The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: squevil on July 26, 2012, 01:47:09 PM

Title: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 26, 2012, 01:47:09 PM
this morning i was awake at sunrise. flying over me was a plane. the plane was white and the underside was all lit up orange from the sun. where i was it was still in shadow. now this can mean 1 of 2 things really;

the earth is round

the earth is flat but the sun was less than 30,000ft high

clouds have a pretty good excuse for being lit up, but the under side of a plane?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Thork on July 26, 2012, 01:52:40 PM
the plane was white and the underside was all lit up orange from the sun.

(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/thorsten/thorsten0801/thorsten080100185/2459798-large-orange-passenger-airplane-in-the-sky-underside-bottom-side.jpg)
JET-2 have their livery as white with an orange bottom.

I'm glad I could help.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: EmperorZhark on July 26, 2012, 02:26:18 PM
the plane was white and the underside was all lit up orange from the sun.

(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/thorsten/thorsten0801/thorsten080100185/2459798-large-orange-passenger-airplane-in-the-sky-underside-bottom-side.jpg)
JET-2 have their livery as white with an orange bottom.

I'm glad I could help.

After this kind of answer, no wonder you're most welcomed in the well-named lower forums.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 26, 2012, 04:20:34 PM
the plane was white and the underside was all lit up orange from the sun.

(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/thorsten/thorsten0801/thorsten080100185/2459798-large-orange-passenger-airplane-in-the-sky-underside-bottom-side.jpg)
JET-2 have their livery as white with an orange bottom.

I'm glad I could help.

After this kind of answer, no wonder you're most welcomed in the well-named lower forums.

yeh i agree, but this was the first time i really saw something with my own eyes that really does go against FET. an explanation rather than a silly picture would of helped. i didnt have a camera with me but it definitely was not a plane like that. this was not paint this was a reflection.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Pongo on July 26, 2012, 04:31:26 PM
People ask the same question about why clouds appear lit from underneath as well. It's the light from the sun bouncing off the earth and lighting the bottom of the object. This is an incredibly hard concept for round-earthers to grasp, so I've devised an experiment.

Get a mirror and a flashlight. Place the mirror in your lap and shine the flashlight down like the spotlight-sun. Take your free hand buzz it around while making airplane noises. You will see that the sun is shining down and reflecting up to light the underside of your hand/plane.  Now, the earth isn't as reflective as the mirror, but it doesn't have to be. The sun is more than powerful enough to bounce enough light back to the plane.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 26, 2012, 04:44:29 PM
When the next pilot who starts an account here and posts - we should ask him how hard it is to fly around with the glare of the sun bouncing from the earth into his eyes all the time.  I imagine they have to wear goggles similar to these.

(http://i.imgur.com/Ixq3V.jpg)
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 26, 2012, 05:12:34 PM
People ask the same question about why clouds appear lit from underneath as well. It's the light from the sun bouncing off the earth and lighting the bottom of the object. This is an incredibly hard concept for round-earthers to grasp, so I've devised an experiment.

Get a mirror and a flashlight. Place the mirror in your lap and shine the flashlight down like the spotlight-sun. Take your free hand buzz it around while making airplane noises. You will see that the sun is shining down and reflecting up to light the underside of your hand/plane.  Now, the earth isn't as reflective as the mirror, but it doesn't have to be. The sun is more than powerful enough to bounce enough light back to the plane.

the sun was not bright enough. i couldnt even see the sun yet. the sun does not do what you said.

next time the sun is over head move your hand about with the palm facing down and crouch and look at your hand. make plane noises if you wish. notice how its in the shadow and not lit up.

it must also be said that for FET to work people say that light does not travel indefinitely through the atmosphere because it is not perfectly clear. well the sun was far away and i couldnt see it, yet the light was able to travel through the atmosphere 3 times to reach my eyes? it came from the sun, bounced off the floor, then hit the plane and went to my eye.

no what i saw proved to me that the sun must of been below 30,000 feet.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 26, 2012, 05:16:03 PM
as this is related to clouds in some way (although i have a valid explanation for this with FET) maybe you can explain this to me?

the red line is the horizon, so in the top of the picture the sun is not visible as it is passed the horizon. just like it was yesterday.
the shortest past for the light is directly from the sun. so why cant i see the sun but i can see its reflecting off clouds or a plane?
(http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z479/squevil/sunreflectingoffclouds.png)
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Rushy on July 26, 2012, 06:44:04 PM
Thork debunked this thread in a single post. You saw a white plane with a painted orange bottom.


[/thread]
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: hoppy on July 26, 2012, 07:06:08 PM
ITT Squevil is just having growing pains.


   BTW Kendrick nice pic, is that cheesus?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 26, 2012, 07:18:00 PM
It is.

I caught him as he was getting off shift as a volunteer as a grief councellor at the childrens hospital.

For him its all about the children.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 26, 2012, 07:39:44 PM
Thork debunked this thread in a single post. You saw a white plane with a painted orange bottom.


[/thread]

you would like to think that, but that is not what i saw. the ice trail behind it also was orange. unless you have something useful to add dont bother saying anything at all.

nobody has yet to debunk the picture presented, not even in the post it came from.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: iwanttobelieve on July 27, 2012, 05:54:17 AM
reflection off water
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 27, 2012, 06:08:57 AM
not where i live, there is a river but the plane was orange for quite a while. also when im at work im next to the river and at about 6:30am the sun reflects off the river onto the ceiling, it isnt orange, looks nice though.

i dont even think the angle would of been right if it was the river.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 27, 2012, 08:05:44 AM
Someone is really trying to say that light is reflecting off of a generally dark surface, moving back up into the sky, and then reflecting off of another surface?

As in the dirty, grass, trees and whatever else are reflecting like a mirror? If the sun was that bright, we'd all be dead.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 27, 2012, 08:16:19 AM
Yes, light is funny like that.  You can see things that are in the shade.  Even if that light is reflecting off of dirty, grass, trees, and whatever.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 08:19:52 AM
The answer is that due to perspective, when the sun is setting it near the eye level of the observer, and therefore its rays are coming at you from the side. The sun's rays are also hitting clouds and plane from the side. The back end of the cloud/plane is facing you, so it appears as if the plane/cloud is illuminated from the bottom.

(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg717/scaled.php?server=717&filename=perspectivesun.png&res=landing)
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 27, 2012, 09:31:41 AM
Yes, light is funny like that.  You can see things that are in the shade.  Even if that light is reflecting off of dirty, grass, trees, and whatever.

Yes, but light reflecting off of the dirt doesn't hurt my eyes from a distance. If it is light colored dirt (sand perhaps), it might hurt up close. But it certainly doesn't reflect like a mirror so much that if i was IN that plane at 30,000 feet, it would look like someone had a giant mirror on earth. That's the kind of reflection you would need to get that effect on the bottom of a plane. Test it with a laser, they're generally WAY more intense than sunlight. Point the laser at the dirt, and see if it reflects up onto anything in a significant enough manner to cause a mirror-like glare.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on July 27, 2012, 11:16:07 AM
When I see planes flying at 30000 (ish)ft they're small dots with white puffy clouds behind them, there's no way I could see anything reflecting off the bottom of it.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 27, 2012, 11:26:21 AM
I performed my own experiments this morning -

I took a few squares of 60 grit sandpaper and placed them on the grass - then held a model metal plane various distances between 6" and 8' above it.

The sandpaper was untinted and the grit was its natural shades of brown and tan.

At no point during the experiment did I see any glare from the sun reflected onto the underside of the model plane - either over the sandpaper, or grass, or concrete.

Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 27, 2012, 12:53:07 PM
I performed my own experiments this morning -

I took a few squares of 60 grit sandpaper and placed them on the grass - then held a model metal plane various distances between 6" and 8' above it.

The sandpaper was untinted and the grit was its natural shades of brown and tan.

At no point during the experiment did I see any glare from the sun reflected onto the underside of the model plane - either over the sandpaper, or grass, or concrete.

Now THAT is Zeteticism. Thank you Kendrick.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 27, 2012, 02:27:07 PM
The answer is that due to perspective, when the sun is setting it near the eye level of the observer, and therefore its rays are coming at you from the side. The sun's rays are also hitting clouds and plane from the side. The back end of the cloud/plane is facing you, so it appears as if the plane/cloud is illuminated from the bottom.

(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg717/scaled.php?server=717&filename=perspectivesun.png&res=landing)

almost, but perspective does not make the sun parallel to me. it looks like it is but it would still be 3000 miles above. the whole of the underside was lit up and not just the point that was facing me. even the trail behind it was glowing.
sorry tom it would fool some but just because the sun looks like its touching the ground doesnt mean that it is at ground level.
i like the drawings though, thanks for the effort! i honestly appreciate that 
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 27, 2012, 02:54:42 PM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/111026_blog_rainier_05.jpg)

This is Mount Rainer in Washington at sunset, I found this picture on the web - there are many pictures like it.

This is interesting because the shadows are crisp and defined - like a shadow would be if you were standing in front of a stagelight shining directly at you, and not reflected off of any medium.

It directly supports light travelling directly from the sun to the underside of the airplane in forum user Squevil's interpretation of his observations.

I dont see how this can happen based on the current accepted model for the earth-plane as there is no current explanation for photons travelling in a U shaped pattern down from the orbiting sun and upwards back through the atmolayer.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: hoppy on July 27, 2012, 04:37:51 PM
I performed my own experiments this morning -

I took a few squares of 60 grit sandpaper and placed them on the grass - then held a model metal plane various distances between 6" and 8' above it.

The sandpaper was untinted and the grit was its natural shades of brown and tan.

At no point during the experiment did I see any glare from the sun reflected onto the underside of the model plane - either over the sandpaper, or grass, or concrete.
What was the temperature and humidity?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 27, 2012, 04:50:46 PM
84 degrees 21% humidity.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 27, 2012, 05:05:45 PM
i do support the fes but i really do think that this thread debunks fet using simple observations.
the light cannot bounce off the earth and off the cloud and to the observer if the atmosphere is too thick for the sun to be visible.
and light simply does not reflect off the earth so it can light up the underside of a plane in this manner

both ideas have been shown to be false. there nobody needs nasa to prove that the earth is round.

that my fellows is a solid ret win.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: garygreen on July 27, 2012, 05:42:41 PM
Excellent thread.  Would read again. 
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: BoatswainsMate on July 29, 2012, 03:39:34 AM
I dare say, Squevil has just shed some light (pun intended) on how the sun works. Great job Squevil you are an observation stallion!
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: 29silhouette on July 29, 2012, 01:05:06 PM
Took this picture about a month ago.  Nearest cloud undersides are catching the last bit of light and have an increased red hue versus the cloud bottoms further away, which are still orange-ish due to the sun being higher above the horizon from that vantage point.  Also through the gap in the middle of the picture and also towards the right are some clouds that are much higher, and therefore even less orange/red tinted (almost white compared to the others).

That would be a pretty extreme amount of direct red and orange light if the source is a reflection off forested hills and such.
(http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/3034/dsc029272.jpg)

Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 29, 2012, 02:20:36 PM
clouds can be explained in another way, quite simply really. however the plane in question was solid evidence. the plane being a solid object was really the point.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 06:02:34 AM
clouds can be explained in another way, quite simply really. however the plane in question was solid evidence. the plane being a solid object was really the point.

This is one of the very few useful threads I've seen on here. Thank you squevil, for starting this.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 30, 2012, 07:43:47 AM
heres some more observed evidence. there is a distinct lack of argument in all these threads. the best way to present a topic is to use the zetetic method. all these posts follow that and it makes them into a solid argument. sometimes the zetetic method works well.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52981.msg1298630.html#msg1298630 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52981.msg1298630.html#msg1298630)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52745.msg1292938.html#msg1292938 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52745.msg1292938.html#msg1292938)
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 08:40:14 AM
heres some more observed evidence. there is a distinct lack of argument in all these threads. the best way to present a topic is to use the zetetic method. all these posts follow that and it makes them into a solid argument. sometimes the zetetic method works well.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52981.msg1298630.html#msg1298630 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52981.msg1298630.html#msg1298630)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52745.msg1292938.html#msg1292938 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52745.msg1292938.html#msg1292938)

You know, I actually recall reading the spotlight sun one now. The "more work on spotlight sun theory." Perhaps I shall try and watch the ISS orbit from an angle, say down near the equator, as it is on a 50 degree orbit, they say. That should provide enough of an angle for me to watch it's angular velocity change. I'll have to document everything of course. If someone else is already in the position to do the experiment though, that would be wonderful. You'll have to be on large, open flatlands so that you can watch the ISS come "up" from the west, and "down" in the east, and the velocity will appear to change, however it is actually holding rather steady at ~7,700 m/s
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:49:57 AM
The answer is that due to perspective, when the sun is setting it near the eye level of the observer, and therefore its rays are coming at you from the side. The sun's rays are also hitting clouds and plane from the side. The back end of the cloud/plane is facing you, so it appears as if the plane/cloud is illuminated from the bottom.

(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg717/scaled.php?server=717&filename=perspectivesun.png&res=landing)

almost, but perspective does not make the sun parallel to me. it looks like it is but it would still be 3000 miles above. the whole of the underside was lit up and not just the point that was facing me. even the trail behind it was glowing.
sorry tom it would fool some but just because the sun looks like its touching the ground doesnt mean that it is at ground level.
i like the drawings though, thanks for the effort! i honestly appreciate that

Actually, perspective does make the sun parallel to you.

See Chapter 9: The cause of Sunrise and Sunset (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm)
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on July 30, 2012, 11:10:19 AM
When I see planes flying at 30000 (ish)ft they're small dots with white puffy clouds behind them, there's no way I could see anything reflecting off the bottom of it.

Yeah I agree, planes up that high are very small, it must have been taking off or landing.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 30, 2012, 11:35:42 AM
Actually, perspective does make the sun parallel to you.

See Chapter 9: The cause of Sunrise and Sunset (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm)

Rowbothams explanation is wrong.

As the sun moves down towards the horizon it does not look like it is getting further and further away - its size stays roughly the same and features on the sun's surface maintain the same level of visiblity.

Here is a snapshot I took of the sun as it hung low in the sky during the recent transit of venus.

(http://i.imgur.com/6xhI9.jpg)

With this picture we see that the sun's apparent size is not maintained by glare as it moves away across the earth-plane.   If this were the case Venus would not be visible, its profile would have been consumed by the glare similar to a spec on a light-bulb.

I also noticed with this picture that Venus did not travel down across the sun's profile would be expected as the sun moved away across the earth-plane.  It continued horizontally across the sun's profile.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

It is not a glare in the eye lens of the user, but a projection of the sun's image upon the atmosphere.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:11:15 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I asked you two questions. I just want to know. I didn't say anyone proved it wrong. Although Kendrick has made excellent points to which you have not responded. But regardless, you didn't answer my questions.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 30, 2012, 12:15:16 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

It is not a glare in the eye lens of the user, but a projection of the sun's image upon the atmosphere.

That explanation is also wrong. 

Also, as mentioned previously, Venus did not move down towards the horizon as expected, rather continuing its path horizonatally across the sun's profile.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55260.0.html#.UBbdE7Se7HQ)  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55260.0.html#.UBbdE7Se7HQ)  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:23:42 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

It is not a glare in the eye lens of the user, but a projection of the sun's image upon the atmosphere.

That explanation is also wrong. 

Also, as mentioned previously, Venus did not move down towards the horizon as expected, rather continuing its path horizonatally across the sun's profile.

"This explanation is wrong" is not a valid rebuttal we will accept.

Venus did not move down the sun by any significant degree because it is very close to the sun, many orders of magnitude lesser distance between you and the sun.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 01:28:13 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55260.0.html#.UBbdE7Se7HQ)  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

I thought it was a atmolayer?

How can the atmosphere magnify and block the sun's rays Tom? If it magnifies it, it will get brighter and larger, not remain the same angular size and get darker. If it blocks it, it will simply fade from view, not "go down." If it does one, it won't do the other, have you ever used a magnifying glass or a telescope? Use one, then put some translucent gray paint on it, and use it again. Tell me what happens.

Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Lorddave on July 30, 2012, 01:30:42 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55260.0.html#.UBbdE7Se7HQ)  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.
This is in conflict with the clouds.  Clouds have a much greater optical density than air.  If normal atmosphere can easily block the sun's rays then surely the cloud would completely block it during sunset and sunrise.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 01:35:31 PM
You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

That's only half of the argument.

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is magnified by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:51:59 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55260.0.html#.UBbdE7Se7HQ)  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

I thought it was a atmolayer?

How can the atmosphere magnify and block the sun's rays Tom? If it magnifies it, it will get brighter and larger, not remain the same angular size and get darker. If it blocks it, it will simply fade from view, not "go down." If it does one, it won't do the other, have you ever used a magnifying glass or a telescope? Use one, then put some translucent gray paint on it, and use it again. Tell me what happens.

You are mistaken that magnification makes a light source brighter.

If you place a magnifying glass up to a lightbulb to enlarge the image it won't get any brighter. You are scattering the rays of the lightbulb, and it will therefore become dimmer. But if we flip around the magnifying glass to shrink the light bulb, it will become brighter, as we are concentrating the light rays to a point.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 01:58:26 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55260.0.html#.UBbdE7Se7HQ)  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

I thought it was a atmolayer?

How can the atmosphere magnify and block the sun's rays Tom? If it magnifies it, it will get brighter and larger, not remain the same angular size and get darker. If it blocks it, it will simply fade from view, not "go down." If it does one, it won't do the other, have you ever used a magnifying glass or a telescope? Use one, then put some translucent gray paint on it, and use it again. Tell me what happens.

You are mistaken that magnification makes a light source brighter.

If you place a magnifying glass up to a lightbulb to enlarge the image it won't get any brighter. You are scattering the rays of the lightbulb, and it will therefore become dimmer. But if we flip around the magnifying glass to shrink the light bulb, it will become brighter, as we are concentrating the light rays to a point.

At sunset when we look at the sun near the horizon it is rather dim, and one can look at it directly without eye damage. When the sun is overhead at noon, on the other hand, looking at it is very painful. This illustrates the dimming of the sun with atmosphere.


Magnification focuses rays of light to a point so you can see smaller objects (or distant objects) appear larger. If you magnifiy a light source, it will appear brighter. It does not scatter rays. Have you ever used one to burn ants? I did it once. It focuses rays of light. You cannot focus rays of light while you are "dimming," which is scattering them.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:58:51 PM
You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

That's only half of the argument.

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is magnified by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.

If there is too much atmosphere the rays will be blocked, just as if glass is too thick the image through it will be blocked.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 02:03:57 PM
Magnification focuses rays of light to a point so you can see smaller objects (or distant objects) appear larger. If you magnifiy a light source, it will appear brighter. It does not scatter rays. Have you ever used one to burn ants? I did it once. It focuses rays of light. You cannot focus rays of light while you are "dimming," which is scattering them.

One side of the magnifying scatters light and the other side of the magnifying glass concentrates light.

When you use a magnifying glass to enlarge an object, you are pulling the rays of light away from each other to a larger surface area. This dimms the resulting image.

When you use a magnifying glass to shrink an object you are concentrating the rays to a smaller surface area and cause the image to brighten. This is what allows you to burn ants with a magnifying glass.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on July 30, 2012, 02:18:32 PM
Magnification focuses rays of light to a point so you can see smaller objects (or distant objects) appear larger. If you magnifiy a light source, it will appear brighter. It does not scatter rays. Have you ever used one to burn ants? I did it once. It focuses rays of light. You cannot focus rays of light while you are "dimming," which is scattering them.

One side of the magnifying scatters light and the other side of the magnifying glass concentrates light.

When you use a magnifying glass to enlarge an object, you are pulling the rays of light away from each other to a larger surface area. This dimms the resulting image.

When you use a magnifying glass to shrink an object you are concentrating the rays to a smaller surface area and cause the image to brighten. This is what allows you to burn ants with a magnifying glass.

I should inform you Tom, "scattering" is probably not the correct term to use here.  In common usage it means to throw in random directions (for example light through frosted glass). 

Please read anything other than "ENaG".
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 30, 2012, 02:56:14 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55260.0.html#.UBbdE7Se7HQ)  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

yeh well i have shown that the sun being blocked by the atmosphere wrong too. you stated that some of this is explained in EnaG as well but most of the stuff in that book is clearly wrong or misunderstood too.
you could always do some of your own work instead of reading an old book and dismissing anything that disagrees with it. i have and look at the conclusions.
out of the 2 of us i would say that im the true zetetic.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 03:03:44 PM
You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

That's only half of the argument.

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is magnified by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.

If there is too much atmosphere the rays will be blocked, just as if glass is too thick the image through it will be blocked.

Why does the atmosphere suddenly stop magnifying and start blocking rays of light?  At what point does this occur?  If the dimming of the Sun if caused by increased magnification, then the Sun should sit on the horizon at dusk, gradually dimming into darkness, not dip below it.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 30, 2012, 03:54:17 PM
You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

That's only half of the argument.

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is magnified by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.

If there is too much atmosphere the rays will be blocked, just as if glass is too thick the image through it will be blocked.

Why does the atmosphere suddenly stop magnifying and start blocking rays of light?  At what point does this occur?  If the dimming of the Sun if caused by increased magnification, then the Sun should sit on the horizon at dusk, gradually dimming into darkness, not dip below it.
it doesnt i have demonstrated it in another thread that the atmosphere is not responsible for blocking light.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 30, 2012, 04:05:57 PM
"This explanation is wrong" is not a valid rebuttal we will accept.

Who is 'we'?

If you require further detail reference my earlier posts.

Venus did not move down the sun by any significant degree because it is very close to the sun, many orders of magnitude lesser distance between you and the sun.

This reeks of Guesswork and Speculation.

Describe the process you used to demonstrate your above assertion.

Venus continued its horzontal path across the sun as the sun sunk down into the horizon.  As the sun is moving away from us in its path across the earth-plane - the outline of Venus would have travelled down towards the horizon.

If Rowbotham's explanation (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm) of the setting sun is correct then Venus would not have been between my eye and the Sun as it was setting.

So yes - that explanation is wrong.

Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: LolaTheRabbit on July 31, 2012, 12:41:54 AM
"This explanation is wrong" is not a valid rebuttal we will accept.

Who is 'we'?

If you require further detail reference my earlier posts.


Tom Bishop is actually "Team Bishop", a pseudoname for a gaggle of Mexican prostitutes working in shift rotation on their nights off. That is who he represents.  That stuff about Monterey is BS.  It's actually Tijuana where you'll find Team Bishop.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 31, 2012, 05:56:23 AM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55260.0.html#.UBbdE7Se7HQ)  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

I thought it was a atmolayer?

How can the atmosphere magnify and block the sun's rays Tom? If it magnifies it, it will get brighter and larger, not remain the same angular size and get darker. If it blocks it, it will simply fade from view, not "go down." If it does one, it won't do the other, have you ever used a magnifying glass or a telescope? Use one, then put some translucent gray paint on it, and use it again. Tell me what happens.

You are mistaken that magnification makes a light source brighter.

If you place a magnifying glass up to a lightbulb to enlarge the image it won't get any brighter. You are scattering the rays of the lightbulb, and it will therefore become dimmer. But if we flip around the magnifying glass to shrink the light bulb, it will become brighter, as we are concentrating the light rays to a point.
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55260.0.html#.UBbdE7Se7HQ)  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

I thought it was a atmolayer?

How can the atmosphere magnify and block the sun's rays Tom? If it magnifies it, it will get brighter and larger, not remain the same angular size and get darker. If it blocks it, it will simply fade from view, not "go down." If it does one, it won't do the other, have you ever used a magnifying glass or a telescope? Use one, then put some translucent gray paint on it, and use it again. Tell me what happens.

You are mistaken that magnification makes a light source brighter.

If you place a magnifying glass up to a lightbulb to enlarge the image it won't get any brighter. You are scattering the rays of the lightbulb, and it will therefore become dimmer. But if we flip around the magnifying glass to shrink the light bulb, it will become brighter, as we are concentrating the light rays to a point.

At sunset when we look at the sun near the horizon it is rather dim, and one can look at it directly without eye damage. When the sun is overhead at noon, on the other hand, looking at it is very painful. This illustrates the dimming of the sun with atmosphere.


Magnification focuses rays of light to a point so you can see smaller objects (or distant objects) appear larger. If you magnifiy a light source, it will appear brighter. It does not scatter rays. Have you ever used one to burn ants? I did it once. It focuses rays of light. You cannot focus rays of light while you are "dimming," which is scattering them.

I like how you edited your post after I answered you. Magnifying glasses do not dim light. They magnify. Which means "make to appear bigger" which spreads the light over a larger surface area, but to do that, the light has to be focused first. Therefore, when they light hits your eyes, it will appear brighter. Look at the sun with a telescope. I bet your it will hurt. A lot.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 07:23:30 AM
Magnifying glasses absolutely dim light. On a bright and sunny day if you use a magnifying glass to concentrate the sun's light to a point you will be able to burn ants. If you flip around the magnifying glass, making the sun's image appear large on the ground, you will not be able to burn ants. Magnifying the image spreads out the sun's energy over a greater surface area, thereby making the resulting image dimmer and cooler.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 31, 2012, 07:35:12 AM
still arguing the shape of the earth in a thread that destroys FET, tom? perhaps you should stick to nasa conspiracy threads and talk about something thats impossible to prove either way, you dont look as stupid then.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: garygreen on July 31, 2012, 07:40:21 AM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/111026_blog_rainier_05.jpg)

I still don't get how this image is possible in the FE model.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2012, 09:11:22 AM
If you flip around the magnifying glass, making the sun's image appear large on the ground, you will not be able to burn ants.

Umm...  Sorry Tom but magnifying glasses don't work like that.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 09:41:34 AM
If you flip around the magnifying glass, making the sun's image appear large on the ground, you will not be able to burn ants.

Umm...  Sorry Tom but magnifying glasses don't work like that.

Once side of the magnifying glass magnifies images, the other side of the magnifying glass shrinks images. Please review a magnifying glass.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on July 31, 2012, 09:51:44 AM
If you flip around the magnifying glass, making the sun's image appear large on the ground, you will not be able to burn ants.

Umm...  Sorry Tom but magnifying glasses don't work like that.

Once side of the magnifying glass magnifies images, the other side of the magnifying glass shrinks images. Please review a magnifying glass.

They have convex lenses (all the ones I've seen). This there any subject that you cannot be wrong on?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on July 31, 2012, 09:55:42 AM
If you flip around the magnifying glass, making the sun's image appear large on the ground, you will not be able to burn ants.

Umm...  Sorry Tom but magnifying glasses don't work like that.

Once side of the magnifying glass magnifies images, the other side of the magnifying glass shrinks images. Please review a magnifying glass.

I'm afraid you're wrong.

A Convex lenses has a real focal point which magnifys an image, a concave lens has a virtual focal point which makes the image appear smaller. Turning either around will not make a difference.

Get a magnifying glass yourself and test it out.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: garygreen on July 31, 2012, 10:07:44 AM
If you flip around the magnifying glass, making the sun's image appear large on the ground, you will not be able to burn ants.

Umm...  Sorry Tom but magnifying glasses don't work like that.

Once side of the magnifying glass magnifies images, the other side of the magnifying glass shrinks images. Please review a magnifying glass.

Wow.  You're literally the least informed human being I've ever encountered in my life.  I'm almost speechless.  Honestly, how are you able to hold down a job?

1.  Pick up a magnifying glass.
2.  Look at something.
3.  Flip the magnifying glass around.
4.  HOLY SHIT NOTHING CHANGED THAT'S SO WEIRD i mean oh wait that's exactly the way a convex lens works nevermind
5.  Conclusion: your magnifying glass is in on the conspiracy.


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Lens1.svg)
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 10:24:07 AM
I don't believe I specified the type of lens used.

None the less, reported.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on July 31, 2012, 10:32:26 AM
I don't believe I specified the type of lens used.

None the less, reported.

It doesn't matter what type of lens you're talking about you can't have a lens that can make images smaller on one side and magnify on the other.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2012, 10:34:17 AM
I don't believe I specified the type of lens used.

None the less, reported.

Sorry Tom, but being deliberately vague doesn't make this any less of a fail.  The magnifying glass that everyone thinks of when you say "magnifying glass" is a convex lens, plain and simple.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on July 31, 2012, 10:35:57 AM
I don't believe I specified the type of lens used.

Know ye of such an eye glass?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: garygreen on July 31, 2012, 10:36:54 AM
I don't believe I specified the type of lens used.

None the less, reported.

Cool.  Report this one, too.

You still haven't specified a lens other than 'magnifying glass.'  Please do so.  I can't wait to hear what lens you think has the properties you describe. 

Are you really this incapable of admitting that you're wrong?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 31, 2012, 10:50:23 AM
At this point it is necessary to remind forum user Tom Bishop that trolling is against the rules of this forum.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: hoppy on July 31, 2012, 11:07:59 AM
You guys Bishop is right about the lenses. When you look through the glass at a news paper for instance the print is bigger. On the other side the light is concentrated for instance, when you burn ants with the sun.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 31, 2012, 12:00:57 PM
You guys Bishop is right about the lenses. When you look through the glass at a news paper for instance the print is bigger. On the other side the light is concentrated for instance, when you burn ants with the sun.

Yet if you turn it BACK around, the way not to burn ants, you will see a larger, bright circle on the ground. This is because the light is greatly focused, and then spread back out a little bit, making the object appear larger in your field of view, or the light that comes through from the other side focused, but less focused than if you wanted to burn ants.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: 29silhouette on July 31, 2012, 01:03:04 PM
Every magnifying glass I've ever messed with gives me the same results regardless of which side I'm looking at.  What creates a difference between the object being enlarged and my eye, and a focused spot of sunlight that burns and the sun itself, is the varied distance of the enlarged object/burning point and my eye/sun.

Now if someone has a magnifying glass that behaves completely different by simply turning it around, perhaps they could post a picture of it.  Video would be great.  Maybe an online source and description?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 01:07:00 PM
Please stop deflecting from the issue. The fact is that when a magnifying glass enlarges, it spreads out the light rays, and the resulting image is dimmer. When a magnifying glass concentrates an image the light rays are closer together and the image is brighter.

See: A projector.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 31, 2012, 01:14:01 PM
Please stop deflecting from the issue. The fact is that when a magnifying glass enlarges, it spreads out the light rays, and the resulting image is dimmer. When a magnifying glass concentrates an image the light rays are closer together and the image is brighter.

See: A projector.

I believe it is you who is deflecting the issue, unless you can explain how the pictures linked in this post work with Rowbothams mistaken assertions of the cause of sunrise and sunset.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 01:16:32 PM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/111026_blog_rainier_05.jpg)

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig64.jpg)

(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg717/scaled.php?server=717&filename=perspectivesun.png&res=landing)
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 31, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
And how does Rowbotham explain the rays of light from the sun travelling parallel and upwards from the earth-plane's surface - given that they are not reflected?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 31, 2012, 01:20:52 PM
Every magnifying glass I've ever messed with gives me the same results regardless of which side I'm looking at.  What creates a difference between the object being enlarged and my eye, and a focused spot of sunlight that burns and the sun itself, is the varied distance of the enlarged object/burning point and my eye/sun.

Now if someone has a magnifying glass that behaves completely different by simply turning it around, perhaps they could post a picture of it.  Video would be great.  Maybe an online source and description?

I'm thinking of the something that has one concave side, one convex (which is coincidentally, not a magnifying glass). Tom is talking about a projector, which is a similar lens to what I just mentioned. The magnifying glass you would use for reading or looking at something very small on a table/page is two convex lenses, one for focusing light and the other to cause the image to appear larger.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 01:22:09 PM
And how does Rowbotham explain the rays of light from the sun travelling parallel and upwards from the earth-plane's surface - given that they are not reflected?

They are traveling parallel to the earth's surface due to perspective. I see no evidence in your image that they are traveling upwards.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 31, 2012, 01:22:37 PM

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig64.jpg)

[/quote]

Samuel Rowbotham thinks the ground goes up away from the observer?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 01:23:22 PM
Samuel Rowbotham thinks the ground goes up away from the observer?

Look into the distance and notice that the lands beneath you seem to rise to the level of your eye.

(http://accuracyandaesthetics.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/singlepoint.jpg)
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: MrT on July 31, 2012, 01:26:23 PM
(http://images.bimedia.net/images/111026_blog_rainier_05.jpg)

(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg717/scaled.php?server=717&filename=perspectivesun.png&res=landing)

Perspective cannot make the light literally come at you horizontally (or even from a point slightly below horizontal) if the Sun is 3100 miles above you.  The Sun itself is not only visible beneath the clouds, but the shadow of the mountain is being cast upwards, onto the clouds.  Perspective does not explain this. 

I really don't think it's worth debating with Tom. 
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 31, 2012, 01:28:24 PM
And how does Rowbotham explain the rays of light from the sun travelling parallel and upwards from the earth-plane's surface - given that they are not reflected?

They are traveling parallel to the earth's surface due to perspective. I see no evidence in your image that they are traveling upwards.

The entire cloud layer is illuminated from behind and beneith - look at the shadow of the mountain on the clouds.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 01:30:09 PM
Perspective cannot make the light literally come at you horizontally (or even from a point slightly below horizontal) if the Sun is 3100 miles above you.  The Sun itself is not only visible beneath the clouds, but the shadow of the mountain is being cast upwards, onto the clouds.  Perspective does not explain this. 

I really don't think it's worth debating with Tom.

A street light can project light onto you from directly above, when directly beneath it, or horizontally if the street light is off in the distance.

The sun is off in the distance during sunset, therefore it will project light horizontally.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 01:35:04 PM
And how does Rowbotham explain the rays of light from the sun travelling parallel and upwards from the earth-plane's surface - given that they are not reflected?

They are traveling parallel to the earth's surface due to perspective. I see no evidence in your image that they are traveling upwards.

The entire cloud layer is illuminated from behind and beneith - look at the shadow of the mountain on the clouds.

As this may be a very tall mountain and significantly above eye level of the observer, some of the sun's rays may be pointing upwards, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 31, 2012, 01:40:23 PM
And how does Rowbotham explain the rays of light from the sun travelling parallel and upwards from the earth-plane's surface - given that they are not reflected?

They are traveling parallel to the earth's surface due to perspective. I see no evidence in your image that they are traveling upwards.

The entire cloud layer is illuminated from behind and beneith - look at the shadow of the mountain on the clouds.

To the user's perspective the mountain is above the level of the horizon, and therefore above the eye level sun. Hence, the sun can cast an upwards shadow

Nope.

The Transit of Venus disproves Rowbotham's perspective. 

Also - if Rowbotham was correct the sun would always be above the clouds and the mountain.

To explain that picture you would need to demonstrate how light can curve upwards away from the surface of the earth.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on July 31, 2012, 01:41:53 PM
Samuel Rowbotham thinks the ground goes up away from the observer?

Look into the distance and notice that the lands beneath you seem to rise to the level of your eye.

(http://accuracyandaesthetics.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/singlepoint.jpg)

Appears to, yes, I'm asking if he says it actually DOES. But you won't answer that. So never mind.

Perspective cannot make the light literally come at you horizontally (or even from a point slightly below horizontal) if the Sun is 3100 miles above you.  The Sun itself is not only visible beneath the clouds, but the shadow of the mountain is being cast upwards, onto the clouds.  Perspective does not explain this. 

I really don't think it's worth debating with Tom.

A street light can project light onto you from directly above, when directly beneath it, or horizontally if the street light is off in the distance.

The sun is off in the distance during sunset, therefore it will project light horizontally.

However, a street light cannot project your shadow up onto a cloud that was directly above your head, unless the light itself was slightly lower than your head.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 02:00:31 PM
Nope.

The Transit of Venus disproves Rowbotham's perspective. 

Also - if Rowbotham was correct the sun would always be above the clouds and the mountain.

To explain that picture you would need to demonstrate how light can curve upwards away from the surface of the earth.

From the perspective of the cloud and the mountain, if you were to go up there, the sun would be a small ball on the horizon line. Hence the rays would not be coming from above.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 02:07:08 PM
However, a street light cannot project your shadow up onto a cloud that was directly above your head, unless the light itself was slightly lower than your head.

Again, in this case the mountain may be significantly tall, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.

Here is an illustration:

(http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1065/mountainp.png)
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on July 31, 2012, 02:07:56 PM
As this may be a very tall mountain and significantly above eye level of the observer, some of the sun's rays may be pointing upwards, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.

That is complete and utter rubbish. The clouds will be 1/1000 the altitude of the FE sun. Their altitude would be insignificant.  It only works if you don't understand geometry.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 31, 2012, 02:11:31 PM
Nope.

The Transit of Venus disproves Rowbotham's perspective. 

Also - if Rowbotham was correct the sun would always be above the clouds and the mountain.

To explain that picture you would need to demonstrate how light can curve upwards away from the surface of the earth.

From the perspective of the cloud and the mountain, if you were to go up there, the sun would be a small ball on the horizon line. Hence the rays would not be coming from above.

The Transit of Venus proves Rowbothams assertion of perspective false. 

If the sun is shining below you while on the top of that mountain it is because the sun is really below you on the top of that mountain.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 02:13:45 PM
As this may be a very tall mountain and significantly above eye level of the observer, some of the sun's rays may be pointing upwards, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.

That is complete and utter rubbish. The clouds will be 1/1000 the altitude of the FE sun. Their altitude would be insignificant.  It only works if you don't understand geometry.

Consider: You can stand under or near a streetlight, which is no more than 20 feet in height. While you are standing under the streetlight you can simultaneously be looking at a plane in the distance which is 10,000+ feet in height, the plane in the distance seemingly lower than the 20 foot tall streetlight. How is this possible?

Answer: Perspective.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on July 31, 2012, 02:27:28 PM
As this may be a very tall mountain and significantly above eye level of the observer, some of the sun's rays may be pointing upwards, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.

That is complete and utter rubbish. The clouds will be 1/1000 the altitude of the FE sun. Their altitude would be insignificant.  It only works if you don't understand geometry.

Consider: You can stand under or near a streetlight, which is no more than 20 feet in height. While you are standing under the streetlight you can simultaneously be looking at a plane in the distance which is 10,000+ feet in height, the plane in the distance seemingly lower than the 20 foot tall streetlight. How is this possible?

Answer: Perspective.

Again, rubbish. From the street light itself, the plane will still be above.  If the plane were to shine a laser light at the street lamp, it would not hit the underside of the lamp.

Your perspective diagram does not consider what the sun would look like from the position of the clouds. This is because it cannot be quantified and is only a first person depiction of a scene.  The irony is that you have been fooled by art school perspective, even though you denounce it regularly.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on July 31, 2012, 04:37:49 PM
to are you actually this stupid? im mean honestly really? im not even going to waste my time and draw you a picture. why is it that everybody apart from you can see that the suns light an not a be parallel and b bend upwards due to perspective. it doesnt matter if on a flat plane that the sun appears to be on the horizon. the light is still coming from above you. the angle may not be a steep but it is not parallel and it most definitely does not not bend upwards due to perspective, which is what is needed to light the whole underside of the plane and the trail it leaves behind. the illusion would be that the sun looks parallel. why cant you understand this?
im going to drop out of this thread now, i cant talk about this to a complete moron any more, you cant even understand how a magnifying glass works! the last time i checked i didnt see children burning ants with a projector!

the next sunny day hold your hand out and look at the under side and notice how its in shadow.

next time its night have a street lamp far away but so it still illuminates you and hold you hand out and repeat.

instead of pretending to do stuff be a real zetetic and do some bloody work for yourself and get your head out of the arse of a long dead debater that was wrong.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2012, 09:32:43 PM
As this may be a very tall mountain and significantly above eye level of the observer, some of the sun's rays may be pointing upwards, the sun being a small ball on the horizon line.

That is complete and utter rubbish. The clouds will be 1/1000 the altitude of the FE sun. Their altitude would be insignificant.  It only works if you don't understand geometry.

Consider: You can stand under or near a streetlight, which is no more than 20 feet in height. While you are standing under the streetlight you can simultaneously be looking at a plane in the distance which is 10,000+ feet in height, the plane in the distance seemingly lower than the 20 foot tall streetlight. How is this possible?

Answer: Perspective.

Again, rubbish. From the street light itself, the plane will still be above.  If the plane were to shine a laser light at the street lamp, it would not hit the underside of the lamp.


I do believe that light from the plane would hit the underside of a street lamp through perspective. Consider this thought experiment --

We have a flying saucer 5000 feet in altitude over our heads flying away from us.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jX8YGDdOp5g/Tc_oHuz4UbI/AAAAAAAAAB8/EwSGylbSrNU/s1600/High%2BTechnology%2Bat%2Bits%2BBest.png)

When the flying saucer is directly overhead of us and we look upwards  we are looking at it from the bottom and will see a circle. As the flying saucer moves away from us into the distance perspective will cause the saucer to slowly reorient itself to be parallel to the observer until, when sufficiently far, it will appear as if we are looking at the flying saucer from the side. Most people will agree that this will occur when a body passes by overhead and recedes into the distance.

But as we are looking at the saucer from the side in the distance, how can it be that we can see the top compartment bubble of the craft if the saucer it is 5000 feet above us? In order for us to see the top bubble of the flying saucer light must be passing from the top of the saucer to our eyes 5000 feet below. How could this be?

The answer is that the flying saucer is in the distance and perspective reoriented the flying saucer so that light rays could pass from the top of the flying saucer to observers 5000 feet below it.

In this same manner, due to the reorienting nature of perspective, light from a plane in the distance can hit the underside (but not opposite side) of a streetlight.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on July 31, 2012, 11:16:53 PM
(http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1065/mountainp.png)

There is something wrong with the clouds in this picture - lets see if you can figure out what it is.

hint - it has to do with perspective.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on August 01, 2012, 12:21:53 AM
I do believe that light from the plane would hit the underside of a street lamp through perspective. Consider this thought experiment --

We have a flying saucer 5000 feet in altitude over our heads flying away from us.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jX8YGDdOp5g/Tc_oHuz4UbI/AAAAAAAAAB8/EwSGylbSrNU/s1600/High%2BTechnology%2Bat%2Bits%2BBest.png)

When the flying saucer is directly overhead of us and we look upwards  we are looking at it from the bottom and will see a circle. As the flying saucer moves away from us into the distance perspective will cause the saucer to slowly reorient itself to be parallel to the observer until, when sufficiently far, it will appear as if we are looking at the flying saucer from the side. Most people will agree that this will occur when a body passes by overhead and recedes into the distance.

But as we are looking at the saucer from the side in the distance, how can it be that we can see the top compartment bubble of the craft if the saucer it is 5000 feet above us? In order for us to see the top bubble of the flying saucer light must be passing from the top of the saucer to our eyes 5000 feet below.

The answer is that the flying saucer is in the distance and perspective reoriented the flying saucer so that light rays could pass from the top of the flying saucer to observers 5000 feet below it.

In this same manner, light from a plane in the distance can hit the underside of a streetlight.

Tom, while I appreciate the time you have taken to set out this thought experiment, it does not follow that being able to see the top of the saucer at a distance means that laser light rays from a plane can bend around and strike the bottom of the street light from up above.  You have taking basic perspective properties and stretching them beyond reality.

Consider this thought experiment:  The pilot in the distant plane (at altitude) looks through a telescope at the street lamp.  He cannot see the under side of it because he is at a much greater height.  He shines a laser at the street light and observes the laser spotlight striking the top of the street light.  Because light travels in straight lines, in reality there is no way for the light to strike the bottom of the street light without bending, which is beyond reality.

Perspective is a first-person experience.  The street lights, clouds and mountains see the FE sun at almost the same elevation, because it is so far away.   You simply cannot use perspective lines to predict other objects' illumination.  You are taking art school perspective beyond its limits.

I cannot be bothered to draw a scale diagram. In any case it would be wasted on your dogmatic, impenetrable, fundamentalist beliefs.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 01, 2012, 05:57:43 AM
This is getting redundant. There's no point to this. Tom reported for trolling.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on August 01, 2012, 06:31:40 AM
This is getting redundant. There's no point to this. Tom reported for trolling.

For a troll, Tom sure goes to a lot of effort.  I think he's genuine.  Shoot me down in flames if you must.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 01, 2012, 08:37:49 AM
Whether he's genuine or not, his stubborness and stupidity amount to trolling, because he will not accept that he has been discounted and discredited, even if it's from several different angles, and even if it's by OTHER FE PROPONENTS.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on August 01, 2012, 08:51:17 AM
This is getting redundant. There's no point to this. Tom reported for trolling.

For a troll, Tom sure goes to a lot of effort.  I think he's genuine.  Shoot me down in flames if you must.

im starting to doubt that he is genuine. i thought he was a bit nutty before this thread. how can anyone take him seriously now?
well he tried to discredit my findings but discredited himself further.
funny thing is that if he was genuine he is sat there thinking we are all stupid!
i love it you can present somebody with observations that are made in the most zetetic of fashions and they can still deny that you are right and go out and make up reality to match their ideas. tom is a fraud, i said i wouldnt post in the thread again but i couldnt help myself.
i should just ignore the crazy man in the corner

you cant see the top of the alien space ship. you see some of the side and under side. mind you, you do have a magic telescope  ::)
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 01, 2012, 09:05:20 AM
I can't see the top of a flying saucer because I've never seen one. I've seen something flying up really high at night that was... strange. But not necessarily a saucer. So no, I cannot see the top of it.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on August 01, 2012, 05:47:56 PM
i have devised an experiment to do to debunk toms wild ideas. if i can get somebody to help me ill do it and post pictures.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2012, 07:54:35 PM

Tom, while I appreciate the time you have taken to set out this thought experiment, it does not follow that being able to see the top of the saucer at a distance means that laser light rays from a plane can bend around and strike the bottom of the street light from up above.  You have taking basic perspective properties and stretching them beyond reality.

I've provided illustrations for my explanation:

Firstly, it cannot be denied that when an overhead body flies into the distance, you will eventually be viewing its side.

(http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4225/ufofl.png)

In the above image the flying saucer recedes into the distance until, at a far off point, it appears that we are looking at it from the side. Perspective has reoriented the craft so that rays are reaching from the TOP bubble compartment of the saucer to our eyes, despite being at a lower altitude than the craft. If the cockpit had a clear glass window we could see inside.

Replacing the eye with a street light...

(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8205/ufo2s.png)

Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: garygreen on August 01, 2012, 09:40:13 PM
According to your drawing the saucer pilot would only be able to see the bottom edge of the profile of the lamp, not the underside of the lamp.  Even if the light rays were parallel in reality (they aren't), they wouldn't provide a line-of-sight to the underside of the lamp.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: squevil on August 01, 2012, 09:54:06 PM
tom thats a thought experiment. give me a few days and i can prove you wrong with photographic evidence.
of course we can see the side as you first stated. however you do not see under an object as you get further away.

have you done an experiment to show this already? and no using the sun does not count because you already presume that the earth is a plane so the experiment is void as a zetetic experiment.

im going to use a 5 mw green laser and try and put the dot on the underside of a sheet of card or something. i will hold the laser at about 5 feet 300 yards or so away with the card 6 inches off the floor. i can then demonstrate that you are mistaken.

i really feel sorry for you if you really believe what you post on this forum.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 01, 2012, 10:00:04 PM
This is getting redundant. There's no point to this. Tom reported for trolling.

Please don't abuse the report function.  Tom didn't break any rules in that post.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on August 02, 2012, 05:56:41 AM
..
..
..
Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

OK, we have different ideas of what streetlights look like.  I was assuming the streetlight had a flat underside.  Your diagram is correct for the type of street light that hangs down. 

Question: If the street has a flat bottom:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/v2tis9.png)  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 02, 2012, 06:10:19 AM
..
..
..
Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

OK, we have different ideas of what streetlights look like.  I was assuming the streetlight had a flat underside.  Your diagram is correct for the type of street light that hangs down. 

Question: If the street has a flat bottom:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/v2tis9.png)  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

His diagram is not correct. That's Like saying I can see the other side of a brick wall I'm looking at. Or the top of a plane when I'm under it. Or the other side of a car because I'm at an angle. Or If I shine a flashlight at the car, I'll be able to see what's on the other side. This does not make any sense.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on August 02, 2012, 07:14:05 AM
His diagram is not correct. That's Like saying I can see the other side of a brick wall I'm looking at. Or the top of a plane when I'm under it. Or the other side of a car because I'm at an angle. Or If I shine a flashlight at the car, I'll be able to see what's on the other side. This does not make any sense.

Tom's childish diagram is sufficiently crude to allow for the possibility that the "bulb" part of his streetlight hangs down below the "shade" part to allow a line of sight from a bog-standard flying saucer in the distance.

However things are so ill-defined (unzetetic?) that this is not clear.  I am trying to establish exactly what is going on, which without standard geometry is a challenge.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 02, 2012, 08:39:10 AM
His diagram is not correct. That's Like saying I can see the other side of a brick wall I'm looking at. Or the top of a plane when I'm under it. Or the other side of a car because I'm at an angle. Or If I shine a flashlight at the car, I'll be able to see what's on the other side. This does not make any sense.

Tom's childish diagram is sufficiently crude to allow for the possibility that the "bulb" part of his streetlight hangs down below the "shade" part to allow a line of sight from a bog-standard flying saucer in the distance.

However things are so ill-defined (unzetetic?) that this is not clear.  I am trying to establish exactly what is going on, which without standard geometry is a challenge.

Tom is trying to reinforce the fact that somehow a light above something will illuminate the bottom of the object, casting shadows upwards, by using twisting perspective rules to his own satisfaction in an attempt to fit his model. I can see some of the side of something that is above me if it is distant. I certainly cannot see the top of it. I cannot shine a light down on something and expect to illuminate the underside.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on August 02, 2012, 09:14:48 AM

Tom, while I appreciate the time you have taken to set out this thought experiment, it does not follow that being able to see the top of the saucer at a distance means that laser light rays from a plane can bend around and strike the bottom of the street light from up above.  You have taking basic perspective properties and stretching them beyond reality.

I've provided illustrations for my explanation:

Firstly, it cannot be denied that when an overhead body flies into the distance, you will eventually be viewing its side.

(http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4225/ufofl.png)

In the above image the flying saucer recedes into the distance until, at a far off point, it appears that we are looking at it from the side. Perspective has reoriented the craft so that rays are reaching from the TOP bubble compartment of the saucer to our eyes, despite being at a lower altitude than the craft. If the cockpit had a clear glass window we could see inside.

Replacing the eye with a street light...

(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8205/ufo2s.png)

Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

These diagrams are hilariously incorrect for many reasons - among them being that perspective does not automatically cause an object high above to physically drop in altitude as it moves away.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: markjo on August 02, 2012, 04:22:41 PM
I've provided illustrations for my explanation:

Firstly, it cannot be denied that when an overhead body flies into the distance, you will eventually be viewing its side.

(http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4225/ufofl.png)

Tom, you forgot to show the saucer getting smaller as it approaches its "vanishing point".  Also, the saucer would not linearly approach the observer's line of sight.  Rather, it would approach asymptotically.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Lorddave on August 02, 2012, 06:34:27 PM
These diagrams are hilariously incorrect for many reasons - among them being that perspective does not automatically cause an object high above to physically drop in altitude as it moves away.

Tom is right. An object will eventually be parallel to the viewer's eye level if it travels far enough. You would be able to see the side of an object at this point. This is because as the Earth curves the plane begins to sink below the horizon as it keeps the same altitude above the ground.

What Tom described is perfect round earth perspective for very distant objects.
On a flat Earth, the plane would shrink to the vanishing point in the middle of your vision, merging with the horizon but never being visible from the side.ike taking a picture and shrinking it down. This is called One-point perspective.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on August 03, 2012, 04:01:39 AM
..
..
..
Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

OK, we have different ideas of what streetlights look like.  I was assuming the streetlight had a flat underside.  Your diagram is correct for the type of street light that hangs down. 

Question: If the street has a flat bottom (which is parallel to the ground):
(http://i49.tinypic.com/v2tis9.png)  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

Tom, have you got an answer to my question above?
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 05:44:43 AM
These diagrams are hilariously incorrect for many reasons - among them being that perspective does not automatically cause an object high above to physically drop in altitude as it moves away.

Tom is right. An object will eventually be parallel to the viewer's eye level if it travels far enough. You would be able to see the side of an object at this point. This is because as the Earth curves the plane begins to sink below the horizon as it keeps the same altitude above the ground.

What Tom described is perfect round earth perspective for very distant objects.
On a flat Earth, the plane would shrink to the vanishing point in the middle of your vision, merging with the horizon but never being visible from the side.ike taking a picture and shrinking it down. This is called One-point perspective.

Well actually, you wouldn't see the side of the object still yet, because if this "saucer" operates anything like a real aircraft, it's underside must remain oriented towards the gravitational pull to maintain flight, or it will plummet out of the sky. You may see some of the side, but certainly not the whole side. Mostly you will see the bottom.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2012, 06:58:47 AM
..
..
..
Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

OK, we have different ideas of what streetlights look like.  I was assuming the streetlight had a flat underside.  Your diagram is correct for the type of street light that hangs down. 

Question: If the street has a flat bottom:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/v2tis9.png)  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

No, it wouldn't see the underside of that flat bottomed streetlight.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 03, 2012, 07:58:17 AM
..
..
..
Perspecitve, having reoriented the flying saucer to the side also allows the saucer to view the street lamp from the side. The flying saucer can see the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight, despite being at a higher altitude above it.

Hence, both objects seeing each other from the side, the UNDERSIDE of the streetlight can see the TOP bubble compartment of the flying saucer and vice-versa --- light rays are passing between those two areas.
 
If we were sitting in the bubble cockpit of the flying saucer we could take a laser and hit the underside of the streetlight. Light is passing between those two areas, otherwise we would not see it.

OK, we have different ideas of what streetlights look like.  I was assuming the streetlight had a flat underside.  Your diagram is correct for the type of street light that hangs down. 

Question: If the street has a flat bottom:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/v2tis9.png)  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

No, it wouldn't see the underside of that flat bottomed streetlight.

It wouldn't see the underside of a round bottomed one either. Not unless it was under it.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on August 03, 2012, 09:26:59 AM
Quote
Question: If the street has a flat bottom:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/v2tis9.png)  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

No, it wouldn't see the underside of that flat bottomed streetlight.

In that case please answer:

1.  Will the observer on the ground see the laser light hit the bottom of the streetlight?

2.  How do the setting sun's rays strike the bottom of clouds and also cause mountains to cast a shadow on the clouds?   (without bending)

Note:  From clouds position, the FE sun will be about 17 degrees in the sky, assuming the clouds are an an altitude of 1 mile and the sun is 10,000 miles away  tan-1( 2999/10000 ) =17 degrees.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Moon squirter on August 05, 2012, 10:36:56 AM
Quote
Question: If the street has a flat bottom:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/v2tis9.png)  Could a laser light from the cockpit of the distant flying saucer hit the underside of the streetlight under any circumstance?

No, it wouldn't see the underside of that flat bottomed streetlight.

In that case please answer:

1.  Will the observer on the ground see the laser light hit the bottom of the streetlight?

2.  How do the setting sun's rays strike the bottom of clouds and also cause mountains to cast a shadow on the clouds?   (without bending)

Note:  From clouds position, the FE sun will be about 17 degrees in the sky, assuming the clouds are an an altitude of 1 mile and the sun is 10,000 miles away  tan-1( 2999/10000 ) =17 degrees.

Tom, by ignoring these questions, I can only assume that you concede defeat and therefore admit FE sunsets and perspective "laws" are illogical and mathematically impossible (without bendy light).
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: ThinkingMan on August 06, 2012, 05:55:46 AM
This went well, I think.
Title: Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
Post by: Kendrick on August 07, 2012, 03:27:39 PM
These diagrams are hilariously incorrect for many reasons - among them being that perspective does not automatically cause an object high above to physically drop in altitude as it moves away.

Tom is right. An object will eventually be parallel to the viewer's eye level if it travels far enough. You would be able to see the side of an object at this point. This is because as the Earth curves the plane begins to sink below the horizon as it keeps the same altitude above the ground.

What Tom described is perfect round earth perspective for very distant objects.
On a flat Earth, the plane would shrink to the vanishing point in the middle of your vision, merging with the horizon but never being visible from the side.ike taking a picture and shrinking it down. This is called One-point perspective.

According to Rowbotham's perspective the horizon will always rise up to your eye level regardless of elevation, and the sun will sink down and meet the horizon at your eye level as it moves away.

What we really see is is that, using a theodolite, the horizon is at some point below eye-level depending on your altitude - and when the sun sets it actually sets below eye level as it meets the horizon.

Thus - Rowbotham's perpsective assertion is false as it does not reflect emprical observation and evidence.