The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Marciano on October 08, 2016, 08:36:46 PM

Title: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 08, 2016, 08:36:46 PM
(http://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/02/High-voltage-electrical-towers.jpg)

When I look down my street, the houses look smaller and smaller the further away they are.  I notice the same thing with telephone polls, trees and electrical towers.  However, if I walk down to where the last telephone poll looks like it is one inch tall, I find that it is still over 30 feet tall!  One way to explain this is that the earth is curving down;  another is that it is just an illusion, caused by our limited vision.  The second explanation seems to be correct, since a zoom lense will reveal the entire lenght of the tower, not just the top of it.  Moreover, with the naked eye, I can still see land and the top of the telephone pole, even though it appears to be only one inch tall!  So, it must be an illusion. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: IonSpen on October 08, 2016, 08:43:22 PM
This is the debate section, were you meaning this to be in complete nonsense? Because I have a feeling that's where it's headed..
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Crouton on October 08, 2016, 08:59:55 PM
You can restore it with a zoom lens?  What are you waiting for?!  Please post that video!  You would be the hero of the flat earth society.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Brouwer on October 08, 2016, 10:46:31 PM
another is that it is just an illusion, caused by our limited vision.  The second explanation seems to be correct, since a zoom lense will reveal the entire lenght of the tower, not just the top of it.  Moreover, with the naked eye, I can still see land and the top of the telephone pole, even though it appears to be only one inch tall!  So, it must be an illusion. 
So our limited vision suddently cut off at a very specific part of an object, that doesn't look any "smaller" (arc resolution) than the rest of it. And that doesn't corelate with the distance to the actual object itself.

How's that more correct?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 09, 2016, 12:20:27 AM
(http://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/02/High-voltage-electrical-towers.jpg)

When I look down my street, the houses look smaller and smaller the further away they are.  I notice the same thing with telephone polls, trees and electrical towers.  However, if I walk down to where the last telephone poll looks like it is one inch tall, I find that it is still over 30 feet tall!  One way to explain this is that the earth is curving down;  another is that it is just an illusion, caused by our limited vision.  The second explanation seems to be correct, since a zoom lense will reveal the entire lenght of the tower, not just the top of it.  Moreover, with the naked eye, I can still see land and the top of the telephone pole, even though it appears to be only one inch tall!  So, it must be an illusion.

Ever heard of perspective?

Perspective is simply the illusion that makes thinks further away seem smaller.

See in the Flat Earth'd own Wiki

No-one is pretending that the earth's curvature is going to show down the length of your street!

When I get time I'll dig up the reference in (yes, again) Rowbotham's Earth not a Globe for an explanation!
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on October 09, 2016, 08:43:47 PM
(http://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/02/High-voltage-electrical-towers.jpg)

When I look down my street, the houses look smaller and smaller the further away they are.  I notice the same thing with telephone polls, trees and electrical towers.  However, if I walk down to where the last telephone poll looks like it is one inch tall, I find that it is still over 30 feet tall!  One way to explain this is that the earth is curving down;  another is that it is just an illusion, caused by our limited vision.  The second explanation seems to be correct, since a zoom lense will reveal the entire lenght of the tower, not just the top of it.  Moreover, with the naked eye, I can still see land and the top of the telephone pole, even though it appears to be only one inch tall!  So, it must be an illusion.

Then why can't we restore the sun after it sets with a telescope?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: southern hemispherer on October 10, 2016, 05:27:53 AM


Then why can't we restore the sun after it sets with a telescope?

We can, by rising up high enough to negate the curve of the earth! Which is why sunlight will still hit the top of tall buildings for a while after their bottom floors are in shadow. Watch the sunset from the ground, then take an elevator to the top floor, especially easy in a place like Dubai where it is very flat and some building are really tall, and the sun will magically appear above the horizon again. (going up higher changes the laws of FE'ers perspective - it extends the vanishing point and magically makes something 6000 further miles away, as they say it is, rise up again)
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on October 10, 2016, 09:27:08 AM


Then why can't we restore the sun after it sets with a telescope?

We can, by rising up high enough to negate the curve of the earth! Which is why sunlight will still hit the top of tall buildings for a while after their bottom floors are in shadow. Watch the sunset from the ground, then take an elevator to the top floor, especially easy in a place like Dubai where it is very flat and some building are really tall, and the sun will magically appear above the horizon again. (going up higher changes the laws of FE'ers perspective - it extends the vanishing point and magically makes something 6000 further miles away, as they say it is, rise up again)

Oh I know about that. What I'm asking is someone at sea level after the sun sets restoring the sun with a telescope. No none has ever done it.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: IonSpen on October 10, 2016, 09:57:55 AM
Because a telescope totally destroys the "perspective" nonsense they like to use.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 10:28:30 AM
Then why can't we restore the sun after it sets with a telescope?

Magnifying the image of a setting (or a run after sunset) would also magnify the atmosphere, and other obstructions like trees and buildings, still rendering the sun darkened by the obstructions. A better approach would be to filter out the light that obstructs this way, only looking at higher energy particles - like gamma waves. In these tests, the sun is perfectly visible after sunset.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: frenat on October 12, 2016, 10:32:34 AM
Then why can't we restore the sun after it sets with a telescope?

Magnifying the image of a setting (or a run after sunset) would also magnify the atmosphere, and other obstructions like trees and buildings, still rendering the sun darkened by the obstructions. A better approach would be to filter out the light that obstructs this way, only looking at higher energy particles - like gamma waves. In these tests, the sun is perfectly visible after sunset.
But of course you can't link to these tests. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 10:42:25 AM
Uh, this took like 5 seconds on google to find. Is your google broke or are you just lazy?

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101 (http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101)

One of thousands of papers related to my point.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: frenat on October 12, 2016, 10:50:06 AM
Uh, this took like 5 seconds on google to find. Is your google broke or are you just lazy?

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101 (http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101)

One of thousands of papers related to my point.
That paper is not related to your point.

And it isn't my burden of proof.  YOUR point, YOUR responsibility to back it up.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 11:10:45 AM
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: frenat on October 12, 2016, 11:12:43 AM
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
obvious troll is obvious.

The paper does not support your point.  If you think it does then show why but you won't.

Google works fine for me but I'm not here to do YOUR work for you.   When YOU have a burden of proof, YOU need to do the work.  YOU are obviously avoiding it.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: IonSpen on October 12, 2016, 11:14:23 AM
Then why can't we restore the sun after it sets with a telescope?

Magnifying the image of a setting (or a run after sunset) would also magnify the atmosphere, and other obstructions like trees and buildings, still rendering the sun darkened by the obstructions. A better approach would be to filter out the light that obstructs this way, only looking at higher energy particles - like gamma waves. In these tests, the sun is perfectly visible after sunset.
And if there are no buildings or trees or other obstructions? Certainly you'd be able to bring the sun back into focus. Especially with today's modern scopes.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 11:21:58 AM
And if there are no buildings or trees or other obstructions? Certainly you'd be able to bring the sun back into focus. Especially with today's modern scopes.

yes, if you had no obstructions like the atmosphere, trees, buildings, or the flat ground accelerating through the path of the light.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on October 12, 2016, 12:41:26 PM
Then why can't we restore the sun after it sets with a telescope?

Magnifying the image of a setting (or a run after sunset) would also magnify the atmosphere, and other obstructions like trees and buildings, still rendering the sun darkened by the obstructions. A better approach would be to filter out the light that obstructs this way, only looking at higher energy particles - like gamma waves. In these tests, the sun is perfectly visible after sunset.

Your link above doesn't support your claim and I live near the beach. There isn't much obstructions to get in the way and even if they were we should be able to see to buildings by the shadow they create.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 12:45:23 PM
...except that it does. The data from that specialized telescope demonstrates the ability to image the sun at night
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 01:02:32 PM
...except that it does. The data from that specialized telescope demonstrates the ability to image the sun at night

Your claim was that gamma rays from the sun can be seen after sunset.

The paper you linked to was about detecting neutrinos (not gamma rays) coming from the earth (not the sun).
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 01:05:45 PM
...except that it does. The data from that specialized telescope demonstrates the ability to image the sun at night

Your claim was that gamma rays from the sun can be seen after sunset.

The paper you linked to was about detecting neutrinos (not gamma rays) coming from the earth (not the sun).

Neither of those are true. Let me know when you've discovered your logical error and are ready to pick this discussion up from where I left off.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 01:32:12 PM
...except that it does. The data from that specialized telescope demonstrates the ability to image the sun at night

Your claim was that gamma rays from the sun can be seen after sunset.

The paper you linked to was about detecting neutrinos (not gamma rays) coming from the earth (not the sun).

Neither of those are true. Let me know when you've discovered your logical error and are ready to pick this discussion up from where I left off.

1. Neutrinos are not high energy particles, nor are they particularly similar to gamma waves.
2. Borexino is indeed designed to detect neutrinos coming from the sun. However, the particular experiment you linked to specifically talks about detecting neutrinos coming from the mantle of the earth. Not the sun.

Even if you ignore these two issues with your statement, you still haven't established that the neutrinos are coming from a direction consistent with a flat earth. If they are indeed coming through the earth but originate from the sun, that would be evidence that the earth is round, not flat.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 01:35:22 PM
I think their data says enough. There's no reason for you to turn this into some kind of flame war.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 01:40:32 PM
I think their data says enough. There's no reason for you to turn this into some kind of flame war.

???
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: IonSpen on October 12, 2016, 06:41:12 PM
If you can see stars at night, which are farther away than the sun, then you'd be able to see the sun with a telescope. You just would. But, we don't. Also, the sun doesn't get smaller and smaller and smaller until it just fades away into nothing. It stays the same relative size all day long, until sunset. You can literally watch it go down behind the horizon - and if you're extra lucky, you'll get to see the green flash (if over water). Perspective does not explain the green flash.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 06:44:25 PM
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: IonSpen on October 12, 2016, 06:50:14 PM
Because the sun doesn't just all the sudden disappear into the atmosphere! That's why! According to what you're saying the sun would have to continually get smaller, but it doesn't. It just - disappears. Literally before you're eyes. 5 seconds after it's gone you're gonna sit there and say there's too much atmosphere obscuring it to be able to bring it back into view? Come on now. That's just nonsense.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 12, 2016, 06:51:45 PM
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 06:53:44 PM
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: IonSpen on October 12, 2016, 06:57:25 PM
HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA!!!
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ROUND EARTH!
Convex mirror reflecting starlight... Yes. All the evidence points straight to this. Wow.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 12, 2016, 06:59:24 PM
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Can you give another example of that?  I've never seen a thing that would magnify the apparent size of something the farther it got away from you.  How exactly does that work?  I also don't see how it then dips below the horizon.  Also how then does the light strike the top of a mountain at sunrise and leave it last at sunset.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 07:03:21 PM
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Can you give another example of that?  I've never seen a thing that would magnify the apparent size of something the farther it got away from you.  How exactly does that work?  I also don't see how it then dips below the horizon.  Also how then does the light strike the top of a mountain at sunrise and leave it last at sunset.

yeah, basically the light from the sun is focused at a > 0 degree angle, as it refracts through the humidity in our atmosphere it creates this optical illusion as well as rainbows. This effect is described in much more detail from Tom Bishop. You'll need to use the search tool to find additional reading. Fascinating stuff really.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: IonSpen on October 12, 2016, 07:08:46 PM
Are you a troll? Seriously. This is Flat Earth Scientist territory you're treading. Next you'll say the moon is dirty mirror, right?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 12, 2016, 07:13:23 PM
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Can you give another example of that?  I've never seen a thing that would magnify the apparent size of something the farther it got away from you.  How exactly does that work?  I also don't see how it then dips below the horizon.  Also how then does the light strike the top of a mountain at sunrise and leave it last at sunset.

yeah, basically the light from the sun is focused at a > 0 degree angle, as it refracts through the humidity in our atmosphere it creates this optical illusion as well as rainbows. This effect is described in much more detail from Tom Bishop. You'll need to use the search tool to find additional reading. Fascinating stuff really.
Yeah, that really doesn't explain it at all.  We can build lenses, I work with lenses for things like spot lights and stuff quite frequently.  I've never heard of an example of a lense that makes its source look bigger as it gets farther away.  Certainly there are lenses that spread the light over a wider area as it gets farther away.  Also this by no means explain the sun disappearing over the horizon, or light hitting the top of the mountain first in an exactly predictable manner.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 07:16:50 PM
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Can you give another example of that?  I've never seen a thing that would magnify the apparent size of something the farther it got away from you.  How exactly does that work?  I also don't see how it then dips below the horizon.  Also how then does the light strike the top of a mountain at sunrise and leave it last at sunset.

yeah, basically the light from the sun is focused at a > 0 degree angle, as it refracts through the humidity in our atmosphere it creates this optical illusion as well as rainbows. This effect is described in much more detail from Tom Bishop. You'll need to use the search tool to find additional reading. Fascinating stuff really.
Yeah, that really doesn't explain it at all.  We can build lenses, I work with lenses for things like spot lights and stuff quite frequently.  I've never heard of an example of a lense that makes its source look bigger as it gets farther away.  Certainly there are lenses that spread the light over a wider area as it gets farther away.  Also this by no means explain the sun disappearing over the horizon, or light hitting the top of the mountain first in an exactly predictable manner.

Who said it gets bigger as it gets further away?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: IonSpen on October 12, 2016, 07:20:11 PM
OK.. We get it. You're a troll. Not even a good one.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: sokarul on October 12, 2016, 07:23:57 PM
There is a reason why he left for so long.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 12, 2016, 07:25:01 PM
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Can you give another example of that?  I've never seen a thing that would magnify the apparent size of something the farther it got away from you.  How exactly does that work?  I also don't see how it then dips below the horizon.  Also how then does the light strike the top of a mountain at sunrise and leave it last at sunset.

yeah, basically the light from the sun is focused at a > 0 degree angle, as it refracts through the humidity in our atmosphere it creates this optical illusion as well as rainbows. This effect is described in much more detail from Tom Bishop. You'll need to use the search tool to find additional reading. Fascinating stuff really.
Yeah, that really doesn't explain it at all.  We can build lenses, I work with lenses for things like spot lights and stuff quite frequently.  I've never heard of an example of a lense that makes its source look bigger as it gets farther away.  Certainly there are lenses that spread the light over a wider area as it gets farther away.  Also this by no means explain the sun disappearing over the horizon, or light hitting the top of the mountain first in an exactly predictable manner.

Who said it gets bigger as it gets further away?
Perhaps I was unclear.  Perspective shows us that as an object moves farther away it appears smaller, eventually disappearing.  The sun, and the moon for that matter, do not do this as they supposedly follow their path across the flat earth sky.  They are moving farther away but not shrinking.  You said this is because the sun is really a convex lense focusing the light of the stars.  In order for the sun to appear the same size the lense would have to increase the apparent size of the source.  Make it appear bigger as it moves away.  Otherwise it would appear smaller, like everything else I have ever seen does.
And it still does not address the sun falling behind the horizon or rising from it.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 07:27:48 PM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: IonSpen on October 12, 2016, 07:32:21 PM
I'm sorry, but "atmoplane" does not appear to be a real word, but rather made up. So logic would follow anything else with atmoplane in it would be made up as well.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 07:36:06 PM
General Relativity was just a made up term at one time.  Do you think you are smarter than Einstein?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 07:37:21 PM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.

This is a very good point, I hope it doesn't get lost in all this noise.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 12, 2016, 07:37:52 PM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 07:39:35 PM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

I think it's the sun that will have to show you.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 12, 2016, 07:52:06 PM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

I think it's the sun that will have to show you.
It does.  It shows that the earth is most certainly round.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 07:54:32 PM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

I think it's the sun that will have to show you.
It does.  It shows that the earth is most certainly round.

Non sequitur
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 08:18:36 PM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.

I'm pretty sure this has been asked a bajillion times, give or take, and you have never answered it, but here's hoping...

How do we take into account atmoplanic lensing when discussing the angular size of the sun? Why does it cause the sun to appear the same size? Can you show us the math?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 08:37:44 PM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.

I'm pretty sure this has been asked a bajillion times, give or take, and you have never answered it, but here's hoping...

How do we take into account atmoplanic lensing when discussing the angular size of the sun? Why does it cause the sun to appear the same size? Can you show us the math?

It has been postulated that the atmoplanic lensing effect negates the change in angular size that one would expect due to perspective.  In this model, density changes in atmoplanic pressure combined with the natural curvature of the sky act similarly to a magnifying lens. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 09:03:27 PM
It has been postulated that the atmoplanic lensing effect negates the change in angular size that one would expect due to perspective. In this model, density changes in atmoplanic pressure combined with the natural curvature of the sky act similarly to a magnifying lens.

Ok, yes, I assumed it had to do with a lensing effect based on its name. You need to be more specific than that though. How does this magnifying effect allow it to be the same size no matter how far away it is? That isn't a normal property of any lens I have seen. (Hint: this is where you should start using math)

Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 09:30:13 PM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on October 12, 2016, 09:33:21 PM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

I think it's the sun that will have to show you.
It does.  It shows that the earth is most certainly round.

Non sequitur

Same as yours.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 12, 2016, 10:05:13 PM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2016, 10:20:20 PM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: disputeone on October 12, 2016, 10:44:13 PM
My piece of paper caught fire..

Damn you jroa.

Maybe an indoor experiment then.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 13, 2016, 12:04:24 AM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!

Good job! Baby's first experiment! Next steps:

1. How precise were your measurements of the size of the text? Are you sure it was the same size, or did you just get lucky by testing a small range of scenarios?
2. Were other people also able to see the text as the same size from different angles and distances? Remember, this has to work from any direction/distance.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 13, 2016, 01:47:42 AM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

I think it's the sun that will have to show you.
It does.  It shows that the earth is most certainly round.

Non sequitur
Not at all.  It was a direct response to your statement.  It's the sun that will have to show you.  Every observable phenomenon of the sun shows me the earth is round.  Sunsets, sun rises, the way light hits the top of the mountain first and leaves it last.  The fact that the sun does not change shape throughout the day, it certainly doesn't get smaller as it dips below the horizon. All of these things show me the earth is round.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2016, 01:53:15 AM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!

Good job! Baby's first experiment! Next steps:

1. How precise were your measurements of the size of the text? Are you sure it was the same size, or did you just get lucky by testing a small range of scenarios?
2. Were other people also able to see the text as the same size from different angles and distances? Remember, this has to work from any direction/distance.

1.  I repeated the experiment.  This time I made a slight alteration.  I used two pieces of paper with the exact same font and viewed the exact same letter: a capitol E.  One piece was held against the lens and the other approximately 1 m away.  The lens remained at approximately 0.25 m.  I compared the E at 0.25 m to the one at 1 m, and to the naked eye, there was no discernible difference in apparent size between the two.  I then repeated it with the same papers and distances without the lens.  The farther letter appeared to be about half the width and height of the nearer letter.  I can try to repeat the experiment tonight and post a picture, but I do not have time this morning to mess with it. 

2.  I don't know what other people could have been able to see if anyone else had been there.  I was by myself at work. 

While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 13, 2016, 03:18:09 AM
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.

I'm pretty sure this has been asked a bajillion times, give or take, and you have never answered it, but here's hoping...

How do we take into account atmoplanic lensing when discussing the angular size of the sun? Why does it cause the sun to appear the same size? Can you show us the math?

It has been postulated that the atmoplanic lensing effect negates the change in angular size that one would expect due to perspective.  In this model, density changes in atmoplanic pressure combined with the natural curvature of the sky act similarly to a magnifying lens.

Are you joking there is no "the natural curvature of the sky" on the Flat Earth.

As you describe these layers, they are planar.

But any effect caused by the atmosphere would also vary with different atmospheric conditions. No such variation is observed, except close to the horizon,.

The sun stays the same size and the moon almost the same size every day (or night).
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: markjo on October 13, 2016, 09:51:42 AM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.
Except that most trig functions are not linear.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: markjo on October 13, 2016, 10:13:06 AM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Except that it isn't anywhere close to observing the sun as it moves across the sky.

First of all, a magnifying glass is a convex lens, the atmoplane is flat.

Secondly, as the sun moves across the sky, the angle to the observer constantly changes.  Your "experiment" did not include that.

Thirdly, I have a hard time believing that the text didn't go in and out of focus as you moved the paper away from the magnifying glass.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 13, 2016, 12:52:10 PM
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

Magnification that increases linearly with distance is not the controversial point. I'm pretty sure most microscopes have that property within a limited range of focus. (Might be wrong about that. My knowledge of optics is a bit fuzzy... hehe.)

The controversial point is being able to produce the appropriate magnification and focus for anyone on earth from any angle and distance regardless of weather. That's the kicker.

To be clear, I don't expect you to go out and do an experiment that proves/disproves your theory in a single day. That is no small task. However, I think you are jumping the gun a bit. You expect others to "take into account atmoplanic lensing" before it has even been shown to be possible. We don't even know how it would work. How on earth can we take it into account?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 13, 2016, 02:34:43 PM
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

Magnification that increases linearly with distance is not the controversial point. I'm pretty sure most microscopes have that property within a limited range of focus. (Might be wrong about that. My knowledge of optics is a bit fuzzy... hehe.)

The controversial point is being able to produce the appropriate magnification and focus for anyone on earth from any angle and distance regardless of weather. That's the kicker.

To be clear, I don't expect you to go out and do an experiment that proves/disproves your theory in a single day. That is no small task. However, I think you are jumping the gun a bit. You expect others to "take into account atmoplanic lensing" before it has even been shown to be possible. We don't even know how it would work. How on earth can we take it into account?
Thank you for making that more clear.  I did a pretty poor job of explaining the problem I had with whole lense is a sun system.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2016, 04:26:16 PM
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

Magnification that increases linearly with distance is not the controversial point. I'm pretty sure most microscopes have that property within a limited range of focus. (Might be wrong about that. My knowledge of optics is a bit fuzzy... hehe.)

The controversial point is being able to produce the appropriate magnification and focus for anyone on earth from any angle and distance regardless of weather. That's the kicker.

To be clear, I don't expect you to go out and do an experiment that proves/disproves your theory in a single day. That is no small task. However, I think you are jumping the gun a bit. You expect others to "take into account atmoplanic lensing" before it has even been shown to be possible. We don't even know how it would work. How on earth can we take it into account?

Well, your major objection to the proposed model was simply, "Nah uh, lenses don't work like that."  So, I conducted a rudimentary experiment to see if lenses do, in fact, work like that.  The results of the experiment seem to lean towards the "Yeah huh, lenses do in fact act like that" side. 

You can easily recreate this experiment yourself!  Oh, I forget that you people do not actually perform science, you simply read it out of a book and regurgitate it all over my computer screen.  My bad.  For a moment, I thought I was conversing with adults.   :-\
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2016, 04:31:46 PM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Except that it isn't anywhere close to observing the sun as it moves across the sky.

First of all, a magnifying glass is a convex lens, the atmoplane is flat.

Secondly, as the sun moves across the sky, the angle to the observer constantly changes.  Your "experiment" did not include that.

Thirdly, I have a hard time believing that the text didn't go in and out of focus as you moved the paper away from the magnifying glass.

I was specifically asked to explain how a lens could possibly act in the manner in which the theory describes.  I conducted an experiment and found that the single lens that I used did, in fact, act in the manner that the model describes.  Don't be so butt hurt about it.  If you think I am lying, do the experiment yourself.  The lens I used was a 2X.  Don't cry to me when you won't even get out of your armchair to recreate an experiment that costs less than $2. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 13, 2016, 04:39:55 PM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Interesting.  I put on reading glasses, which I believe are essentially magnifying lenses.  Held paper fairly close to my face, also holding a bit of wire which I bent to be the height of the letters.  I then moved the paper away to arms length and, sure enough, the text had appeared to shrink considerably.
Isn't that basically what you did?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2016, 04:44:49 PM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Interesting.  I put on reading glasses, which I believe are essentially magnifying lenses.  Held paper fairly close to my face, also holding a bit of wire which I bent to be the height of the letters.  I then moved the paper away to arms length and, sure enough, the text had appeared to shrink considerably.
Isn't that basically what you did?

Yes, basically.  Try holding the glasses approximately 0.25 m away and try it again.  I am curious to see if others get the same results I got. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 13, 2016, 04:47:26 PM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Interesting.  I put on reading glasses, which I believe are essentially magnifying lenses.  Held paper fairly close to my face, also holding a bit of wire which I bent to be the height of the letters.  I then moved the paper away to arms length and, sure enough, the text had appeared to shrink considerably.
Isn't that basically what you did?

Yes, basically.  Try holding the glasses approximately 0.25 m away and try it again.  I am curious to see if others get the same results I got.
Same thing.  Text shrinks quite a bit
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 13, 2016, 04:53:41 PM
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

Magnification that increases linearly with distance is not the controversial point. I'm pretty sure most microscopes have that property within a limited range of focus. (Might be wrong about that. My knowledge of optics is a bit fuzzy... hehe.)

The controversial point is being able to produce the appropriate magnification and focus for anyone on earth from any angle and distance regardless of weather. That's the kicker.

To be clear, I don't expect you to go out and do an experiment that proves/disproves your theory in a single day. That is no small task. However, I think you are jumping the gun a bit. You expect others to "take into account atmoplanic lensing" before it has even been shown to be possible. We don't even know how it would work. How on earth can we take it into account?

Well, your major objection to the proposed model was simply, "Nah uh, lenses don't work like that."  So, I conducted a rudimentary experiment to see if lenses do, in fact, work like that.  The results of the experiment seem to lean towards the "Yeah huh, lenses do in fact act like that" side. 

My first reply was a bit vague, but I later clarified the requirements for such a phenomenon. Points 2 and 3 are just as important as point 1.

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

Quote
You can easily recreate this experiment yourself!  Oh, I forget that you people do not actually perform science, you simply read it out of a book and regurgitate it all over my computer screen.  My bad.  For a moment, I thought I was conversing with adults.   :-\

First of all, I actually did the exact same thing you did. I took out a magnifying glass that happened to be sitting in my desk and looked at stuff from varying distances. Rough observation seemed to indicate that stuff got bigger at a nonlinear rate with distance (keeping eye-lens distance the same), before going out of focus. However, I originally didn't bring this up for 2 reasons:

1. I didn't test a wide range of distances, nor did I measure with much accuracy. Also, my magnifying glass is incredibly smudged. :(
2. I am aware there are a wide range of lens shapes, and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

But by all means, keep calling me childish for expecting at least a minimum level of competency.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2016, 05:24:24 PM
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

Magnification that increases linearly with distance is not the controversial point. I'm pretty sure most microscopes have that property within a limited range of focus. (Might be wrong about that. My knowledge of optics is a bit fuzzy... hehe.)

The controversial point is being able to produce the appropriate magnification and focus for anyone on earth from any angle and distance regardless of weather. That's the kicker.

To be clear, I don't expect you to go out and do an experiment that proves/disproves your theory in a single day. That is no small task. However, I think you are jumping the gun a bit. You expect others to "take into account atmoplanic lensing" before it has even been shown to be possible. We don't even know how it would work. How on earth can we take it into account?

Well, your major objection to the proposed model was simply, "Nah uh, lenses don't work like that."  So, I conducted a rudimentary experiment to see if lenses do, in fact, work like that.  The results of the experiment seem to lean towards the "Yeah huh, lenses do in fact act like that" side. 

My first reply was a bit vague, but I later clarified the requirements for such a phenomenon. Points 2 and 3 are just as important as point 1.

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

Quote
You can easily recreate this experiment yourself!  Oh, I forget that you people do not actually perform science, you simply read it out of a book and regurgitate it all over my computer screen.  My bad.  For a moment, I thought I was conversing with adults.   :-\

First of all, I actually did the exact same thing you did. I took out a magnifying glass that happened to be sitting in my desk and looked at stuff from varying distances. Rough observation seemed to indicate that stuff got bigger at a nonlinear rate with distance (keeping eye-lens distance the same), before going out of focus. However, I originally didn't bring this up for 2 reasons:

1. I didn't test a wide range of distances, nor did I measure with much accuracy. Also, my magnifying glass is incredibly smudged. :(
2. I am aware there are a wide range of lens shapes, and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

But by all means, keep calling me childish for expecting at least a minimum level of competency.

Well, for me, the text stayed the same with distance; for Badxtoss, the text shrank; and for you the text got bigger.  I think the only thing that we can conclude from these results is that we can no longer make blanket statements about how optics works. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 13, 2016, 06:11:27 PM
Yes, basically.  Try holding the glasses approximately 0.25 m away and try it again.  I am curious to see if others get the same results I got.

Lenses require curved surfaces or at least curved interfaces between your atmoplanic layers.

You have not yet explained how you would ever get these curved surfaces on a plane earth.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2016, 06:18:45 PM
Yes, basically.  Try holding the glasses approximately 0.25 m away and try it again.  I am curious to see if others get the same results I got.

Lenses require curved surfaces or at least curved interfaces between your atmoplanic layers.

You have not yet explained how you would ever get these curved surfaces on a plane earth.

Pancakes, despite being known for being flat, are actually quit curved.  I can't believe that I have to explain to you how pancakes work, rab.  Perhaps I can tutor you on basic algebra next? 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: markjo on October 13, 2016, 09:38:10 PM
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Except that it isn't anywhere close to observing the sun as it moves across the sky.

First of all, a magnifying glass is a convex lens, the atmoplane is flat.

Secondly, as the sun moves across the sky, the angle to the observer constantly changes.  Your "experiment" did not include that.

Thirdly, I have a hard time believing that the text didn't go in and out of focus as you moved the paper away from the magnifying glass.

I was specifically asked to explain how a lens could possibly act in the manner in which the theory describes.  I conducted an experiment and found that the single lens that I used did, in fact, act in the manner that the model describes.  Don't be so butt hurt about it.  If you think I am lying, do the experiment yourself.  The lens I used was a 2X.  Don't cry to me when you won't even get out of your armchair to recreate an experiment that costs less than $2.
Actually, your theory says that "The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses."  Your "experiment" did not take into account the viewing angle changing as the text moves across the lens. 

Protip: If you want to do "science", then at least try to make sure that your "experiment" is actually relevant to the theory that you're testing.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 13, 2016, 11:06:38 PM
Yes, basically.  Try holding the glasses approximately 0.25 m away and try it again.  I am curious to see if others get the same results I got.

Lenses require curved surfaces or at least curved interfaces between your atmoplanic layers.

You have not yet explained how you would ever get these curved surfaces on a plane earth.

Pancakes, despite being known for being flat, are actually quit curved.  I can't believe that I have to explain to you how pancakes work, rab.  Perhaps I can tutor you on basic algebra next?

What has the curvature of pancakes got to do with your atmoplanes.
Next you'll be comparing the atmosphere to a stack of pancakes - I want mine with maple syrup, but hold the bacon an eggs - yes, I've tried that too.

But, are you one claiming now that your flat earth is curved? How much?

And, no you cannot "tutor" me "on basic algebra". Where on esrth would "basic algebra" come into the curvature of your atmoplanes?

Have your used your basic algebra to prove that the apparent size of the sun will remain constant all day from sunrise to sunset?

In doing your calculations,  remember that
          the refractive index of air (near sea-level) is only 1.000277,
          the effective thickness of the atmosphere is less than 10 km[1] and
          your "lens" has to cover the whole earth.
Mind you, I don't know how it's going get on near the Antarctic circle where the sun can rise due South in summer.

That's your problem. I guess you can just deny that it happens.

[1] If it helps, the atmosphere is a little thinner over the pole, especially the South Pole.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 14, 2016, 12:58:50 PM
Well, for me, the text stayed the same with distance; for Badxtoss, the text shrank; and for you the text got bigger.  I think the only thing that we can conclude from these results is that we can no longer make blanket statements about how optics works.

Yes, there are many different types of lens. You can make a lot of crazy things happen with them if you are creative. That still doesn't bring us any closer to knowing whether "atmoplanic lensing" is possible or how it works. I am not claiming that "atmoplanic lensing" is completely 100% impossible. I just think it is extremely unlikely based on points 2 and 3 that I listed above. And until such a time as it has been shown to be physically possible, it is unreasonable of you to expect people to take it seriously.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 14, 2016, 02:34:13 PM
Well, for me, the text stayed the same with distance; for Badxtoss, the text shrank; and for you the text got bigger.  I think the only thing that we can conclude from these results is that we can no longer make blanket statements about how optics works.

Yes, there are many different types of lens. You can make a lot of crazy things happen with them if you are creative. That still doesn't bring us any closer to knowing whether "atmoplanic lensing" is possible or how it works. I am not claiming that "atmoplanic lensing" is completely 100% impossible. I just think it is extremely unlikely based on points 2 and 3 that I listed above. And until such a time as it has been shown to be physically possible, it is unreasonable of you to expect people to take it seriously.

At the risk of being accused of copying Ski, I would like to point out that your most educated roundly scientists can not explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is or how it works; only that it must exist in order for their model of the universe to mathmatically work.  I don't see you accusing them of lying simply because they have no other evidence.  Why are we held to a different standard?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TotesReptilian on October 14, 2016, 03:57:54 PM
Well, for me, the text stayed the same with distance; for Badxtoss, the text shrank; and for you the text got bigger.  I think the only thing that we can conclude from these results is that we can no longer make blanket statements about how optics works.

Yes, there are many different types of lens. You can make a lot of crazy things happen with them if you are creative. That still doesn't bring us any closer to knowing whether "atmoplanic lensing" is possible or how it works. I am not claiming that "atmoplanic lensing" is completely 100% impossible. I just think it is extremely unlikely based on points 2 and 3 that I listed above. And until such a time as it has been shown to be physically possible, it is unreasonable of you to expect people to take it seriously.

At the risk of being accused of copying Ski, I would like to point out that your most educated roundly scientists can not explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is or how it works; only that it must exist in order for their model of the universe to mathmatically work.  I don't see you accusing them of lying simply because they have no other evidence.  Why are we held to a different standard?

First of all, I did not accuse you of lying. Second of all, I constantly see flat earthers complain about modern scientists being incompetent, unethical, etc... so why are you using what you perceive to be their low standards as an excuse for your own? If you want to make a point, take the high road. Don't make excuses.

But anyway, what is the difference between the theories of dark matter and atmoplanic lensing? (I'll focus on dark matter specifically, so we don't get dark matter/energy tangled up. They are two different things.)

First, the similarities:

1. Both are proposed solutions to explain observations that don't seem to agree with a theory.
2. Neither have much (if any) direct physical evidence to support them.
3. We don't know exactly what dark matter or the atmoplanic lens is made of. We know that dark matter contains mass, which affects gravity, and we know the atmoplanic lens must be made of some refractory material, which affects the trajectory of light.
4. I don't think anyone is claiming either as 100% fact. There are alternative theories to dark matter being pursued.

Next, the major differences:

1. Scientists propose very specific distributions of dark matter that would allow observations to make sense. Yes, these proposed distributions are very ad hoc, but that's not the point. The point is that we can test whether or not these distributions would actually satisfy observations. This shows that the theory is possible, if not plausible. On the other hand, you have proposed no such arrangement of refractory material that would mathematically result in our observations. The most specific description I have seen is "atmoplanic layers". That doesn't help us much. You need to give us a specific configuration of refractory material that we can use to make specific calculations. How can we possibly test whether the theory is correct if we don't have anything to test???

2. Dark matter is an explanation of a phenomenon we have observed from across the universe. As much as we know about the universe, there is just as much we don't know. It's not like we can stroll across the universe and take a look. It is perfectly reasonable to expect some observations to be difficult to explain. Given the massive number of phenomenon that general relativity DOES explain, dark matter is a rather small exception to the rule. On the other hand, the theory of the flat earth needs a different dark-matter-like theory to explain practically every single observation. Atmoplanic lensing, celestial gravitation, shadow object, alternative theories of perspective... and the list goes on and on. The ONLY observation that flat earth theory correctly explains without the need of some "dark-matter-like" theory is that the horizon looks flat from ground level. If general relativity only predicted ONE correct observation, and needed "dark-matter-like" theories to explain everything else, it would be abandoned at the drop of a hat.

So no, I am not holding you to a different standard. If anything, I do my best to hold other peoples' arguments to a lower standard than my own. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. You aren't making it easy though.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 14, 2016, 06:53:58 PM
At the risk of being accused of copying Ski, I would like to point out that your most educated roundly scientists can not explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is or how it works; only that it must exist in order for their model of the universe to mathmatically work.  I don't see you accusing them of lying simply because they have no other evidence.  Why are we held to a different standard?

Simply because the Heliocentric Globe Earth does not in any way depend on "Dark Energy or Dark Matter". Whether or not "Dark Energy or Dark Matter" would have no discernable effect within the Solar System.

In fact, the Globe was well accepted over 2,000 years ago, the Heliocentric Globe some 300-400 years ago, long long before "Dark Energy or Dark Matter" were of.
And even now "Dark Energy or Dark Matter" are still hypotheses and other possibilities are being considered.

So, that is why you are held to a higher standard, your whole model comes to a halt without something to power this Universal Acceleration.
Then having proposed this "Dark Energy" you have to explain how the celestial objects remain precisely in there places.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 14, 2016, 07:00:06 PM
While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible.

No, it demonstrated nothing about "atmoplanic lensing".

All it showed is that glass or plastic lenses can produce a virtual image whose size increases with distance, well we all knew that.

You have never demonstrated how plane layers of air of varying refractive indices can magnify.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2016, 02:47:43 AM
You people always get so upset when evidence is presented that crushes your view of the shape of the.Earth. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: johnnyorbital on October 16, 2016, 03:15:05 AM
has atmoplane lensing been used in the past to prove anything?

has it itself been proven?

I'm not dismissing, I've just never heard of it before the flat earth faith

if it's made up, it can't really be used to disprove anything, like sandokhan's imaginary slightly transparent extra celestial body causing the lunar eclipse, it's never been witnessed, never been proven, the evidence proving alternative reasons work perfectly under testing and have been documented many times

making something up is NOT providing evidence, just saying
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: johnnyorbital on October 16, 2016, 03:17:32 AM
You people always get so upset when evidence is presented that crushes your view of the shape of the.Earth.

FYI the shape of the earth has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a globe, WITHOUT citing nasa

no flat earth 'proofs' come close to proving anything without being coupled with huge amounts of cognitive dissonance

your claim is baseless
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2016, 03:21:07 AM
So butt-hurt
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: johnnyorbital on October 16, 2016, 03:49:58 AM
So butt-hurt

So lacking in substance

at no point has ANY evidence been presented that crushes the globe

yet there's plenty IRREFUTABLY disproving the flat earth faith

lunar eclipses (I've explained to you previously) prove our shape 100%

sunsets/sunrises also prove it (yeah yeah, you made up atmoplane lensing but as it's made up, how can you expect us to take it serious?)

the north star disappearing below the horizon once you get so far south is also IRREFUTABLE


so come on genius, for once, how about a little SUBSTANCE (I'm not holding my breath)
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2016, 04:15:30 AM
You people always get so upset when evidence is presented that crushes your view of the shape of the.Earth.
I haven't seen any "evidence ...  presented that crushes" my "view of the shape of the.Earth" that even dents my view the slightest.

 :P Atmoplanar  :P sure isn't going to.

The whole flat earth idea seems to "the earth looks flat, so it must be flat", then having to invent explanations for all the observations that fit simply into heliocentric globe theory. It would have been much more logical to defer the decision on the Earth's shape till more evidence was in. Of course this is what happened over the history that lead to the heliocentric globe model.

Still I'll grant you we do see some imaginative ideas crop up. Pity they don't have any evidence to support them.

I find it hard to decide whether you atmoplanic lensing is more or less illogical than:
From Chapter 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe we read:
Quote:
"IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour.
"
- Samuel Birley Rowbotham

What you and Rowbotham seem to have ignored is the simple fact that we see every day the sun keeping the same almost precisely the same size, gradually increasing to a maximum in January, then gradually reducing to a minimum in July, with an overall change of about 4%.

All quite predictable and explainable and not dependent in any way on variable conditions, other than distortions near the horizon at sunset and sunrise.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: johnnyorbital on October 16, 2016, 04:27:06 AM
I STAND CORRECTED!!!

Jroa - yes, once, a picture WAS posted that absolutely 100% crushed the globe











..when rabinoz posted a picture of a crushed globe ;)
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 16, 2016, 05:00:56 AM
You people always get so upset when evidence is presented that crushes your view of the shape of the.Earth.
I don't think that's a fair statement since I can't honestly say I've ever seen that happen.  I've seen flat eatherers come up with some very interesting theories to explain things but I've never seen them come up with anything that wasn't more simply explained with a round earth.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Globetrotter on October 16, 2016, 05:05:15 AM
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.

Which sentence is true?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2016, 05:09:11 AM
I STAND CORRECTED!!!

Jroa - yes, once, a picture WAS posted that absolutely 100% crushed the globe

..when rabinoz posted a picture of a crushed globe ;)

I'd forgotten about that  ;) You've a better memory than me, Gunga Din  ;)
                                                                                   With apologies to Rudyard Kipling
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2016, 05:13:28 AM
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.

Which sentence is true?

If "narcberry" wrote it my money's on neither being true.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2016, 10:34:06 AM
You people always get so upset when evidence is presented that crushes your view of the shape of the.Earth.
Well, we might if anyone should present such evidence.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2016, 02:18:48 PM
It would be benificial to not simply dismiss evidence out of hand.  You know, like a grownup. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2016, 02:50:23 PM
It would be benificial to not simply dismiss evidence out of hand.  You know, like a grownup.
Evidence, what evidence?

I have seen a lot of guesses and hypotheses, but evidence?

Oh, sorry, I forgot "the earth looks flat".

Mind you the pancake sure doesn't look flat. Kansas is sure flatter than that.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: markjo on October 16, 2016, 03:38:02 PM
It would be benificial to not simply dismiss evidence out of hand.  You know, like a grownup.
Why not?  FE'ers dismiss RE evidence out of hand all the time.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: narcberry on October 16, 2016, 04:34:33 PM
Another victory for FE!!!
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Badxtoss on October 16, 2016, 05:23:40 PM
Another victory for FE!!!
You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2016, 06:53:08 PM
It would be benificial to not simply dismiss evidence out of hand.  You know, like a grownup.
Evidence, what evidence?

I have seen a lot of guesses and hypotheses, but evidence?

Oh, sorry, I forgot "the earth looks flat".

Mind you the pancake sure doesn't look flat. Kansas is sure flatter than that.

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Copper Knickers on October 17, 2016, 08:32:25 AM
(http://images-assets.nasa.gov/image/PIA00122/PIA00122~orig.jpg)

Another victory for FE!!!
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 17, 2016, 04:44:37 PM
It would be benificial to not simply dismiss evidence out of hand.  You know, like a grownup.
Evidence, what evidence?

I have seen a lot of guesses and hypotheses, but evidence?

Oh, sorry, I forgot "the earth looks flat".

Mind you the pancake sure doesn't look flat. Kansas is sure flatter than that.

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means
Well, clearly neither you nor "the nark" know what victory means!

Nark presents "pronouncements", jroa presents "hypotheses" and nark claims "clear victory for FE" - really?

Now, evidence means some observations or measurements than back of these "pronouncements" and "hypotheses" that would make them better explanations than we have.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 12:27:22 PM
General Relativity was just a made up term at one time.  Do you think you are smarter than Einstein?

(https://freedomshammer.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/abbott-and-costello-meet-frankenstein31.jpg)

I think Einstein is an extremely over-rated con artist! 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 12:42:20 PM
Uh, this took like 5 seconds on google to find. Is your google broke or are you just lazy?

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101 (http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101)

One of thousands of papers related to my point.
That paper is not related to your point.

And it isn't my burden of proof.  YOUR point, YOUR responsibility to back it up.

That's convenient!   ::)
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 12:43:39 PM
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
obvious troll is obvious.

The paper does not support your point.  If you think it does then show why but you won't.

Google works fine for me but I'm not here to do YOUR work for you.   When YOU have a burden of proof, YOU need to do the work.  YOU are obviously avoiding it.

You say it doesn't, so why not? 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: frenat on October 27, 2016, 12:45:04 PM
Uh, this took like 5 seconds on google to find. Is your google broke or are you just lazy?

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101 (http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101)

One of thousands of papers related to my point.
That paper is not related to your point.

And it isn't my burden of proof.  YOUR point, YOUR responsibility to back it up.

That's convenient!   ::)
Convenient that he quoted a paper that doesn't back him up?  Or that he can't back up his own point?  Both are HIS failings.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: frenat on October 27, 2016, 12:46:20 PM
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
obvious troll is obvious.

The paper does not support your point.  If you think it does then show why but you won't.

Google works fine for me but I'm not here to do YOUR work for you.   When YOU have a burden of proof, YOU need to do the work.  YOU are obviously avoiding it.

You say it doesn't, so why not?

Have you bothered to read the discussion and the following posts that talk about it?  It was already said multiple times why it doesn't support his point.  Do you understand the written word or do you frequently need someone to hold your hand?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 12:48:05 PM
Because the sun doesn't just all the sudden disappear into the atmosphere! That's why! According to what you're saying the sun would have to continually get smaller, but it doesn't. It just - disappears. Literally before you're eyes. 5 seconds after it's gone you're gonna sit there and say there's too much atmosphere obscuring it to be able to bring it back into view? Come on now. That's just nonsense.

Everything else appears smaller and smaller as it moves away.  So, why shouldn't the sun too?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 12:53:24 PM
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
obvious troll is obvious.

The paper does not support your point.  If you think it does then show why but you won't.

Google works fine for me but I'm not here to do YOUR work for you.   When YOU have a burden of proof, YOU need to do the work.  YOU are obviously avoiding it.

You say it doesn't, so why not?

Have you bothered to read the discussion and the following posts that talk about it?  It was already said multiple times why it doesn't support his point.  Do you understand the written word or do you frequently need someone to hold your hand?

Are you kidding?  Do you really think anybody takes all that gobbly gook seriously! 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: frenat on October 27, 2016, 01:00:24 PM
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
obvious troll is obvious.

The paper does not support your point.  If you think it does then show why but you won't.

Google works fine for me but I'm not here to do YOUR work for you.   When YOU have a burden of proof, YOU need to do the work.  YOU are obviously avoiding it.

You say it doesn't, so why not?

Have you bothered to read the discussion and the following posts that talk about it?  It was already said multiple times why it doesn't support his point.  Do you understand the written word or do you frequently need someone to hold your hand?

Are you kidding?  Do you really think anybody takes all that gobbly gook seriously!
In other words, no, you don't understand the written word.  How sad for you.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 01:06:20 PM
Uh, this took like 5 seconds on google to find. Is your google broke or are you just lazy?

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101 (http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.031101)

One of thousands of papers related to my point.
That paper is not related to your point.

And it isn't my burden of proof.  YOUR point, YOUR responsibility to back it up.

That's convenient!   ::)
Convenient that he quoted a paper that doesn't back him up?  Or that he can't back up his own point?  Both are HIS failings.

Whatever, things get farther away, they are harder to see.  The Sun's light does not appear to be so intense that it can light up the entire world (flat world) at the same time.  So, it just doesn't seem that huge. 

Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 01:08:32 PM
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
obvious troll is obvious.

The paper does not support your point.  If you think it does then show why but you won't.

Google works fine for me but I'm not here to do YOUR work for you.   When YOU have a burden of proof, YOU need to do the work.  YOU are obviously avoiding it.

You say it doesn't, so why not?

Have you bothered to read the discussion and the following posts that talk about it?  It was already said multiple times why it doesn't support his point.  Do you understand the written word or do you frequently need someone to hold your hand?

Are you kidding?  Do you really think anybody takes all that gobbly gook seriously!
In other words, no, you don't understand the written word.  How sad for you.

You don't seem very nice. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 01:12:05 PM
The sun gets smaller and smaller as it moves away and the light gets dimmer and dimmer as well!  Just see how far you can see on a dark night, traveling in the country, with your headlights. 

(http://il5.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/16059766/thumb/1.jpg)
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 01:13:44 PM
Light, does not appear to go on forever. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 27, 2016, 01:26:15 PM
The sun gets smaller and smaller as it moves away and the light gets dimmer and dimmer as well!  Just see how far you can see on a dark night, traveling in the country, with your headlights. 

(http://il5.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/16059766/thumb/1.jpg)
However, the sun doesn't do that. In fact, it gets slightly bigger as it sets.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: frenat on October 27, 2016, 01:43:20 PM
The sun gets smaller and smaller as it moves away and the light gets dimmer and dimmer as well!  Just see how far you can see on a dark night, traveling in the country, with your headlights. 

(http://il5.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/16059766/thumb/1.jpg)
Except the sun does not get smaller throughout the day.  Have you actually looked at the sun before?
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: frenat on October 27, 2016, 01:45:52 PM
So your google is broke and you can't comprehend scientific journals. Why are you on this forum exactly?
obvious troll is obvious.

The paper does not support your point.  If you think it does then show why but you won't.

Google works fine for me but I'm not here to do YOUR work for you.   When YOU have a burden of proof, YOU need to do the work.  YOU are obviously avoiding it.

You say it doesn't, so why not?

Have you bothered to read the discussion and the following posts that talk about it?  It was already said multiple times why it doesn't support his point.  Do you understand the written word or do you frequently need someone to hold your hand?

Are you kidding?  Do you really think anybody takes all that gobbly gook seriously!
In other words, no, you don't understand the written word.  How sad for you.

You don't seem very nice.
You don't seem to actually read the posts you reply to so we're even.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 02:34:36 PM
The sun gets smaller and smaller as it moves away and the light gets dimmer and dimmer as well!  Just see how far you can see on a dark night, traveling in the country, with your headlights. 

(http://il5.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/16059766/thumb/1.jpg)
However, the sun doesn't do that. In fact, it gets slightly bigger as it sets.

No, you notice the glowing light receding, leaving the darkness behind and are kind of equating that with the sun, but at noon everything is lit up. 
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: origamiscienceguy on October 27, 2016, 02:47:56 PM
The sun is an actual object, around .5 degrees wide. It stays about that size the entire day.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 27, 2016, 03:11:31 PM
The sun is an actual object, around .5 degrees wide. It stays about that size the entire day.

I think, it appears smaller/bigger at times.  I don't think it is always the same size, but I now that you mention it, I doubt it is as noticeable as telephone poles are.  Although, the point to this thread is that the sun appears to meet the ground, for the same reason that the tops of high voltage towers appear to meet the ground or clouds, or jet planes or persistent jet trails do.  In other words, it isn't because you're seeing over the edge of the earth (remember that huge drop that is supposed to be occurring) it is because of an optical illusion, illustrated by the photograph in the first post of this thread. 

Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 27, 2016, 06:22:32 PM
The sun is an actual object, around .5 degrees wide. It stays about that size the entire day.

I think, it appears smaller/bigger at times.  I don't think it is always the same size, but I now that you mention it, I doubt it is as noticeable as telephone poles are.  Although, the point to this thread is that the sun appears to meet the ground, for the same reason that the tops of high voltage towers appear to meet the ground or clouds, or jet planes or persistent jet trails do.  In other words, it isn't because you're seeing over the edge of the earth (remember that huge drop that is supposed to be occurring) it is because of an optical illusion, illustrated by the photograph in the first post of this thread.

Get over it, over the course of a day the sun stays almost precisely the same size. Very near the horizon just after sunrise and just before sunset it might be a bit distorted.

Take a look at these photos, taken I might add by a Flat Earther trying to prove that the sun does change in size over the course of a day.
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%20%2009.30%2048xZoom_zpscotyaspw.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2010.00%2048xZoom_zps77dhvy0p.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2011.00%2048xZoom_zpspfb3vsiz.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2012.00%2048xZoom_zpsb3rppgyf.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom_zpsfpcdnvky.jpg) 
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2014.00%2048xZoom_zps1cshxmbj.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2015.00%2048xZoom_zpsgk51nozr.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2017.00%2048xZoom_zps3wayd4qo.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom_zpsvaiszxhy.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom_zpsewsphkoz.jpg)

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%20Conclusion_zpsgohje0li.jpg)

Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!

The "sun does not appear to change it size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

More explanation in Flat Earth Debate / The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun by rabinoz on August 24, 2016, 08:12:47 PM . (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67791.msg1813098#msg1813098)

Now over the course of a year the apparent size of the sun does change from a minimum of 31′31″ in July to a maximum of 32′33″ in January.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 28, 2016, 06:55:00 PM
The sun is an actual object, around .5 degrees wide. It stays about that size the entire day.

I think, it appears smaller/bigger at times.  I don't think it is always the same size, but I now that you mention it, I doubt it is as noticeable as telephone poles are.  Although, the point to this thread is that the sun appears to meet the ground, for the same reason that the tops of high voltage towers appear to meet the ground or clouds, or jet planes or persistent jet trails do.  In other words, it isn't because you're seeing over the edge of the earth (remember that huge drop that is supposed to be occurring) it is because of an optical illusion, illustrated by the photograph in the first post of this thread.

Get over it, over the course of a day the sun stays almost precisely the same size. Very near the horizon just after sunrise and just before sunset it might be a bit distorted.

Take a look at these photos, taken I might add by a Flat Earther trying to prove that the sun does change in size over the course of a day.
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%20%2009.30%2048xZoom_zpscotyaspw.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2010.00%2048xZoom_zps77dhvy0p.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2011.00%2048xZoom_zpspfb3vsiz.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2012.00%2048xZoom_zpsb3rppgyf.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom_zpsfpcdnvky.jpg) 
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2014.00%2048xZoom_zps1cshxmbj.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2015.00%2048xZoom_zpsgk51nozr.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2017.00%2048xZoom_zps3wayd4qo.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom_zpsvaiszxhy.jpg)  (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom_zpsewsphkoz.jpg)

(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%20Conclusion_zpsgohje0li.jpg)

Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!

The "sun does not appear to change it size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

More explanation in Flat Earth Debate / The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun by rabinoz on August 24, 2016, 08:12:47 PM . (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67791.msg1813098#msg1813098)

Now over the course of a year the apparent size of the sun does change from a minimum of 31′31″ in July to a maximum of 32′33″ in January.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's like 40 against 1 here, so I'm doing my best (considering the pay! ha ha).  I'm gonna need a minute to figure out what you're talking about, because it looks like you might have actually made a point (which is kind of new for you, so don't get used to it! ha ha) 

Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: rabinoz on October 28, 2016, 07:18:23 PM
<< I show photos (taken by a Flat Earther) showing the sun staying the same size during the day >>
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's like 40 against 1 here, so I'm doing my best (considering the pay! ha ha).  I'm gonna need a minute to figure out what you're talking about, because it looks like you might have actually made a point (which is kind of new for you, so don't get used to it! ha ha)
I guess your pay for posting here is no more than mine (zilch). You claim you can't figure out what I am talking about. see below!

Well, for about the third time - the angular size of the sun stays constant throughout the day proving that the sun must be many times further away than to radius of the earth - 6,371 km for the globe and about 10,000 km for the earth.

And if you haven't worked it out yet - that completely screws your idea of a nearby sun.

By the way, have you managed to work out the earth's curvature yet? If not ask your kindergarten teacher, they might be able to explain it!
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Marciano on October 28, 2016, 07:27:55 PM
<< I show photos (taken by a Flat Earther) showing the sun staying the same size during the day >>
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's like 40 against 1 here, so I'm doing my best (considering the pay! ha ha).  I'm gonna need a minute to figure out what you're talking about, because it looks like you might have actually made a point (which is kind of new for you, so don't get used to it! ha ha)
I guess your pay for posting here is no more than mine (zilch). You claim you can't figure out what I am talking about. see below!

Well, for about the third time - the angular size of the sun stays constant throughout the day proving that the sun must be many times further away than to radius of the earth - 6,371 km for the globe and about 10,000 km for the earth.

And if you haven't worked it out yet - that completely screws your idea of a nearby sun.

By the way, have you managed to work out the earth's curvature yet? If not ask your kindergarten teacher, they might be able to explain it!

Less caffeine
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: Naysayer13 on October 29, 2016, 10:13:57 PM
And if there are no buildings or trees or other obstructions? Certainly you'd be able to bring the sun back into focus. Especially with today's modern scopes.

yes, if you had no obstructions like the atmosphere, trees, buildings, or the flat ground accelerating through the path of the light.

no. just. no. I am in Illinois, I should be able to look across the great plains with a space telescope and see the Rocky Mountains.  That is not possible
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: TheRealBillNye on October 30, 2016, 04:42:30 PM
Quote

yes, if you had no obstructions like the atmosphere, trees, buildings, or the flat ground accelerating through the path of the light.

Take note of the bold part. The reason why you are unable to see the rocky mountains from Chicago is the atmoplane. The air isn't totally clear. As you move away from objects, they become obscured in the distance.
Title: Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
Post by: southern hemispherer on November 01, 2016, 08:41:35 AM
The sun gets smaller and smaller as it moves away and the light gets dimmer and dimmer as well!  Just see how far you can see on a dark night, traveling in the country, with your headlights. 

(http://il5.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/16059766/thumb/1.jpg)
Except the sun does not get smaller throughout the day.  Have you actually looked at the sun before?

This is from the light source perspective, in this case a car. However, if you were on a hill ten miles away with direct line of sight, you would be able to see these headlights in the distance, even though they do not light up the area around you at all! And these lights will get larger and larger as they get closer, despite all the atmosphere in the way.