The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Rig Navigator on September 28, 2008, 05:01:42 AM
-
I figured out how to use the camera with the binoculars, so I was able to get a magnified picture of sunrise. According to FE theory, the Sun appearing in the morning is. due to perspective. You should be able to bring the Sun above the horizon using magnification.
Here is the unmagnified picture that was taken first...
(http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/9467/dsc01367av3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Here is the second picture as viewed through the binoculars...
(http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/9600/dsc01368wo0.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
The bottom of the Sun was not "brought back" through magnification.
So everyone knows the conditions...
The binoculars are Funjinon 7x50 binoculars. Height of eye is 71' above sea level. The temperature was 24° C (dry bulb) and 19° C (wet bulb). Wind was 9 knots out of the north.
-
The clouds in the picture mean that these results cannot be trusted. We cannot know what might have been obscured by the clouds.
-
The clouds in the picture mean that these results cannot be trusted. We cannot know what might have been obscured by the clouds.
Huh?
-
I still don't get why binoculars speed up time in RE. In FE, all they do is magnify stuff. You know, make it look closer. So in FE, if I looked at the Sun with a powerful telescope, in the instant before I went blind, I would see the Sun, looking like it's six inches from my face. In RE, all I'd see is a night sky. Care to explain?
-
I still don't get why binoculars speed up time in RE. In FE, all they do is magnify stuff. You know, make it look closer. So in FE, if I looked at the Sun with a powerful telescope, in the instant before I went blind, I would see the Sun, looking like it's six inches from my face. In RE, all I'd see is a night sky. Care to explain?
If the Sun is just too far to be seen, as is proposed in ENAG, then using binoculars or a telescope should bring the Sun back into view. Same phenomenon that is supposed to happen when ships move out of view. It has nothing to do with time.
-
Ah, you're arguing against the perspective theory. We don't really use that one any more, parabolic light and atmospheric opacity explain it better.
-
The clouds in the picture mean that these results cannot be trusted. We cannot know what might have been obscured by the clouds.
to me it looks as though there are no clouds in front of the sun, if there were it would be a different color and definitely would not be the color of the sea ;)
-
to me it looks as though there are no clouds in front of the sun, if there were it would be a different color and definitely would not be the color of the sea ;)
It does look that way, but looks can be deceiving.
-
It does look that way, but looks can be deceiving.
Or it can be exactly what it looks like.
-
Or it can be exactly what it looks like.
I thought REers didn't like that way of thinking?
-
I thought REers didn't like that way of thinking?
What gave you that idea?
-
What gave you that idea?
Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"
A: Well, it looks that way up close.
-
So the fact that we don't accept looking out your window as the definitive proof that Earth is flat means that pictures can't show what they show? REers are also the ones that say that the pictures from the space missions and moon landings are proof.
-
So the fact that we don't accept looking out your window as the definitive proof that Earth is flat means that pictures can't show what they show? REers are also the ones that say that the pictures from the space missions and moon landings are proof.
No, but since REers are the ones who say that the Earth isn't really flat even though it looks like it is, they should be sceptical of any visual evidence, as it may not be what it appears to be.
-
No, but since REers are the ones who say that the Earth isn't really flat even though it looks like it is, they should be sceptical of any visual evidence, as it may not be what it appears to be.
So if those aren't pictures of the Sun at sunrise, what else might they be? The Sun is really behind the clouds? I am still not sure where you are going with this train of thought with the clouds.
-
So if those aren't pictures of the Sun at sunrise, what else might they be? The Sun is really behind the clouds? I am still not sure where you are going with this train of thought with the clouds.
The Sun was not brought back through magnification because the image seen is the Sun shining through distant clouds. You just don't notice the clouds that low because they are so dim compared with the Sun. What you are really seeing is the clouds being lit up from behind, not the Sun directly. Since the clouds are so close, they are unaffected by the perspective effect that causes the Sun to disappear.
-
Here is the unmagnified picture that was taken first...
Here is the second picture as viewed through the binoculars...
The bottom of the Sun was not "brought back" through magnification.
How can you demonstrate that none of the sun was restored when looking at it through your binoculars?
-
How can you demonstrate that none of the sun was restored when looking at it through your binoculars?
The entire Sun should have been restored if it was simply a matter of perspective, and the lower limb of the Sun is definitely not visible.
-
How can you demonstrate that none of the sun was restored when looking at it through your binoculars?
The entire Sun should have been restored if it was simply a matter of perspective, and the lower limb of the Sun is definitely not visible.
If the sun was disappeared due to a perspective effect as Rowbotham described, how could you tell that you haven't restored any portion of the sun when you magnified it?
-
If the sun was disappeared due to a perspective effect as Rowbotham described, how could you tell that you haven't restored any portion of the sun when you magnified it?
Both pictures are there. The area of the Sun is equal in both pictures.
-
If the sun was disappeared due to a perspective effect as Rowbotham described, how could you tell that you haven't restored any portion of the sun when you magnified it?
Both pictures are there. The area of the Sun is equal in both pictures.
It looks like some of the sun may have been restored, but I can't tell. The sun is too far away.
Your experiment is inconclusive.
-
It looks like some of the sun may have been restored, but I can't tell. The sun is too far away.
So I should have moved closer to the Sun before taking my pictures? The first picture is the view with the naked eye (unmagnified), and the second is magnified.
Your experiment is inconclusive.
The results look pretty conclusive to me. If sunrise is the effect of the Sun coming into view, the entirety of the Sun, including the lower limb (lower edge), should be visible when magnified. The magnification was sufficient to greatly increase the visible size of the Sun, but could not make more of the Sun visible. Here is the diagram of the effect...
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig64.jpg)
The entire Sun should be visible, not hidden by the sea. In both images, magnified and non-magnified, more than the lower half of the Sun is hidden by the sea.
-
If the sun was disappeared due to a perspective effect as Rowbotham described, how could you tell that you haven't restored any portion of the sun when you magnified it?
Both pictures are there. The area of the Sun is equal in both pictures.
It looks like some of the sun may have been restored, but I can't tell. The sun is too far away.
Your experiment is inconclusive.
Can we have an enlarge digital file? e.g. a crop of the "actual pixels" of the sun in the first photo.
-
The clouds in the picture mean that these results cannot be trusted. We cannot know what might have been obscured by the clouds.
I'd like to hear your ideas on what might be oscured by the clouds though.
The Sun was not brought back through magnification because the image seen is the Sun shining through distant clouds. You just don't notice the clouds that low because they are so dim compared with the Sun. What you are really seeing is the clouds being lit up from behind, not the Sun directly. Since the clouds are so close, they are unaffected by the perspective effect that causes the Sun to disappear.
-
Steve, I really thought you were smarter. I can't believe you've actually let your brain be taken over by completely illogical thoughts.
-
The Sun was not brought back through magnification because the image seen is the Sun shining through distant clouds.
Don't you mean shining through the distant atmosphere?
-
So if those aren't pictures of the Sun at sunrise, what else might they be? The Sun is really behind the clouds? I am still not sure where you are going with this train of thought with the clouds.
The Sun was not brought back through magnification because the image seen is the Sun shining through distant clouds. You just don't notice the clouds that low because they are so dim compared with the Sun. What you are really seeing is the clouds being lit up from behind, not the Sun directly. Since the clouds are so close, they are unaffected by the perspective effect that causes the Sun to disappear.
My god, you actually believe that Rowbothem perspective stuff. (do you? I'm sure you don't really, come on).
-
The Sun was not brought back through magnification because the image seen is the Sun shining through distant clouds.
Don't you mean shining through the distant atmosphere?
What difference can that possibly make? I just blocks out more light.
-
well if he kept the original resolution or close to it you could just press print screen and then crop it yourself in paint if you don't think they looked even.
-
Can we have an enlarge digital file? e.g. a crop of the "actual pixels" of the sun in the first photo.
It's not my experiment.Why are you asking me?
-
The Sun was not brought back through magnification because the image seen is the Sun shining through distant clouds.
Don't you mean shining through the distant atmosphere?
I meant the clouds. If it were shining directly through the atmosphere, it might have been brought back. As it was, the light was being absorbed and re-emitted by molecules within the clouds, rather than travelling directly. So it is the clouds that are visible, not the Sun, and that is why it does not appear to be brought back.
-
Osama, why are you defending the perspective theory? It was you who postulated bendy light, remember?
-
Osama, why are you defending the perspective theory? It was you who postulated bendy light, remember?
Both hypotheses have their merits.
-
Osama, why are you defending the perspective theory? It was you who postulated bendy light, remember?
Both hypotheses are complete nonsense.
Fixed that for you. BTW, do those clouds that you talking about happen to be ocean colored?
-
Fixed that for you. BTW, do those clouds that you talking about happen to be ocean colored?
No. But there are clouds clearly visible above the Sun, so there is no reason to believe that there aren't more clouds closer to the horizon that aren't directly visible due to their enormous contrast with the brightness of the Sun's rays.
-
Fixed that for you. BTW, do those clouds that you talking about happen to be ocean colored?
No. But there are clouds clearly visible above the Sun, so there is no reason to believe that there aren't more clouds closer to the horizon that aren't directly visible due to their enormous contrast with the brightness of the Sun's rays.
I don't see any reason to believe that there are more clouds closer to the horizon either.
-
I don't see any reason to believe that there are more clouds closer to the horizon either.
You can't rule it out, though. So this evidence counts for nothing.
-
I don't see any reason to believe that there are more clouds closer to the horizon either.
You can't rule it out, though.
You might not rule it out, but I would.
-
You might not rule it out, but I would.
Go on, then. Prove there aren't any clouds closer to the horizon than those which are visible.
-
You might not rule it out, but I would.
Go on, then. Prove there aren't any clouds closer to the horizon than those which are visible.
I would "prove", but I will give compelling evidence:
- Most often, clouds completely obscuring the sun's light, thereby "scattering" it in all directions so that it is not possible to observe the sun's outline (for example on a "cloudy day"). This is especially true distant clouds because the sun's light is more horizontal, therefore travelling through more cloud. This makes the proposed hypothesis extremely unlikely.
- The idea that the sun is "projecting" itself onto the back on the clouds would only be possible if the sun's rays were travelling in one direction (like a torch). This is clearly not the case as another observer, hundreds of miles away, can witness the same sunset at approximately the same time.
I other words, the sun would have to be shining out like a spotlight onto just one area of the clouds, which is clearly nonsense (i.e. I contracts observations of the sun during the day).
-
You might not rule it out, but I would.
Go on, then. Prove there aren't any clouds closer to the horizon than those which are visible.
I will not "prove", but I will give compelling evidence:
- Most often, clouds completely obscuring the sun's light, thereby "scattering" it in all directions so that it is not possible to observe the sun's outline (for example on a "cloudy day"). This is especially true for distant clouds because the sun's light is more horizontal, therefore travelling through more cloud. This makes the proposed hypothesis extremely unlikely.
- The idea that the sun is "projecting" itself onto the back on the clouds would only be possible if the sun's rays were travelling in one direction (like a torch). This is clearly not the case as another observer, hundreds of miles away, can witness the same sunset at approximately the same time (give or take 1/2 an hour) in approximately the same part of the sky.
I other words, the sun would have to be shining out like a spotlight onto just one area of the clouds, which is clearly nonsense (i.e. It contradicts observations of the sun during the day).
-
Most often, clouds completely obscuring the sun's light, thereby "scattering" it in all directions so that it is not possible to observe the sun's outline (for example on a "cloudy day"). This is especially true distant clouds because the sun's light is more horizontal, therefore travelling through more cloud. This makes the proposed hypothesis extremely unlikely.
The clouds would need to be very thin. Otherwise, you are correct, they would obscure the Sun.
The idea that the sun is "projecting" itself onto the back on the clouds would only be possible if the sun's rays were travelling in one direction (like a torch). This is clearly not the case as another observer, hundreds of miles away, can witness the same sunset at approximately the same time.
If you're going to make that claim, the least you can do is provide evidence for it.
-
Can we have an enlarge digital file? e.g. a crop of the "actual pixels" of the sun in the first photo
Those are the original files taken off of the camera.
-
Go on, then. Prove there aren't any clouds closer to the horizon than those which are visible.
As the original observer, there weren't any clouds other than the ones in the picture.
-
Most often, clouds completely obscuring the sun's light, thereby "scattering" it in all directions so that it is not possible to observe the sun's outline (for example on a "cloudy day"). This is especially true distant clouds because the sun's light is more horizontal, therefore travelling through more cloud. This makes the proposed hypothesis extremely unlikely.
The clouds would need to be very thin. Otherwise, you are correct, they would obscure the Sun.
The idea that the sun is "projecting" itself onto the back on the clouds would only be possible if the sun's rays were travelling in one direction (like a torch). This is clearly not the case as another observer, hundreds of miles away, can witness the same sunset at approximately the same time.
If you're going to make that claim, the least you can do is provide evidence for it.
OK, lets forget the observers and just think about it. Does the sun behave like a torch? -People north America see the same sun at 9:00 EST as do people in Europe at 15:00 GMT (i.e. at the same point in time).
So it cannot possibly be a narrow "spotlight".
-
As the original observer, there weren't any clouds other than the ones in the picture.
Well, now I'm convinced. ::)
OK, lets forget the observers and just think about it. Does the sun behave like a torch? -People north America see the same sun at 9:00 EST as do people in Europe at 15:00 GMT (i.e. at the same point in time).
So it cannot possibly be a narrow "spotlight".
It is a narrow spotlight, if an 80 degree field of light may be considered "narrow". The light then bends outwards. I don't see what you're trying to prove.
-
It is a narrow spotlight, if an 80 degree field of light may be considered "narrow". The light then bends outwards. I don't see what you're trying to prove.
I think you've explained it perfectly yourself. 80 degrees is definitely not "narrow". Therefore the sun is extremely unlikely to be able to project a "small" image of itself (from 3000 miles away) onto the back of a cloud.
-
I think you've explained it perfectly yourself. 80 degrees is definitely not "narrow". Therefore the sun is extremely unlikely to be able to project a "small" image of itself (from 3000 miles away) onto the back of a cloud.
Unless the water molecules in the cloud were arranged in such a way that they re-emitted the light at a very well-defined angle relative to that which it was absorbed.
-
Well, now I'm convinced. ::)
Glad I could help.
It is a narrow spotlight, if an 80 degree field of light may be considered "narrow". The light then bends outwards. I don't see what you're trying to prove.
I think what he is trying to ask how the same spotlight that they are seeing in Britain at 1145 is the same spotlight that I am seeing low on the horizon at 0645.
-
I think what he is trying to ask how the same spotlight that they are seeing in Britain at 1145 is the same spotlight that I am seeing low on the horizon at 0645.
The light then bends outwards.
-
Unless the water molecules in the cloud were arranged in such a way that they re-emitted the light at a very well-defined angle relative to that which it was absorbed.
Crystalline clouds that re-emit the light at the angle that can be observed by anyone that is looking? This specific angle would make it difficult for anyone not in the same location that I am in to observe the sunrise, but people hundreds of miles north and south of here observe sunrise.
-
Unless the water molecules in the cloud were arranged in such a way that they re-emitted the light at a very well-defined angle relative to that which it was absorbed.
Crystalline clouds that re-emit the light at the angle that can be observed by anyone that is looking? This specific angle would make it difficult for anyone not in the same location that I am in to observe the sunrise, but people hundreds of miles north and south of here observe sunrise.
Please reread the bolded portion of my post.
-
I think you've explained it perfectly yourself. 80 degrees is definitely not "narrow". Therefore the sun is extremely unlikely to be able to project a "small" image of itself (from 3000 miles away) onto the back of a cloud.
Unless the water molecules in the cloud were arranged in such a way that they re-emitted the light at a very well-defined angle relative to that which it was absorbed.
Are you saying that you think the picture shows a Sun Dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dog) effect?
I must remember that: Every time I see a sunset where the sun is not restored by a telescope, it's a Sun Dog; The real Sun is hidden behind "perspective". Quite a lot to swallow there!
BTW I'm not convinced you actually believe any of this, Osama/Robosteve.
-
Unless the water molecules in the cloud were arranged in such a way that they re-emitted the light at a very well-defined angle relative to that which it was absorbed.
Crystalline clouds that re-emit the light at the angle that can be observed by anyone that is looking? This specific angle would make it difficult for anyone not in the same location that I am in to observe the sunrise, but people hundreds of miles north and south of here observe sunrise.
Please reread the bolded portion of my post.
I reread it and I still think it is wrong. That would only work for an observer in a single position, not observers separated by hundreds of miles.
-
You might not rule it out, but I would.
Go on, then. Prove there aren't any clouds closer to the horizon than those which are visible.
You want me to prove that there are invisible clouds in that picture? ???
You FE'ers are so funny. :-*
-
have you seen the humper bridge, one of the towers is higher that the other one this is due to the worlds curve shier wich means is is globe like
-
Have you seen the Humber bridge? One of the towers is higher that the other one, and I believe that this is it adhering to the Earth's curvature, thus proving, in my opinion, at least, that the Earth is a globe.
Translated into English, and how do you know this?
-
Have you seen the Humber bridge? One of the towers is higher that the other one, and I believe that this is it adhering to the Earth's curvature, thus proving, in my opinion, at least, that the Earth is a globe.
Translated into English, and how do you know this?
The height of the towers being different wouldn't prove anything. The tops of the towers being further apart than the bottoms, however, could be used as evidence to suggest the roundness of the earth.
-
In looking at the photos, why would the clouds be facing that way if the earth is flat?