The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: squevil on April 20, 2012, 05:35:26 PM
-
the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here. bendy light is very much thrown out of the window for many reasons even though many do not accept this. ENaG doesnt talk about bendy light but uses perspective and the atmosphere to explain sunsets. today while watching the clouds oposit the sunset i realised something. now this may of been posted before but i havnt seen this in the time ive been lurking here. here is my evidence that throws some ideas of fet away and may force us to think of new ideas.
fig.1.
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/sunreflectingoffclouds.png)
the green lines represent the surface of the earth.
the yellow lines represent ligh rays
the grey shapes are clouds
the red lines are horizons
the black circles represent the observer
and finally the blue line represent the direct angle to the sun but the light cant be seen
the picture is showing a cloud being illuminated at sunset after the sun goes below the horizon. the most popular theory is that the atmosphere blocks the suns light getting to the observer and thats why we cant see a 24 hour sun. also the other popular theory for clouds reflecting the light off the bottom when the sun is higher is because the light reflects off the earth then off the cloud to the observer.
i added the rets answer to why the clouds are lit from bellow for comparison.
at first i didnt think it was much of an issue. i thought the suns light will be travelling through a lower density therefore it will travel further. but this will explain this picture:
fig.2.
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/cloundandsun2.png)
here the suns light only has to travel high up in the atmosphere until it reaches the cloud then reflects off to the observer. but this is when the observer is between the cloud and the sun.
however in fig.1. the light has to travel a much greater distance than it would if it was taking a direct path AND the suns light is traveling through the atmosphere at a low altitude for a greater distance than any other time of the day. yet the light is still able to travel to the cloud and then reflect off the cloud to the observer.
-
Nice illustration squevil. I'd say 3 more months and you'll be a FE'er extraordinaire.
-
Nice illustration squevil. I'd say 3 more months and you'll be a FE'er extraordinaire.
Did you read and understand what he's showing here?
-
im saying that current theories need evaluating as some simple logic brings complications. although hoppy if the fes did still stand by the current theories on how clouds are illuminated then i think the pictures are a good resourse
-
I'd like to point out that the only people that ever bring up bendy light are RE'ers. Lurk moar, Squevil - bendy light has been disproved. It's only in debate because RE'ers keep ignoring that fact.
The Parsec disproof is listed here for your education and enlightenment:
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
-
I'd like to point out that the only people that ever bring up bendy light are RE'ers. Lurk moar, Squevil - bendy light has been disproved. It's only in debate because RE'ers keep ignoring that fact.
The Parsec disproof is listed here for your education and enlightenment:
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
feel free to post about bendy light in a thread talking about bendy light
-
the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here.
I was addressing your misleading quote here.
-
im saying that current theories need evaluating as some simple logic brings complications. although hoppy if the fes did still stand by the current theories on how clouds are illuminated then i think the pictures are a good resourse
I gave you a compliment in my previous post, again nice job.
-
the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here.
I was addressing your misleading quote here.
and if you had quoted the next line you would see that i said exactly the same as you. however it was not the point of the post and you have focused on something that has nothing to do with the op. in other words its derailing the thread.
next your going to tell me that it was in the op... well yes it was but i only mentioned it before somebody started shouting about bendy light, when we all know it doesnt exist. and you no very well that members of the flat earth soceity subscribe to bendy light theory still.
but i would like to highlight the fact that yet again no die hard believer will comment on my posts when i start a topic ::)
i would like more information as this is all going towards my work on light and atmospheric density.
-
but i would like to highlight the fact that yet again no die hard believer will comment on my posts when i start a topic ::)
i would like more information as this is all going towards my work on light and atmospheric density.
I get that all the time - see "INS disproves FET", "The Difficult To Answer Thread" and "Moon Features" for a comedic non-presence of FE'ers
-
but i would like to highlight the fact that yet again no die hard believer will comment on my posts when i start a topic ::)
i would like more information as this is all going towards my work on light and atmospheric density.
I get that all the time - see "INS disproves FET", "The Difficult To Answer Thread" and "Moon Features" for a comedic non-presence of FE'ers
i read all the threads in the upper fora
-
is there no debate to be had? this is fundamental fet here that im disputing
-
the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here. bendy light is very much thrown out of the window for many reasons even though many do not accept this.
As long long as you don't list the reasons, I can't help you.
-
the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here. bendy light is very much thrown out of the window for many reasons even though many do not accept this.
As long long as you don't list the reasons, I can't help you.
'the reasons' im talking about go against bendy light. nobody can help or comment because you cant. this disproves fundamental theories of fet.
-
the perspective effect and bendy light effect is always in debate here. bendy light is very much thrown out of the window for many reasons even though many do not accept this.
As long long as you don't list the reasons, I can't help you.
'the reasons' im talking about go against bendy light. nobody can help or comment because you cant. this disproves fundamental theories of fet.
What are you talking about? "Go against" as in disprove? As I understand your OP, you do not attempt to disprove bendy light. After all, there aren't even any curved light paths in your diagrams.
-
why are you talking about bendy light again? its not the point of the post. i added it as i thought it would be the first thing that was said about the pictures to explain whats going on. yet bendy light doesnt exist anyway. this post is about zetetic science. not about guessing and making things up.
-
some great debating skills here ::)
come on im telling you that the setting sun theories dont match up to reality. are you really that blown away by my epic paint pictures that not even tom bishop can refute the evidence? see this is what was missing in the 19th century, good 'ol ms paint.
-
some great debating skills here ::)
come on im telling you that the setting sun theories dont match up to reality. are you really that blown away by my epic paint pictures that not even tom bishop can refute the evidence? see this is what was missing in the 19th century, good 'ol ms paint.
Redraw your epic pictures with the light from the spotlight sun bouncing off the face of the flat Earth, hitting the clouds, and dispersing in all directions as water vapor would.
-
some great debating skills here ::)
come on im telling you that the setting sun theories dont match up to reality. are you really that blown away by my epic paint pictures that not even tom bishop can refute the evidence? see this is what was missing in the 19th century, good 'ol ms paint.
Redraw your epic pictures with the light from the spotlight sun bouncing off the face of the flat Earth, hitting the clouds, and dispersing in all directions as water vapor would.
How does that change anything? I don't think you understand the diagram.
-
I'm confident if you think about it long enough, CET, you'll understand.
-
I'm confident if you think about it long enough, CET, you'll understand.
Draw your own diagram, explain yourself, or quit making low content posts.
-
And to do what you're too lazy to do, squevil's diagram is showing the path a photon would have to take to get to the viewer. Having the light disperse in every direction when it hit the clouds wouldn't change a thing because we're only looking at the light that's making it to the observer.
-
So you're saying that light dispersed in all directions would not reach the observer? In other words, Squevil's pictures are wrong because clouds do not act like mirrors.
On a side note, CET, what's with all the rage? If I'm misreading your tone then I apologize, but it seems like you could use a moment to relax.
-
So you're saying that light dispersed in all directions would not reach the observer? In other words, Squevil's pictures are wrong because clouds do not act like mirrors.
Nope. You have failed to understand even with an explanation
On a side note, CET, what's with all the rage? If I'm misreading your tone then I apologize, but it seems like you could use a moment to relax.
This aggressively stupid act you put on is getting tiresome. Give it up.
-
Tomorrow I'll walk you through the explanation, but for now I'm going to sleep. If the reason "dawns" on you before then, please say so to save me the effort. In the meantime, go purchase a stress-ball or something. These issues are by no means worth getting so worked up over.
-
If the reason "dawns" on you before then, please say so to save me the effort.
Since this "reason" probably only makes sense to you at this moment, I wouldn't worry about this happening.
-
I'm confident if you think about it long enough, CET, you'll understand.
Standard FEer dodge. For shame. It's your theory, so you should be the one working to show that it can explain the reason that clouds are illuminated from below at sunrise and sunset. Otherwise, we can just go with the default: Once again FET fails to match reality and is disproven.
-
So you're saying that light dispersed in all directions would not reach the observer? In other words, Squevil's pictures are wrong because clouds do not act like mirrors.
On a side note, CET, what's with all the rage? If I'm misreading your tone then I apologize, but it seems like you could use a moment to relax.
i think your find that you need to sit and think about it by the sounds of it. it doesnt make any difference if i show light going in all directions as CET has said the picture shows visable light that the observer can see. but just for you i made one anyway:
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/stupidcloudpic.png)
see that was useful wasnt it? the picture i painstaking drew in fig.1 is just showing the most direct path that the light takes to reach the observer. if i was to show every photon, well you can see got yourself how pointless that was.
also if the light isnt reflecting off the cloud like a mirror then what is happening? you do know that light reflecting off an object into the eye is how we see dont you? so really all objects act like mirrors as far as light is concerned, you may not see your beautiful face by staring at a brick wall but the light is still reflecting off and into your eye.
-
So you're saying that light dispersed in all directions would not reach the observer? In other words, Squevil's pictures are wrong because clouds do not act like mirrors.
On a side note, CET, what's with all the rage? If I'm misreading your tone then I apologize, but it seems like you could use a moment to relax.
i think your find that you need to sit and think about it by the sounds of it. it doesnt make any difference if i show light going in all directions as CET has said the picture shows visable light that the observer can see. but just for you i made one anyway:
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/stupidcloudpic.png)
see that was useful wasnt it? the picture i painstaking drew in fig.1 is just showing the most direct path that the light takes to reach the observer. if i was to show every photon, well you can see got yourself how pointless that was.
also if the light isnt reflecting off the cloud like a mirror then what is happening? you do know that light reflecting off an object into the eye is how we see dont you? so really all objects act like mirrors as far as light is concerned, you may not see your beautiful face by staring at a brick wall but the light is still reflecting off and into your eye.
Nope. Not all objects reflect light (Black holes, transparent media). Not all objects reflect light without detectable changes (Shine only a blue light on a red brick. You'll see a black, not blue, not red, brick.)
-
If the reason "dawns" on you before then, please say so to save me the effort.
Since this "reason" probably only makes sense to you at this moment, I wouldn't worry about this happening.
Then allow me to enlighten you.
All right, imagine a spotlight sun shinning down on the Earth. You are in this spotlight and it appears to be daytime to you. You can see clouds in the sky what light is filtering through. People in the spotlight high up in planes can also see the same clouds as some of the light is reflected by up and some filters though. To everyone, it appears that the cloud is glowing, not reflecting like a mirror. Now, we know that the cloud isn't glowing on it own, it's reflecting light from the sun in all directions.
Now, the sun sets and the cloud is to your West. Light bounces off the Earth and hits the cloud causing it to send light in all directions as it normally does. The cloud still appears to glow after sunset.
If the cloud is to your East when the sun sets, then it is still being lit by light bouncing off the Earth and hitting the cloud. However, it will darken before the ones in the West as the spotlight moves further and further away and the atmo-layer weakens the light.
In both cases, it appears to you that the sun has set, but the clouds are still glowing.
-
If the reason "dawns" on you before then, please say so to save me the effort.
Since this "reason" probably only makes sense to you at this moment, I wouldn't worry about this happening.
Then allow me to enlighten you.
All right, imagine a spotlight sun shinning down on the Earth. You are in this spotlight and it appears to be daytime to you. You can see clouds in the sky what light is filtering through. People in the spotlight high up in planes can also see the same clouds as some of the light is reflected by up and some filters though. To everyone, it appears that the cloud is glowing, not reflecting like a mirror. Now, we know that the cloud isn't glowing on it own, it's reflecting light from the sun in all directions.
Now, the sun sets and the cloud is to your West. Light bounces off the Earth and hits the cloud causing it to send light in all directions as it normally does. The cloud still appears to glow after sunset.
If the cloud is to your East when the sun sets, then it is still being lit by light bouncing off the Earth and hitting the cloud. However, it will darken before the ones in the West as the spotlight moves further and further away and the atmo-layer weakens the light.
In both cases, it appears to you that the sun has set, but the clouds are still glowing.
Demonstratively false. At Sundown, notice that the tops of skyscrapers are still lit while their bases are not. Go to a western window on the highest floor in one such skyscraper. Notice that you see the Sun, not its diffuse reflection off the Earth.
Oh, and the cloud does not appear to glow. It appears to be illuminated from below.
-
I checked dictionary.com and feel safe insisting that "glow" is a proper word to use in this example.
What you're seeing in the top a building is still reflection of light off of the Earth. It's known as a sunset mirage. Here is a webpage with lots of wonderful pictures that you may or may not accept. I understand if you don't, but you can see it for yourself, maybe even tonight!
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/simulations/inf-mir/Kaplan_photos.html
-
I checked dictionary.com and feel safe insisting that "glow" is a proper word to use in this example.
What you're seeing in the top a building is still reflection of light off of the Earth. It's known as a sunset mirage. Here is a webpage with lots of wonderful pictures that you may or may not accept. I understand if you don't, but you can see it for yourself, maybe even tonight!
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/simulations/inf-mir/Kaplan_photos.html
Nope. You'll see the entire apparent disc of the setting Sun, not just it's mirage image. Also, please read what you reference: "The secret of success in this case was to take pictures over a narrow body of water (Albemarle Sound), not the open ocean. The photograph was taken from Nags Head, North Carolina, in August, 1999. The Sound is only about 20 km wide, so the “fetch” or available distance for the wind to generate waves is small; consequently, the waves there are much smaller than on the open sea under similar wind conditions."
That's right, this mirage is a rare event seen only under special conditions, including a large body of still water to the west.
So that's a failure yet again. Don't you get tired of failing?
-
Pongo, you're assuming a spotlight sun, where, I guess, the sun somehow doesn't send out light in every direction. How that happens and doesn't affect the apparent shape of the sun is another matter.
Anyway, if the sun's light does go out in every direction, we should still be able to see direct light from the sun when the bottoms of clouds are being illuminated. In the traditional explanation, it's the atmosphere (or atmolayer if you prefer) that's limiting the distance the light of the sun can reach. The problem with that is that the light being reflected off the clouds is traveling further than the light coming directly from the sun, so the sun should still be visible.
-
I checked dictionary.com and feel safe insisting that "glow" is a proper word to use in this example.
Semantics FTW. We are defeated in debate :o
-
Pongo, you're assuming a spotlight sun, where, I guess, the sun somehow doesn't send out light in every direction. How that happens and doesn't affect the apparent shape of the sun is another matter.
Anyway, if the sun's light does go out in every direction, we should still be able to see direct light from the sun when the bottoms of clouds are being illuminated. In the traditional explanation, it's the atmosphere (or atmolayer if you prefer) that's limiting the distance the light of the sun can reach. The problem with that is that the light being reflected off the clouds is traveling further than the light coming directly from the sun, so the sun should still be visible.
well atleast you understand what im getting at :)
pongo you have just explained whats happening in my picture perfectly, thanks. now can you actually enlighten me on how we can see light reflecting off clouds, yet we cant see the sun? the light is coming from the same place. so why cant we directly see the sun?
-
I'm not sure how I can explain it better. Let me give it a whirl later when I'm on a computer. (maybe tomorrow).
-
I'm not sure how I can explain it better. Let me give it a whirl later when I'm on a computer. (maybe tomorrow).
ill exspect you will have scientific proof to back your claims? or will you be making it up?
-
Pongo, you're assuming a spotlight sun, where, I guess, the sun somehow doesn't send out light in every direction. How that happens and doesn't affect the apparent shape of the sun is another matter.
Anyway, if the sun's light does go out in every direction, we should still be able to see direct light from the sun when the bottoms of clouds are being illuminated. In the traditional explanation, it's the atmosphere (or atmolayer if you prefer) that's limiting the distance the light of the sun can reach. The problem with that is that the light being reflected off the clouds is traveling further than the light coming directly from the sun, so the sun should still be visible.
well atleast you understand what im getting at :)
pongo you have just explained whats happening in my picture perfectly, thanks. now can you actually enlighten me on how we can see light reflecting off clouds, yet we cant see the sun? the light is coming from the same place. so why cant we directly see the sun?
Okay, I've thought this over for a couple days and I'm still not sure how you don't understand. Light bounces off the Earth and hits the clouds. The light rays bounce off and are traveling way above your head. I'm not sure why you would expect to see the reflected light or the sun as you would both be outside the spotlight and below the reflected light.
The only thing I can think of that is preventing you from seeing the solution is that you are having difficulty thinking in FE terms. Try mentally visualizing the flat Earth when you think of being both outside the spotlight and under the reflected light.
-
the sun shines out at all angles. so you think that the sun is a spotlight? as in it shines directly down and not sideways? now if you had said this in the first place you would of made sence. so please tell me; what shape is the sun? and do you believe that the sun only shines down or does it shine out at all angles. please reference your theories
-
"I'm not sure why you would expect to see the reflected light"
we do, we see it reflected off clouds
-
Pongo, you're assuming a spotlight sun, where, I guess, the sun somehow doesn't send out light in every direction. How that happens and doesn't affect the apparent shape of the sun is another matter.
Anyway, if the sun's light does go out in every direction, we should still be able to see direct light from the sun when the bottoms of clouds are being illuminated. In the traditional explanation, it's the atmosphere (or atmolayer if you prefer) that's limiting the distance the light of the sun can reach. The problem with that is that the light being reflected off the clouds is traveling further than the light coming directly from the sun, so the sun should still be visible.
well atleast you understand what im getting at :)
pongo you have just explained whats happening in my picture perfectly, thanks. now can you actually enlighten me on how we can see light reflecting off clouds, yet we cant see the sun? the light is coming from the same place. so why cant we directly see the sun?
Okay, I've thought this over for a couple days and I'm still not sure how you don't understand. Light bounces off the Earth and hits the clouds. The light rays bounce off and are traveling way above your head. I'm not sure why you would expect to see the reflected light or the sun as you would both be outside the spotlight and below the reflected light.
The only thing I can think of that is preventing you from seeing the solution is that you are having difficulty thinking in FE terms. Try mentally visualizing the flat Earth when you think of being both outside the spotlight and under the reflected light.
Oh so wrong. Please read about albedo. Go outside just 15 minutes before the Sun sets. Stand in a grassy field. Don't use anything like a mirror. Hold you hand flat, palm down, level with the ground, at eye level. If you're right the top of your head will be less illuminated that the bottom.
-
im going to be the imature one here and just say this is a hands down flaw in fet. the fact that most have avoided the thread speaks for itself. many use the excuse that most of the fes avoid the upper fora. well this is the debate area. yet nobody is up for relevent debate unless its about semantics and point scoring. well then thats 3-0 to me in that case
-
Here are some pictures that are relevant to this discussion:
Mount Rainier (WA, USA) at sunset
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/111026_blog_rainier_05.jpg)
Mount Hood (OR, USA) at sunrise
(http://media.katu.com/images/320*240/christmas_sunrise_2011_4.png)
The crisp shadows on the clouds indicate that the light illuminating them is not reflected off of the earths surface, and is more likely from the sun itself.
edit: spelling.
-
Has it ever been explained in FE, how the last of the light at sunset fades increasingly faster without the sun moving faster?
-
Has it ever been explained in FE, how the last of the light at sunset fades increasingly faster without the sun moving faster?
is that just because the sun has a point of reference though?
-
Has it ever been explained in FE, how the last of the light at sunset fades increasingly faster without the sun moving faster?
is that just because the sun has a point of reference though?
What!?
-
when the sun is high in the sky its hard to tell how fast it is moving. when its near the horizon you have objects in the same frame as the sun so its easier to see how fast it is moving. the whole 'what!?' isnt needed if you think before you post
-
when the sun is high in the sky its hard to tell how fast it is moving. when its near the horizon you have objects in the same frame as the sun so its easier to see how fast it is moving. the whole 'what!?' isnt needed if you think before you post
I think the question was more to do with the fact that while the light from the sun is steadily going through more and more of the atmosphere from high noon (whatever point of the day the sun was closest to directly overhead) and on, the light really doesn't fade much through the majority of the afternoon and evening. Then in the last hour or so of the day, the light dims a bit as the sun nears the horizon, then goes from being fairly bright, to completely out of view in a very short time.
If the day night cycle was due to the light absorption properties of the atmosphere then sun should slowly fade into view in the morning, with it's brightness and how well it was illuminating the area increasing steadily all morning until reaching it's brightest at Noon, then slowly fading throughout the evening until finally dropping from sight at "sunset".
A "spotlight" sun would account for this to a point, if you figure that sunset was just the time when the beam of light passed. A sun who's light is simply fully absorbed by the atmosphere after a particular distance does no account for this.
-
when the sun is high in the sky its hard to tell how fast it is moving. when its near the horizon you have objects in the same frame as the sun so its easier to see how fast it is moving. the whole 'what!?' isnt needed if you think before you post
Picture a car on straight stretch of road, train on a railroad, or plane traveling by at a constant speed. As it travels away from you, and the distance increases, it appears to be moving increasingly slower. Same thing with higher flying airliners (as far as they can be seen anyway).
Yet the sun, moon, and stars visual rate of speed stays the same as they approach the ground, allowing their actual movement to be observed as they set.
Also, if the sun is traveling a circular path 3000 miles high, considering it's distance at sunset, shouldn't it appear to be moving right horizontaly somewhat by then?
-
when the sun is high in the sky its hard to tell how fast it is moving. when its near the horizon you have objects in the same frame as the sun so its easier to see how fast it is moving. the whole 'what!?' isnt needed if you think before you post
Picture a car on straight stretch of road, train on a railroad, or plane traveling by at a constant speed. As it travels away from you, and the distance increases, it appears to be moving increasingly slower. Same thing with higher flying airliners (as far as they can be seen anyway).
Yet the sun, moon, and stars visual rate of speed stays the same as they approach the ground, allowing their actual movement to be observed as they set.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun
-
when the sun is high in the sky its hard to tell how fast it is moving. when its near the horizon you have objects in the same frame as the sun so its easier to see how fast it is moving. the whole 'what!?' isnt needed if you think before you post
Picture a car on straight stretch of road, train on a railroad, or plane traveling by at a constant speed. As it travels away from you, and the distance increases, it appears to be moving increasingly slower. Same thing with higher flying airliners (as far as they can be seen anyway).
Yet the sun, moon, and stars visual rate of speed stays the same as they approach the ground, allowing their actual movement to be observed as they set.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun
(http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/4371/sunatmidnight.png)
-
when the sun is high in the sky its hard to tell how fast it is moving. when its near the horizon you have objects in the same frame as the sun so its easier to see how fast it is moving. the whole 'what!?' isnt needed if you think before you post
Picture a car on straight stretch of road, train on a railroad, or plane traveling by at a constant speed. As it travels away from you, and the distance increases, it appears to be moving increasingly slower. Same thing with higher flying airliners (as far as they can be seen anyway).
Yet the sun, moon, and stars visual rate of speed stays the same as they approach the ground, allowing their actual movement to be observed as they set.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun
(http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/4371/sunatmidnight.png)
That diagram does not address the content in the link.
-
when the sun is high in the sky its hard to tell how fast it is moving. when its near the horizon you have objects in the same frame as the sun so its easier to see how fast it is moving. the whole 'what!?' isnt needed if you think before you post
Picture a car on straight stretch of road, train on a railroad, or plane traveling by at a constant speed. As it travels away from you, and the distance increases, it appears to be moving increasingly slower. Same thing with higher flying airliners (as far as they can be seen anyway).
Yet the sun, moon, and stars visual rate of speed stays the same as they approach the ground, allowing their actual movement to be observed as they set.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun)
(http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/4371/sunatmidnight.png)
That diagram does not address the content in the link.
The content in the link does not address real world observations.
-
the link doesnt even come close to addressing the OP either. and now you guys explained to me what the 'speed' was about i understand what you are saying. again another fair point.
-
when the sun is high in the sky its hard to tell how fast it is moving. when its near the horizon you have objects in the same frame as the sun so its easier to see how fast it is moving. the whole 'what!?' isnt needed if you think before you post
Picture a car on straight stretch of road, train on a railroad, or plane traveling by at a constant speed. As it travels away from you, and the distance increases, it appears to be moving increasingly slower. Same thing with higher flying airliners (as far as they can be seen anyway).
Yet the sun, moon, and stars visual rate of speed stays the same as they approach the ground, allowing their actual movement to be observed as they set.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun
(http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/4371/sunatmidnight.png)
That diagram does not address the content in the link.
For those with a basic knowledge of geometry, it tells us that the content of the link explains nothing.