The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Battery72 on August 15, 2012, 04:18:52 AM
-
Some airports will give out sunset times for the horizon, and for altitude. So literally you could observe a sunset at takeoff, and another at altitude or at least a portion of it. Almost like it's rising again until the plane stops rising. How does this work with the FE explanation of the sunset?
-
in short the reason is unknown.
yes the faq attempts poorly to explain it and gets it plain wrong with the flock of seagulls perspective theory.
my theory that i am working on, is that because the earth is uneven in mass it wobbles to an angle that sun the is obscured at far distances. I am still in the first phases of Zetetic research but hope to confirm or rule this out.
-
I think that you can just see farther the higher you are.
-
Some airports will give out sunset times for the horizon, and for altitude. So literally you could observe a sunset at takeoff, and another at altitude or at least a portion of it. Almost like it's rising again until the plane stops rising. How does this work with the FE explanation of the sunset?
I have seen this first hand about fifteen years ago on a connection flight from Orlando, CA to San Jose. I watched the sun set while we were on the ground, and then watched it rise and set again after we departed.
This is simply a perspective effect. The higher the observer, the farther the horizon recedes.
-
Some airports will give out sunset times for the horizon, and for altitude. So literally you could observe a sunset at takeoff, and another at altitude or at least a portion of it. Almost like it's rising again until the plane stops rising. How does this work with the FE explanation of the sunset?
I have seen this first hand about fifteen years ago on a connection flight from Orlando, CA to San Jose. I watched the sun set while we were on the ground, and then watched it rise and set again after we departed.
This is simply a perspective effect. The higher the observer, the farther the horizon recedes.
Yep. Another proof that Robotham got it completely wrong.
-
He predicted and said much the same thing. I have no idea what your issue is here other than the desire to spout your irrational hatred of Dr. Rowbotham at any turn. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, avoid posting.
-
He predicted and said much the same thing. I have no idea what your issue is here other than the desire to spout your irrational hatred of Dr. Rowbotham at any turn. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, avoid posting.
I don't have any hatred for Robotham, I think I rather pity him.
On this matter, his observations may sometimes be correct but his conclusions are consistently wrong.
-
Some airports will give out sunset times for the horizon, and for altitude. So literally you could observe a sunset at takeoff, and another at altitude or at least a portion of it. Almost like it's rising again until the plane stops rising. How does this work with the FE explanation of the sunset?
I have seen this first hand about fifteen years ago on a connection flight from Orlando, CA to San Jose. I watched the sun set while we were on the ground, and then watched it rise and set again after we departed.
This is simply a perspective effect. The higher the observer, the farther the horizon recedes.
So if seeing is believing, then I think you have inadvertantly comfirmed Earth's rotation. Also if the focus of the sun shifts to other parts of the world at sunset and the atmosphere blocks out the sun, the how does the sun re-focus and the atmosphere unblock the sun even at altitude?
-
Some airports will give out sunset times for the horizon, and for altitude. So literally you could observe a sunset at takeoff, and another at altitude or at least a portion of it. Almost like it's rising again until the plane stops rising. How does this work with the FE explanation of the sunset?
I have seen this first hand about fifteen years ago on a connection flight from Orlando, CA to San Jose. I watched the sun set while we were on the ground, and then watched it rise and set again after we departed.
This is simply a perspective effect. The higher the observer, the farther the horizon recedes.
So if seeing is believing, then I think you have inadvertantly comfirmed Earth's rotation. Also if the focus of the sun shifts to other parts of the world at sunset and the atmosphere blocks out the sun, the how does the sun re-focus and the atmosphere unblock the sun even at altitude?
My assumption would be that, on the flat earth, you are higher in the atmosphere and there is less in the way to distort your view of the sun. On a round earth... well you know the reason for it.
-
Rowbotham is human and can get things wrong, like the flock of seagulls setting sun theory,
but I applaud him for the Zetetic research he has performed, instead of being taught things and blindly accepting them as fact.
Soon with more and more people visisting space, Zetetics will be able to go, and the truth will finally be known.
-
Some airports will give out sunset times for the horizon, and for altitude. So literally you could observe a sunset at takeoff, and another at altitude or at least a portion of it. Almost like it's rising again until the plane stops rising. How does this work with the FE explanation of the sunset?
I have seen this first hand about fifteen years ago on a connection flight from Orlando, CA to San Jose. I watched the sun set while we were on the ground, and then watched it rise and set again after we departed.
This is simply a perspective effect. The higher the observer, the farther the horizon recedes.
So if seeing is believing, then I think you have inadvertantly comfirmed Earth's rotation. Also if the focus of the sun shifts to other parts of the world at sunset and the atmosphere blocks out the sun, the how does the sun re-focus and the atmosphere unblock the sun even at altitude?
???
I have proven that the laws of perspective work as advertised; the horizon moves with altitude.
-
The Horizon is based on the viewer.
However Rowbothams theory that the apparent setting is due to perspective is wrong and easily disproved.
It is time to look to the future and find out as Zetetics why he failed. Otherwise those who blindly believe in him, makes me think that is what the spherical earth followers is easier to explain.
-
I have proven that the laws of perspective work as advertised; the horizon moves with altitude.
I assume you're talking about Rowbotham's explanations of perspective.
When you say you've proven them - do you feel that you've traced the phenomena to the most immediate and demonstrable cause - to the exclusion of all other possible explanations?
There has been a lot of traffic on these forums recently regarding Rowbotham's perspective, mainly that through intrumentation it it shown that the horizon does not move with altitude. Rowbotham's explaination for this implies that all lensed theodolites - or any lensed instrument - will render images lower then they appear because they are incapable of accuracy.
Rowbotham's explanation for this inaccuracy is to invoke 'collimation'. In his experiment (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) explaining this phenomina he states that if you calculate the 'dip' in the horizon then add in 'collimation' it will prove the horizon rising up to meet the eye. In true Rowbotham fashion, he never actually gives a numeric mathmatical value for 'collimation' nor the method he used to arive at this value.
In addition, Rowbotham's explanation for this only addresses lensed instruments, not the variety of digital theodolites that are used by today's architects that can be used to calcluate the 'dip' in the horizon.
Because Rowbotham's explanation of perspective fails to provide any tangible details and the amount of ample empirical evidence to the contrary I dont feel Rowbotham's interpretation of perspective meets the Zetetic burdon of proof as it fails to explain itself as the most immedate and demonstrable cause to the exclusion of other possibilities.
When you say you've proven the 'laws of perspective work as advertised' are you speaking for yourself or the entire Zetetic Council?
-
In addition, Rowbotham's explanation for this only addresses lensed instruments, not the variety of digital theodolites that are used by today's architects that can be used to calcluate the 'dip' in the horizon.
What evidence do you present that those digital theodolites show a dip?
What evidence do you have that digital theodolites don't have lenses? My digital camera and digital camcorder have lenses.
-
Some airports will give out sunset times for the horizon, and for altitude. So literally you could observe a sunset at takeoff, and another at altitude or at least a portion of it. Almost like it's rising again until the plane stops rising. How does this work with the FE explanation of the sunset?
I have seen this first hand about fifteen years ago on a connection flight from Orlando, CA to San Jose. I watched the sun set while we were on the ground, and then watched it rise and set again after we departed.
This is simply a perspective effect. The higher the observer, the farther the horizon recedes.
So if seeing is believing, then I think you have inadvertantly comfirmed Earth's rotation. Also if the focus of the sun shifts to other parts of the world at sunset and the atmosphere blocks out the sun, the how does the sun re-focus and the atmosphere unblock the sun even at altitude?
???
I have proven that the laws of perspective work as advertised; the horizon moves with altitude.
What? I thought the FE horizon always remained at eye-level with altitude. You have proven nothing.
-
In addition, Rowbotham's explanation for this only addresses lensed instruments, not the variety of digital theodolites that are used by today's architects that can be used to calcluate the 'dip' in the horizon.
What evidence do you present that those digital theodolites show a dip?
What evidence do you have that digital theodolites don't have lenses? My digital camera and digital camcorder have lenses.
Tom Bishop brings the smack down
...onto the the table and prepares.
...Tom... evidence...hahah.
-
Some airports will give out sunset times for the horizon, and for altitude. So literally you could observe a sunset at takeoff, and another at altitude or at least a portion of it. Almost like it's rising again until the plane stops rising. How does this work with the FE explanation of the sunset?
I have seen this first hand about fifteen years ago on a connection flight from Orlando, CA to San Jose. I watched the sun set while we were on the ground, and then watched it rise and set again after we departed.
This is simply a perspective effect. The higher the observer, the farther the horizon recedes.
So if seeing is believing, then I think you have inadvertantly comfirmed Earth's rotation. Also if the focus of the sun shifts to other parts of the world at sunset and the atmosphere blocks out the sun, the how does the sun re-focus and the atmosphere unblock the sun even at altitude?
???
I have proven that the laws of perspective work as advertised; the horizon moves with altitude.
What? I thought the FE horizon always remained at eye-level with altitude. You have proven nothing.
The horizon moves to follow your eye level when you ascend or descend.
-
In addition, Rowbotham's explanation for this only addresses lensed instruments, not the variety of digital theodolites that are used by today's architects that can be used to calcluate the 'dip' in the horizon.
What evidence do you present that those digital theodolites show a dip?
What evidence do you have that digital theodolites don't have lenses? My digital camera and digital camcorder have lenses.
Your digital imaging devices are no theodolites.
Some airports will give out sunset times for the horizon, and for altitude. So literally you could observe a sunset at takeoff, and another at altitude or at least a portion of it. Almost like it's rising again until the plane stops rising. How does this work with the FE explanation of the sunset?
I have seen this first hand about fifteen years ago on a connection flight from Orlando, CA to San Jose. I watched the sun set while we were on the ground, and then watched it rise and set again after we departed.
This is simply a perspective effect. The higher the observer, the farther the horizon recedes.
So if seeing is believing, then I think you have inadvertantly comfirmed Earth's rotation. Also if the focus of the sun shifts to other parts of the world at sunset and the atmosphere blocks out the sun, the how does the sun re-focus and the atmosphere unblock the sun even at altitude?
???
I have proven that the laws of perspective work as advertised; the horizon moves with altitude.
What? I thought the FE horizon always remained at eye-level with altitude. You have proven nothing.
The horizon moves to follow your eye level when you ascend or descend.
What is your evidence for this? This is false. Horizon does not move. Your eyes are simply drawn to it because of the sharp contrast between land and sky. Your eyes will be drawn to any sharp contrast.
-
???
I have proven that the laws of perspective work as advertised; the horizon moves with altitude.
What? I thought the FE horizon always remained at eye-level with altitude. You have proven nothing.
The horizon moves to follow your eye level when you ascend or descend.
But that is not what your FE comrade has said. What have you to say about that?
-
In addition, Rowbotham's explanation for this only addresses lensed instruments, not the variety of digital theodolites that are used by today's architects that can be used to calcluate the 'dip' in the horizon.
What evidence do you present that those digital theodolites show a dip?
What evidence do you have that digital theodolites don't have lenses? My digital camera and digital camcorder have lenses.
There are plenty of resources (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=I+want+to+learn+about+theodolites) available if you wish to know more about the exciting field of civil engineering.
-
In addition, Rowbotham's explanation for this only addresses lensed instruments, not the variety of digital theodolites that are used by today's architects that can be used to calcluate the 'dip' in the horizon.
What evidence do you present that those digital theodolites show a dip?
What evidence do you have that digital theodolites don't have lenses? My digital camera and digital camcorder have lenses.
Tom, just stop trying.
Everyone knows that you are trolling.
-
What is your evidence for this? This is false. Horizon does not move. Your eyes are simply drawn to it because of the sharp contrast between land and sky. Your eyes will be drawn to any sharp contrast.
The horizon moves to stay at the level of your eye when you ascend or descend.
In Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship (http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false) we read a real world test:
AERONAUTICS.
If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us,
the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as
the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be
directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall
away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal
testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the
globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The
London Journal 18th July, 1857, says: --
"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a con-
siderable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained
practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two
miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead
of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the
horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."
-
In addition, Rowbotham's explanation for this only addresses lensed instruments, not the variety of digital theodolites that are used by today's architects that can be used to calcluate the 'dip' in the horizon.
What evidence do you present that those digital theodolites show a dip?
What evidence do you have that digital theodolites don't have lenses? My digital camera and digital camcorder have lenses.
Tom, just stop trying.
Everyone knows that you are trolling.
So no evidence, none, that "digital theodolites" don't have lenses?
-
What is your evidence for this? This is false. Horizon does not move. Your eyes are simply drawn to it because of the sharp contrast between land and sky. Your eyes will be drawn to any sharp contrast.
The horizon moves to stay at the level of your eye when you ascend or descend.
In Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship (http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false) we read a real world test:
AERONAUTICS.
If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us,
the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as
the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be
directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall
away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal
testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the
globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The
London Journal 18th July, 1857, says: --
"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a con-
siderable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained
practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two
miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead
of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the
horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."
Great, a Victorian third-hand account. How very zetetic and how very wrong.
-
I see that I've presented evidence for what Ski and I have been saying. I don't see any evidence presented for your side of the argument.
1:0
-
It has to do with atmospheric density. Near the surface the atmosphere blocks the suns light more quickly, but at an altitude there is much less atmosphere to block the suns rays, allowing it to again appear out your planes window. If you were to go high enough, you would be able to see the sun from any distance.
-
I see that I've presented evidence for what Ski and I have been saying. I don't see any evidence presented for your side of the argument.
1:0
Tom, all of your posts use skewed logic.
You sit on a throne of lies.
-
Does Tom ever have a logical post? I am loving the old english writings he is bringing up. They really where smarter then us back then. They had better technology and Rowbotham had a space ship.
-
It has to do with atmospheric density. Near the surface the atmosphere blocks the suns light more quickly, but at an altitude there is much less atmosphere to block the suns rays, allowing it to again appear out your planes window. If you were to go high enough, you would be able to see the sun from any distance.
I posted this in another thread when Rushy referenced this thread. I still havn't had a decent response surprise, surprise.
"You completely missed my point. If someone were to ask me how I'd imagine a fading sun due to the "atmolayer", I would imagaine the sun shrinking and blurring (but maintaining it's shape) as the darkness and denseness took over until it was gone. As the sun dips it no longer remains a full circle and it doesn't fade nearly enough even at sunset. That's not how a "normal" person would imagine a fading sun. You still are avoiding everyone else's points as well. "
-
It has to do with atmospheric density. Near the surface the atmosphere blocks the suns light more quickly, but at an altitude there is much less atmosphere to block the suns rays, allowing it to again appear out your planes window. If you were to go high enough, you would be able to see the sun from any distance.
I posted this in another thread when Rushy referenced this thread. I still havn't had a decent response surprise, surprise.
"You completely missed my point. If someone were to ask me how I'd imagine a fading sun due to the "atmolayer", I would imagaine the sun shrinking and blurring (but maintaining it's shape) as the darkness and denseness took over until it was gone. As the sun dips it no longer remains a full circle and it doesn't fade nearly enough even at sunset. That's not how a "normal" person would imagine a fading sun. You still are avoiding everyone else's points as well. "
From what i understand it does not shrink because of increased glare. But i have never tried the experiments.
-
I see that I've presented evidence for what Ski and I have been saying. I don't see any evidence presented for your side of the argument.
1:0
Tom, you only think you have presented evidence. In the same way as a theist quotes back passages of the bible, you have submitted to us your own ancient "scripture". Your faith in that scripture in just that, "faith".
-
I see that I've presented evidence for what Ski and I have been saying. I don't see any evidence presented for your side of the argument.
1:0
Rowbotham's claim is that the apparent dip in the horizon viewed through surveying equipment is caused by magnifying lenses. Not all modern surveying equipment uses magnifying lenses.
That's beside the point however. If you, along with forum user Ski, are indeed claiming proof of Rowbotham's 'laws of perspective' the ball is still on your side of the court. Rowbotham appears to have neglected to provide data regarding collumation to back up his claims. In addition to my earlier post I also make the following points:
- Why does the amount the horizon 'dips' below the level-line in a levelled theodolite increase with altitude. If the horizon is level with your eye at any altitude, errors present in the equipment would alter the image in the same fashion regardless of altitude.
- Transiting theodolites have been around since the 1850's and allow the surveyer to identify any error along the horizontal axis - if a dip in the horizon existed as a result of equipment miscalibration, transiting or flipping the theodolite along the trunnion axis would place the horizon the same distance above the level-line, giving Rowbotham the means to gather further data regarding the inherant errors of the equipment. Rowbotham could have proven his point by simply rotating his telescope 180 degrees and re-aiming it at the horizon.
-
What is your evidence for this? This is false. Horizon does not move. Your eyes are simply drawn to it because of the sharp contrast between land and sky. Your eyes will be drawn to any sharp contrast.
The horizon moves to stay at the level of your eye when you ascend or descend.
In Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship (http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false) we read a real world test:
AERONAUTICS.
If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us,
the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as
the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be
directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall
away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal
testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the
globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The
London Journal 18th July, 1857, says: --
"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a con-
siderable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained
practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two
miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead
of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the
horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."
Tom. This says two miles. That's 10,560 feet. The average modern airliner flies at 35,000 feet. That's ~6.63 miles. Very slight curvature can be seen from this altitude. The circumference of earth at the equator is ~24,901 miles. This means that from less than seven miles in the air, it's not gonna look all that different.