The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: 11cookeaw1 on September 20, 2013, 10:20:51 PM
-
The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.
-
A plane can not fly without air, so there is still atmolayer at that height. Your argument does not hold water.
-
Yes there's air their, but it's several times thinner.
Planes fly over most of the mass of the atmosphere.
-
11cookeaw1 is correct. In the FET the Sun is the only object to appear bigger at a rate that makes it the same size as it gets further away. Nothing else does. The only evidence for magical optical properties of the sun is necessity for it to be that way.
-
11cookeaw1 is correct. In the FET the Sun is the only object to appear bigger at a rate that makes it the same size as it gets further away. Nothing else does. The only evidence for magical optical properties of the sun is necessity for it to be that way.
Everything high up exhibits this same trait. The Moon and stars to not appear to shrink as they get farther. Atmospheric lensing only affects things that are really high.
-
11cookeaw1 is correct. In the FET the Sun is the only object to appear bigger at a rate that makes it the same size as it gets further away. Nothing else does. The only evidence for magical optical properties of the sun is necessity for it to be that way.
Everything high up exhibits this same trait. The Moon and stars to not appear to shrink as they get farther. Atmospheric lensing only affects things that are really high.
Because the change in ration of 93,000,000:93,030,000 is so much more than 3,000:15,000.
-
11cookeaw1 is correct. In the FET the Sun is the only object to appear bigger at a rate that makes it the same size as it gets further away. Nothing else does. The only evidence for magical optical properties of the sun is necessity for it to be that way.
Everything high up exhibits this same trait. The Moon and stars to not appear to shrink as they get farther. Atmospheric lensing only affects things that are really high.
How high, Jroa? What's the height where everything starts magically growing in optical size again, after shrinking for several miles?
-
Probably higher than the atmoplane. I can't say for sure. All I can to is tell you what is observed and theorize as to why.
-
Probably higher than the atmoplane. I can't say for sure. All I can to is tell you what is observed and theorize as to why.
So your answer is as follows.
Idunno, but it does, and even though it only fits a round Earth without positing some magical, unknown and mysterious optical effect, it's obviously explained.
That's not how that works, it's called a flaw in your model. You don't get to prescribe a panacea to cover the hole, either admit it's a flaw and FE doesn't have an answer to it at the moment, or explain in depth.
-
But on a round earth model it requires gravity, which also magical. It can't be explained but is required. So stalemate.
-
But on a round earth model it requires gravity, which also magical. It can't be explained but is required. So stalemate.
No. Close your eyes and jump. Did you feel a force while in air? No. Gravitation explains this well.
-
But on a round earth model it requires gravity, which also magical. It can't be explained but is required. So stalemate.
Difference being, gravity is easily replicable. Not with perfect precision, but we can demonstrate that an attraction between masses occurs, and explain the effects in depth. There's also the little tidbit that it explains more, more thoroughly and accurately than any other alternative presented thus far. To contrast, there has been no observed optical effect that would cause an object's visual size to grow in perfect proportion to it's distance, keeping it the same size to an observer until it suddenly starts disappearing from the 'bottom' up.
I'm not asking the precise details of each and every variable that contributes to the posited lensing. I'm asking for an in depth explanation of how it works, it's effects as observed better explained by it than the Earth being round and the factual distances and sizes of each object.
-
I've been in several arguments on this topic and I have never gotten an answer.
A plane can not fly without air, so there is still atmolayer at that height. Your argument does not hold water.
Are you suggesting that the atmolayer always magnifies at the same rate no matter how thin it is? Because otherwise the further up you went, the smaller should the sun appear at the horizon (since there would be less air between you and the sun). Also because of the way lenses work the sun should appear bigger in some locations and smaller in others. You can test this for yourself, take a magnifying lens, look at any object with it and move your head back and forward. Notice how the object changes size? Actually at a certain distance the sun would blur out out and flip over... It's simply how lenses work. Or is the atmolayer a magical lens?
-
But on a round earth model it requires gravity, which also magical. It can't be explained but is required. So stalemate.
Classical Flat Earther... Derailing topics that give them a hard time. What does gravity have to do with this???
-
Also dues to the FET's bendy light the distance that light from the sun near sunset travels through the upper layers would not change much, but the distance light travels through the lower layer would be what changes significantly.
-
But on a round earth model it requires gravity, which also magical. It can't be explained but is required. So stalemate.
Actually Einstein offered a great explanation for gravity.
-
Can't you guys make a new thread about gravity or something? I would love to see some FE answers on the actual topic...
-
The Sun does appear to be a bit smaller near the horizon than it does at noon. I don't have any charts in front of me and am unable to quantify the exact degree of variability.
-
I'm going to need more than you're word.
-
The Sun does appear to be a bit smaller near the horizon than it does at noon. I don't have any charts in front of me and am unable to quantify the exact degree of variability.
The problem here is that the sun shouldn't just appear "a bit smaller". If we are to trust the classical FE sun movement the size difference should be huge (like a car driving past you and into the distance) but that's not all. If the sun was flat (if you claim it's round you will need to explain why there is nighttime) it should appear elliptical near the horizon. It should also appear to be moving alot slower... And then there is the part where it dips below the horizon. I've heard claims that the air blocks the rays of the sun, but in that case the sun would fade away, not hide below the horizon...
-
I'm going to need more than you're word.
Try taking a look outside then, I suppose.
The problem here is that the sun shouldn't just appear "a bit smaller". If we are to trust the classical FE sun movement the size difference should be huge (like a car driving past you and into the distance) but that's not all. If the sun was flat (if you claim it's round you will need to explain why there is nighttime) it should appear elliptical near the horizon. It should also appear to be moving alot slower... And then there is the part where it dips below the horizon. I've heard claims that the air blocks the rays of the sun, but in that case the sun would fade away, not hide below the horizon...
A true sphere never appears elliptical, no matter what angle you look at it from. Also, the Sun does fade away, however it fades as it is being blocked. This causes reddish sunrises/sunsets. Red is the lowest visible spectrum, so you don't see a continuous fade beyond the reddening.
-
I'm going to need more than you're word.
Try taking a look outside then, I suppose.
The problem here is that the sun shouldn't just appear "a bit smaller". If we are to trust the classical FE sun movement the size difference should be huge (like a car driving past you and into the distance) but that's not all. If the sun was flat (if you claim it's round you will need to explain why there is nighttime) it should appear elliptical near the horizon. It should also appear to be moving alot slower... And then there is the part where it dips below the horizon. I've heard claims that the air blocks the rays of the sun, but in that case the sun would fade away, not hide below the horizon...
A true sphere never appears elliptical, no matter what angle you look at it from. Also, the Sun does fade away, however it fades as it is being blocked. This causes reddish sunrises/sunsets. Red is the lowest visible spectrum, so you don't see a continuous fade beyond the reddening.
Yes red is the lowest energy of the visible spectrum. So it makes sense that red makes it all the way through the atmoshpere. But of course you say the visible spectrum loses energy and only red is left. But that would mean none of the ultraviolet spectrum loses energy and drops down into the visible spectrum.
When you make up stuff, you tend to not account for everything.
-
A true sphere never appears elliptical, no matter what angle you look at it from.
So you claim the sun to be a sphere? How do you explain nighttime then?
Also, the Sun does fade away, however it fades as it is being blocked. This causes reddish sunrises/sunsets. Red is the lowest visible spectrum, so you don't see a continuous fade beyond the reddening.
Actually it should continue to fade beyond red, the light reaching us would eventually become infrared so the sun would fade as less and less visible light reached us. Plus you still haven't explained the sun dipping below the horizon aswell as its speed and size remaining the same.
-
The Sun does appear to be a bit smaller near the horizon than it does at noon. I don't have any charts in front of me and am unable to quantify the exact degree of variability.
Both the sun and moon appear larger on the horizon. It is a well noted optical illusion though. When the moon rises and looks large on the horizon, hold a dime at arms length and it will cover the whole thing. Go out later after the moon has risen and do the same. The results will be the identical. (I chose the moon so that no one stares into the sun, your eyes though.)
-
The Sun does appear to be a bit smaller near the horizon than it does at noon. I don't have any charts in front of me and am unable to quantify the exact degree of variability.
I never noticed.
Try taking a look outside then, I suppose.
Indeed. Maybe get some pictures.
*I apologize for the obscenely large middle picture. Either this site or imageshack randomly makes my pictures big for some reason.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img811/5422/nooni.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img193/8985/sunsettf.jpg)
Overlayed. Looks the same size to me.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img99/5266/noonandsunset3.jpg)
-
So you claim the sun to be a sphere? How do you explain nighttime then?
The same way I've already explained sunrise and sunset.
Actually it should continue to fade beyond red, the light reaching us would eventually become infrared so the sun would fade as less and less visible light reached us. Plus you still haven't explained the sun dipping below the horizon aswell as its speed and size remaining the same.
It's funny, this post sounds like you're disagreeing with something I said, but you're not. Read it again, maybe?
-
Red is the lowest visible spectrum, so you don't see a continuous fade beyond the reddening.
You are saying that the sun stops fading beyond red. I'm pointing out that it has no reason to. The way I see it, less and less light from the sun should reach us as more and more air gets in the way resulting in the fading of the sun. So far, no Flat Earther has given me an explanation for the sun dipping below the horizon.
-
The sun will always be the same size because it is light reflecting on the glass sky. When we see the sunrise and sunset, it's just the edge of what our eyes see (the horizon) but the sun is actually HIGH ABOVE our heads. We see it rise when it moves closer to us and we see it set as it moves away from us. If you could travel at the same rate as the sun...you would see it never moves higher or lower but you will see that you have traveled in a circle around Earth.
Picture yourself as an ant at nighttime. A person is walking toward you, coming around at a circular angle so that you see the light from his flashlight from your left. You are at such a low angle that you cannot see him or his light until it's close enough for your little ant eyes to see. The light is visible from above to other ants that are closer to the light. It is also visible sooner (but not by much) to other creatures, like a squirrel or rabbit that are taller than you.
-
The Sun does appear to be a bit smaller near the horizon than it does at noon. I don't have any charts in front of me and am unable to quantify the exact degree of variability.
I never noticed.
Try taking a look outside then, I suppose.
Indeed. Maybe get some pictures.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img811/5422/nooni.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img193/8985/sunsettf.jpg)
Overlayed. Looks the same size to me.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img99/5266/noonandsunset3.jpg)
Why is the sun green in the picture?
-
Why is the sun green in the picture?
I believe 29silhouette took the pictures through the lens of a welders helmet so as not to damage his camera. Those lenses usually have a green tint.
-
Why is the sun green in the picture?
What scintific method said.
Sony digital video camera with a 30x zoom through a welding lens. I've also used a low-end digital camera through compact binoculars with the welding lens taped to the binos.
-
The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.
Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.
Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.
-
Think of a magnifying glass and trying to burn that paper.
-
The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.
Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.
Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.
You are saying the size of the sun is relative to the observer. Otherwise, Chileans should see a different sized sun than Canadians on the same day, at the same time.
-
The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.
Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.
Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.
You are saying the size of the sun is relative to the observer. Otherwise, Chileans should see a different sized sun than Canadians on the same day, at the same time.
This is only if you assume the periodic fluctuation in size experiences a phase shift relative to the periodic fluctuation in distance. If they are commensurate, or almost so, you would not see any change...or a very small one. A small phase shift is probable, otherwise I suspect the seasonal change we experience would be rather erratic instead of periodic. This is of course, if you assume a FE point of view, which we are for this discussion.
-
The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.
Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.
Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.
So if it the sun goes west and travels farther away from Europe causing sunset, are you saying that it actually grows bigger to maintain its size from the eye of the European people? How would the American people where the sun is currently overhead them observe the sun at that time, do they also see the sun grows? And if the sun goes even farther west does it also keep growing?
-
The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.
Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.
Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.
So if it the sun goes west and travels farther away from Europe causing sunset, are you saying that it actually grows bigger to maintain its size from the eye of the European people? How would the American people where the sun is currently overhead them observe the sun at that time, do they also see the sun grows? And if the sun goes even farther west does it also keep growing?
Well, during sunset, the apparent change in the Sun's size is believed (by RE scientists) to be cause by atmospheric effects, so that it appears bigger. So this is not an actual change in the size.
-
The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.
Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.
Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.
You are saying the size of the sun is relative to the observer. Otherwise, Chileans should see a different sized sun than Canadians on the same day, at the same time.
This is only if you assume the periodic fluctuation in size experiences a phase shift relative to the periodic fluctuation in distance. If they are commensurate, or almost so, you would not see any change...or a very small one. A small phase shift is probable, otherwise I suspect the seasonal change we experience would be rather erratic instead of periodic. This is of course, if you assume a FE point of view, which we are for this discussion.
So you need to actually show a phase shift to show you might be correct. So not check mate but rather a potential test for your hypothesis.
-
The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.
Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.
Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.
You are saying the size of the sun is relative to the observer. Otherwise, Chileans should see a different sized sun than Canadians on the same day, at the same time.
This is only if you assume the periodic fluctuation in size experiences a phase shift relative to the periodic fluctuation in distance. If they are commensurate, or almost so, you would not see any change...or a very small one. A small phase shift is probable, otherwise I suspect the seasonal change we experience would be rather erratic instead of periodic. This is of course, if you assume a FE point of view, which we are for this discussion.
So you need to actually show a phase shift to show you might be correct. So not check mate but rather a potential test for your hypothesis.
Yeah, this is true. This is really backwards modeling -- or "bootstrap" modeling. You know what the observations are so this helps in forming correct hypotheses. Of course, all FE theory is like this: it does not start with self-consistent theories and then see if they agree with observations, it starts with observations and uses THEM to limit the theory. Is this worse, or better? Is not reality measured (defined even) by observations more intrinsically than theory.
BTW, I'm not ignoring your request for a rotating disk model, but these things take time :)
-
No worries, I have no problem with either method, but a theory cannot be accepted until it passes experimental rigor.
-
No worries, I have no problem with either method, but a theory cannot be accepted until it passes experimental rigor.
Precisely! Otherwise we can claim anything we want: I am really a potato, now disprove me (bet we could make a website ;))
-
I'm going to need more than you're word.
Try taking a look outside then, I suppose.
The problem here is that the sun shouldn't just appear "a bit smaller". If we are to trust the classical FE sun movement the size difference should be huge (like a car driving past you and into the distance) but that's not all. If the sun was flat (if you claim it's round you will need to explain why there is nighttime) it should appear elliptical near the horizon. It should also appear to be moving alot slower... And then there is the part where it dips below the horizon. I've heard claims that the air blocks the rays of the sun, but in that case the sun would fade away, not hide below the horizon...
A true sphere never appears elliptical, no matter what angle you look at it from. Also, the Sun does fade away, however it fades as it is being blocked. This causes reddish sunrises/sunsets. Red is the lowest visible spectrum, so you don't see a continuous fade beyond the reddening.
Yes red is the lowest energy of the visible spectrum. So it makes sense that red makes it all the way through the atmoshpere. But of course you say the visible spectrum loses energy and only red is left. But that would mean none of the ultraviolet spectrum loses energy and drops down into the visible spectrum.
When you make up stuff, you tend to not account for everything.
The light, upon scattering, does not lose energy and hence change color. It is just that more higher energy photons are scattered away from the line of sight during sunset/sunrise, LEAVING the redder light...the total energy from the Sun that goes through the atmosphere (and makes it to the ground) during these times decreases, not the energy from individual photons.