography can tell you that there is not much difference in the exposure necessary at noon or one hour before dusk, if the Sun is directly illuminating the scene.

But don't let me distract you. You need an eye doctor NOW!

Quote from: trig on July 16, 2012, 12:24:29 PM

The same would happen with the bendy light "magnification". You would have painfully bright days when the Sun is at the zenith, but you would need to turn your lights on one or two hours before dawn, just to drive a car or read a book.

This is almost exactly what I experience everyday.

You, please read the previous post, urgently! If you cannot drive two hours before dusk without the headlamps, you should stop driving altogether! And if you cannot read a book two hours before dusk without turning the lights on, you must consider getting a trained dog and a sensing pole before leaving your house, ever again!

^^^Please, if you cannot come up with a competant counter arguement to a previous post, refrain from posting until you have a legitimate statement.  If the sun is directly above you, it will change brightness depending on your angle of vision.  At one angle, it will appear brighter; at a different, longer angle it will eventually turn darker and darker.  You're welcome.

^^^Please, if you cannot come up with a competant counter arguement to a previous post, refrain from posting until you have a legitimate statement.  If the sun is directly above you, it will change depending on your angle of vision.  At one angle, it will appear brighter; at a different, longer angle it will eventually turn darker and darker.  You're welcome.

So, you are saying that my argument, that the Sun would be at least ten times darker one hour before dusk that at noon if the model of the FE "theorists" were correct, is wrong?

Nobody cares that the Sun is a little less bright as the afternoon advances because that is consistent with real science. The amount of atmosphere that the light has to pass explains a small difference. If you have no reason to explain why in the FE model the difference is not of an order of magnitude or more you should be less rude and learn to read before posting.

I think The Ice Wall Ninja and Pyriew are the same person, trying to corroborate himself.

I think The Ice Wall Ninja and Pyriew are the same person, trying to corroborate himself.

That's a disgusting lie and a pathetic attempt to escape a problem. I have nothing to do with that other poster, and I don't even think he believes in flat earth. Once again, a round earther makes a false claim he can't prove in order to try and defend his backwards manner of reasoning. I am shocked that you people would result to personal claims every time you lose an argument. Have some decency, or leave.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 23, 2012, 06:26:52 AM

I think The Ice Wall Ninja and Pyriew are the same person, trying to corroborate himself.

That's a disgusting lie and a pathetic attempt to escape a problem. I have nothing to do with that other poster, and I don't even think he believes in flat earth. Once again, a round earther makes a false claim he can't prove in order to try and defend his backwards manner of reasoning. I am shocked that you people would result to personal claims every time you lose an argument. Have some decency, or leave.

Well, if you look back, the only "arguing" I did asked you to provide a citation for saying insects understood things. I was simply implying something from observing your seemingly identical argument style and the fact that you both effectively say "it's a hoax because I don't want it to be there."