http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/341/i-dunno-lol_1_.jpg (http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/341/i-dunno-lol_1_.jpg)
Why does the Sun reach the horizon? If the sun set is a perspective effect and we can't see the sun at night because of it being to far away, then it wouldn't reach the horizon. using the accepted FE sun height of 4800 kilometres, then even at 40000 the sun would still be 7 degrees above the horizon.
Why does the Sun reach the horizon? If the sun set is a perspective effect and we can't see the sun at night because of it being to far away, then it wouldn't reach the horizon. using the accepted FE sun height of 4800 kilometres, then even at 40000 the sun would still be 7 degrees above the horizon.
This question has been asked many times, and never satisfactorily answered. And it's not only the vertical position of the sun which is inconsistent with FET, but the lateral position as well, with the sun consistently setting further north or south than it should on a FE.
Why does the Sun reach the horizon? If the sun set is a perspective effect and we can't see the sun at night because of it being to far away, then it wouldn't reach the horizon. using the accepted FE sun height of 4800 kilometres, then even at 40000 the sun would still be 7 degrees above the horizon.
This question has been asked many times, and never satisfactorily answered. And it's not only the vertical position of the sun which is inconsistent with FET, but the lateral position as well, with the sun consistently setting further north or south than it should on a FE.
I think a scale model of a flat earth showing the elevation of the sun above the flat earth at a certain constant level and the orbit of the sun above the flat earth might clear up some confusion about this point of FE Theory ? It would seem that if the sun remained always at a certain height in its orbit about a flat earth it would never go below the horizon, which is quite obvious to the most casual observer ? Do we have a case of "bendy light" involved in accordance with FE Theory as to ths ?
Maybe someone can come up with something of this nature ?
Obvious difficulties, such as if light had that propensity to bend you would never be able to focus on things like the moon as the light traveling from your eye to different areas of the moon would bend differently.
And that the stars are always in the same place no matter where they are in the sky relative to one another. There is a little light bendy-ness as that is why stars "twinkle" but it is not on the order of degrees.
That is also the limitations on "bendy light" You do not get the 23 degrees that it would take to make the sun "only appear to reach the horizon"
23 degrees in this case is one one example.
not sure what causes the illusion of the sun seeming to fall behind a false horizon, but i know for sure, its not due to the FAQ's flock of seagull perspective theory. We must come up with something more plausible.
Current perspective theory states that two receding parallel lines will never intersect and will approach, but never touch each other, infinitely in the distance. However, it seems that no one has observed this for a fact before printing this in geometry texts and artists handbooks.
Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.
See these observations in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm).
Current perspective theory states that two receding parallel lines will never intersect and will approach, but never touch each other, infinitely in the distance. However, it seems that no one has observed this for a fact before printing this in the geometry texts and artists handbooks which have been mindlessly taught to students as fact over the ages.
Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.
See these observations in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm).
Current perspective theory states that two receding parallel lines will never intersect and will approach, but never touch each other, infinitely in the distance. However, it seems that no one has observed this for a fact before printing this in the geometry texts and artists handbooks which have been mindlessly taught to students as fact over the ages.That does not explain why it gets to the horizon. It shouldn't even get near to the horizon. It should remain well above the horizon
Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.
See these observations in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm).
Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.
Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.
This is a false premise. You are assuming that the failure is with the mathematics and not with our own perception. A simple pair of binoculars provides the first proof that the limits of perception can be incorrect in this case. Knowing that as we magnify an image we can see that parallel lines previously thought to have merged in fact, do not intersect, how can you defend the position that the math is wrong?
There are experiments which suggest just that. In the Sinking Ship phenomenon a telescope has been applied to half-sunken ships and they have been restored to view. This suggests that the ships are not really hiding behind a 'hill of water' as Round Earth Theory suggests.Are there any actual photos of an object 'sinking' on the horizon, using magnification to 'restore' that which was most likely too small to see anyway, and then using increased magnification to bring the object into complete view?
Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.
This is a false premise. You are assuming that the failure is with the mathematics and not with our own perception. A simple pair of binoculars provides the first proof that the limits of perception can be incorrect in this case. Knowing that as we magnify an image we can see that parallel lines previously thought to have merged in fact, do not intersect, how can you defend the position that the math is wrong?
There are experiments which suggest just that. In the Sinking Ship phenomenon a telescope has been applied to half-sunken ships and they have been restored to view. This suggests that the ships are not really hiding behind a 'hill of water' as Round Earth Theory suggests.
See the chapter Experiments on Lake Michigan on page 165 of Cellular Cosmogony by Cyrus Teed (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm)
Also see the chapter Disappearance of Ships on page 24 of Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sinking_Ship_Effect)
Samuel Birley Rowbotham reports similar restorative effects in the chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) of Earth Not a Globe.
While restorative effect does not happen when the experiment is tried on the sun, this may be because the effect happens over a much greater distance by orders of magnitude, and so would need a telescope with orders more magnitude of resolution. It may also be that the effect is on a greater scale, imperfections in the earth's surface may work to obscure the sun from restoration. Rowbotham says as much when unable to restore ships on choppy water.
Also Rowbotham's ideas on perspective do not explain the Sun even getting near to the Horizon. In FET from any location the Sun's horizontal distance is never more then a few times it's vertical distance. It should always be WELL above the horizon, not at the horizon or even near the horizon. Going by the equator circumference of 40075 and the FE sun height of 3000 miles (4800 kilometres) then at the equator at equinox at midnight the sun's horizontal distance would be 12756 kilometres, giving an angle above the horizon of 22.1 degrees.
Well I guess this debate isn't interesting or something?
Bumping this it's good discussion and Fe's haven't supplied any answer for this yet.Well, I can comment on numbers 1- The sun sinks below the horizon at the Equator because our tiny human perspective is limited so we can only see so far before the Earth meets the sky and 3 - Unless you have measured the sun disk through your telescope, then how do you know it's size doesn't change?
4 things come into play here.
1. The sun according to FET at least should remain 22.1 deg above the horizon and never sink below it during sunset at the equator.
2. It should drastically decelerate its decent during sunset if it was indeed travelling according to the preposed FET.
3. A clear noticeable difference in it's size should be seen from spectators where it should be at it's biggest midday and a tiny spec getting smaller and smaller as it apparently travels into the distance.
4. It should create a horizontal arc in the sky not setting 180 deg from where it rose. In fact it shouldn't set or rise at all due to point 1.
Well, I can comment on numbers 1- The sun sinks below the horizon at the Equator because our tiny human perspective is limited so we can only see so far before the Earth meets the skyPerhaps you could provide a simple 2D diagram of how something could be 22 degrees above the horizon, and yet appear to sink below the horizon (due to us being small) while remaining the same size as it moves away.
and 3 - Unless you have measured the sun disk through your telescope, then how do you know it's size doesn't change?I have. Posted the pictures here too (several times).
Perhaps you could provide a simple 2D diagram of how something could be 22 degrees above the horizon, and yet appear to sink below the horizon (due to us being small) while remaining the same size as it moves away.I don't need to make a diagram because all you have to do is look at the horizon. You see the sky meet the Earth right? You see the sun IN THE SKY meeting the Earth. And when you measured the sun in your telescope, you compared it to the moon that night at the same magnification, right? I would like to see the data on that.Quoteand 3 - Unless you have measured the sun disk through your telescope, then how do you know it's size doesn't change?I have. Posted the pictures here too (several times).
From some latitudes, including the equator, the mono-pole model shows the sun being 22 degrees above the horizon using a straight line of sight. At 22 degrees, you're looking well above the horizon. This is supposed to be at midnight. Yet it sinks below the horizon well before midnight (in accordance with RET).Perhaps you could provide a simple 2D diagram of how something could be 22 degrees above the horizon, and yet appear to sink below the horizon (due to us being small) while remaining the same size as it moves away.I don't need to make a diagram because all you have to do is look at the horizon. You see the sky meet the Earth right?Quoteand 3 - Unless you have measured the sun disk through your telescope, then how do you know it's size doesn't change?I have. Posted the pictures here too (several times).
You see the sun IN THE SKY meeting the Earth. And when you measured the sun in your telescope, you compared it to the moon that night at the same magnification, right? I would like to see the data on that.Here's a picture of the sun I took at noon. I used a green welding lens, hence the green tint. I didn't compare it to the moon. What would be the point of that if the noon and sunset picture already tell me it has remained the same size?
3. A clear noticeable difference in it's size should be seen from spectators where it should be at it's biggest midday and a tiny spec getting smaller and smaller as it apparently travels into the distance.3 - Unless you have measured the sun disk through your telescope, then how do you know it's size doesn't change?
you compared it to the moon that night at the same magnification, right?Sure does seem the parameters of the observations cover the duration of a day.
I plan to. I didn't say it changed size the same day. The moon doesn't change from Apogee to Perigee in one day.Since you were proven wrong and feel the need to change the parameters, perhaps you could elaborate on what you want to observe.
You didn't say you compared it to the moon at all. But you're right, I failed to state that it needs to be measured say, once a month for a year. The full moon Perigee.
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/lunar-perigee-apogee.html (http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/lunar-perigee-apogee.html)
Moose,
You mean dawn until dusk. The sun does not get smaller as it moves away because it is not an object. It is a reflection. Does light reflected in a mirror get smaller as it moves away?
You didn't say you compared it to the moon at all.I know. I said I didn't compare it to the moon. What would have been the point? I was comparing the size of the sun between noon and sunset for differences. If those two images showed no difference in size, then what need would there be to compare it to the moon also on the same day? What if the moon wasn't even visible that day?
That isn't the point. Like I said, it needs to be measured during a full moon THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. And yes, it would need to be on a clear night (isn't that obvious?)You didn't say you compared it to the moon at all.I know. I said I didn't compare it to the moon. What would have been the point? I was comparing the size of the sun between noon and sunset for differences. If those two images showed no difference in size, then what need would there be to compare it to the moon also on the same day? What if the moon wasn't even visible that day?
That isn't the point.Wrong. I was comparing the sun at noon and sunset. No comparison with the moon was needed. That's my point regarding my photos.
Like I said, it needs to be measured during a full moon THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.Why? If I'm comparing pictures of the sun throughout the year, each presumably taken at noon and with the same magnification, and then comparing them all so see of the sun is bigger or smaller in any of them, then what's the point of comparing them with the moon too?
And yes, it would need to be on a clear night (isn't that obvious?)A clear night...Who would have thought? No, I was refering to the 'new moon' phase. I thought that was obvious.
If you think it changes size, check it for yourself.
Because you need to compare the size of the Full moon with the sun to see if the sun changes with the seasons. We already know the moon does.If we know the moon appears to change size, then once again I have to ask, why bother comparing the sun pictures to it? If you take one picture per season, and all four images show it to be the same size when overlayed or measured, that would indicate it did not change size.
If you think it changes size, check it for yourself.
Excellent images—and irrefutable evidence of the sun's constant size as well (duh, LOL).
Thank you for taking the time to post this stuff.
Your welcome.
It's a pity the FEs never seem to be able to post photographic images to support any of their claims.
I have yet to see the FE'r that actually understands photography
They invariably utilise 2D drawings.
Good luck getting even those sometimes, especially when a simple 2D diagram will suffice.... and also disprove their argument.
Here's some sufficient evidence that the sun at least drops lower than cloud level relative to a given position on the earth.
(http://www.gdargaud.net/Climbing/Vercors/20101114_182246_Clouds.jpg)
Perspective makes the sun closer to the horizon than clouds which are almost overhead. It does not take much imagination to comprehend this. You guys are making this much more difficult than it needs to be.
Perspective makes the sun closer to the horizon than clouds which are almost overhead. It does not take much imagination to comprehend this. You guys are making this much more difficult than it needs to be.
Are you trying to say that perspective only happens if light can bend? I don't even follow you anymore. Lay off the liquor for a little while, please.
rottingroom, you are asking for a small scale example of something that takes place over tens of thousands of kilometers. Of course I can't accurately reproduce this in my living room. I would not ask you to reproduce the moon landings in your living room.
rottingroom, you are asking for a small scale example of something that takes place over tens of thousands of kilometers. Of course I can't accurately reproduce this in my living room. I would not ask you to reproduce the moon landings in your living room.Could you please draw a diagram of a light source above an object illuminating the bottom side of said object? And how perspective can account for the difference between the actual and apparent position of the sun in a flat earth.
The sun gets close to the horizon because things in the sky get closer to the horizon when they are far away due to perspective. Do I really need to explain perspective to you guys?
The clouds and that mountain are much closer to the photographer than the sun. Perspective makes the sun appear to be lower than either, even though the sun is actually higher above the Earth.
Are you trying to say that perspective only happens if light can bend? I don't even follow you anymore. Lay off the liquor for a little while, please.
Please provide an example of light shining on the opposite side of something. Take a flashlight and shine it on something and show me the opposite side of it in all of its illuminated glory.
Tit.
Are you trying to say that perspective only happens if light can bend? I don't even follow you anymore. Lay off the liquor for a little while, please.
Please provide an example of light shining on the opposite side of something. Take a flashlight and shine it on something and show me the opposite side of it in all of its illuminated glory.
Tit.
(https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1604386_561090370641679_274502164_n.jpg)
When the sun is visually out of sight its rays are still hitting the atmosphere above you.
When the sun is visually out of sight its rays are still hitting the atmosphere above you.
True, yet it get's darker before the Sun gets below the Horizon. This is because the Sun is physically getting farther away then you are.
When the sun is visually out of sight its rays are still hitting the atmosphere above you.
True, yet it get's darker before the Sun gets below the Horizon. This is because the Sun is physically getting farther away then you are.
I don't think so. It may be further away in the round earth model as well but by a negligible amount compared to the accepted average distance of 93,000,000 miles. The reason why it is darker and cooler is because of the angle of incidence of a given ray of light.
(http://hikethru.com/images/weather/Sun%20Rays%20.JPG)
When the sun is visually out of sight its rays are still hitting the atmosphere above you.
True, yet it get's darker before the Sun gets below the Horizon. This is because the Sun is physically getting farther away then you are.
I don't think so. It may be further away in the round earth model as well but by a negligible amount compared to the accepted average distance of 93,000,000 miles. The reason why it is darker and cooler is because of the angle of incidence of a given ray of light.
(http://hikethru.com/images/weather/Sun%20Rays%20.JPG)
Well think of it like the Sun is continually Illuminating 66.6% of Earth for it to get dark then the Sun would need to drop about 30 degrees below the Horizon so Sunset should if the Earth is rotating start when the Sun is 30 degrees before the Horizon line and end when the Sun is 30 degrees below the Horizon line. This would mean it would start getting darker 2 hours before the Sun started to set and wouldn't peak out in darkness until 2 hours after it set.
If the Earth is fixed, flat and not moving and the Sun is merely a projection from Venus then it would be projected around 20 degrees but the Sky FOV would always be about 200 degrees (With 180 Degrees Visible) so when the Sun was at 180 degrees you would see it start to get darker and sunset would last about 1 Hour and 20 minutes in total before it started it get dark before it was completely dark out.
Never Ending Sun - Avi Hochberg (http://#)
I have deja vu. Same conversation, different people this time. Jroa is right, it's YOUR PERSPECTIVE. The clouds are closer to you than the sun is and the sun is dimming as it moves away from you. Hence the orange/gold hue....dim light. WHITE clouds are going to reflect any light remaining.
I would not ask you to reproduce the moon landings in your living room.
The sun gets close to the horizon because things in the sky get closer to the horizon when they are far away due to perspective. Do I really need to explain perspective to you guys?
Yeah, I guess if you ignore Rayleigh scattering and the fact that the picture in question shows light illuminating on the bottom of those clouds exclusively, then a nonsense answer like that would be satisfying.Oh and how exactly do you know what the tops of those clouds look like from that picture?
Oh and how exactly do you know what the tops of those clouds look like from that picture?
Well, lookie here, light ON TOP OF THE CLOUDS!
(http://)
You need to go back and read the conversation then. You are clearly confused.
Well, lookie here, light ON TOP OF THE CLOUDS!
(http://)
AusGeoff,
The sunlight is hitting the same clouds perpendicular as well, as seen from below in the photo that was posted in this thread. The sunlight spreads far a wide obviously. That's why this whole topic of the sunlight illuminating clouds from below is not evidence of a sun disappearing below the horizon.
AusGeoff,
The sunlight is hitting the same clouds perpendicular as well, as seen from below in the photo that was posted in this thread. The sunlight spreads far a wide obviously. That's why this whole topic of the sunlight illuminating clouds from below is not evidence of a sun disappearing below the horizon.
That side can never be the bottom on a flat earth.You never said anything about two different parts of the world. I don't see what that has to do with this. We were discussing how light can illuminate the bottom of clouds at sunset. And yes it CAN happen on a flat Earth because the sunlight reaches everything and as it moves away, it gradually dims everything from East to West....Earth and sky.
The original point that I made is that this particular side of the cloud cannot be both the bottom in one part of the world and then the top in some other part of the world if the Earth is flat.
Yes it is.That shadow is not reaching the clouds. It only appears to from the perspective of the photographer. Go up to the top of that mountain and tell me if that shadow is on the clouds before you make your claim.
Given the situation of exactly perpendicular rays the sun needs to be ∞ far. Neither would perpendicular rays cast the shadow of something up against the clouds. It will just travel over the mountain:
(http://www.geekosystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mtrainiershadow-550x309.jpg)
Yes it is.That shadow is not reaching the clouds. It only appears to from the perspective of the photographer. Go up to the top of that mountain and tell me if that shadow is on the clouds before you make your claim.
Given the situation of exactly perpendicular rays the sun needs to be ∞ far. Neither would perpendicular rays cast the shadow of something up against the clouds. It will just travel over the mountain:
(http://www.geekosystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mtrainiershadow-550x309.jpg)
That side can never be the bottom on a flat earth.You never said anything about two different parts of the world. I don't see what that has to do with this. We were discussing how light can illuminate the bottom of clouds at sunset. And yes it CAN happen on a flat Earth because the sunlight reaches everything and as it moves away, it gradually dims everything from East to West....Earth and sky.
The original point that I made is that this particular side of the cloud cannot be both the bottom in one part of the world and then the top in some other part of the world if the Earth is flat.
Here's some sufficient evidence that the sun at least drops lower than cloud level relative to a given position on the earth.
(http://www.gdargaud.net/Climbing/Vercors/20101114_182246_Clouds.jpg)
Which is just insane. I mean, we know that at any given time, the sun is directly overhead (as in, above the clouds) in some part of the world.
Now, how can the sun be both above and below the clouds at the same time? Hmmm, I wonder...
I don't know why you can't understand how it's possible, I have no problem. When you look out over the ocean and see it meet the sky, you know the sky is above that ocean, even though it appears the sky is as low as the ocean. It's an illusion....caused by your perspective.
Why are there double rainbows?
Why are there double rainbows?
So that was tested in a lab?Why are there double rainbows?
Scientifically tested explanation for double rainbows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#Variations).
So that was tested in a lab?Why are there double rainbows?
Scientifically tested explanation for double rainbows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#Variations).
Why are there double rainbows?
My answer would be because light is projected from Venus and the light projection forms the Sun. However the Light Venus has is not from itself but another reflection from the energy surrounding the Universe both inside and outside of it.
The Fainter Rainbow in a double rainbow is always the projector, the brighter rainbow is the projection.
All rainbows fork if you catch them at the right angel though. That's because their mirroring the outside energy.
They usually happen after it rains because that's when conductivity is the highest without a lot of extra dust in the air.
OF COURSE it's the sides because that is the angle the sun is coming from!
You shouldn't make presumptions because the light can and does illuminate the upper, lower and side surfaces of the clouds.
OF COURSE it's the sides because that is the angle the sun is coming from!
This directly contradicts your own previous claims that the clouds were illuminated by the sun on their upper surface, but—presumably—not their sides. Or do you want to change your story a bit?
The tops of the clouds are coplanar with the sun's rays, but the sides are perpendicular to the sun's rays. And which explains why the upper surface of most of the clouds are unilluminated, or in partial darkness.
Yes, because the Earth is round.You shouldn't make presumptions because the light can and does illuminate the upper, lower and side surfaces of the clouds.
OF COURSE it's the sides because that is the angle the sun is coming from!
This directly contradicts your own previous claims that the clouds were illuminated by the sun on their upper surface, but—presumably—not their sides. Or do you want to change your story a bit?
The tops of the clouds are coplanar with the sun's rays, but the sides are perpendicular to the sun's rays. And which explains why the upper surface of most of the clouds are unilluminated, or in partial darkness.