Sun sets due to perspective?Is this a long winded way of saying that things look smaller the further they are away from you?
Try two things:
1) Recall all of those photos of rows of lampposts used to illustrate the way the Sun descends by perspective. Go look at one if you can’t, or just Google it. Look at it carefully. Now imagine that the Sun is actually a giant lamp post with a glowing ball on top. As it really exists, there is no pole, but we can imagine an invisible pole that has the same height as the altitude of the Sun. Now go back and look at your picture of the row of lampposts. Does the size of the globe atop the post appear to shrink in proportion to the size of the post? Try measuring if you are not sure. (Hint: it will!)
2) Go find one of those “perspective diagrams” that supposedly show the descent of the Sun. Notice how the perspective line that the Sun follows goes through the middle of the Sun. That’s not how perspective works, though. Instead, draw two lines TANGENT to the Sun and connect both of those to the vanishing point. The edges of the Sun should follow those perspective lines, right?I've no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you draw the diagram and show us?
I've no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you draw the diagram and show us?They have something like this:
It is strange how the sun's apparent size is unaffected by perspective yet the height of the sun drops right down to zero, quite contrary to even Rowbotham's writing on perspective - in one place, of course he changes his story later.I've no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you draw the diagram and show us?They have something like this:(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/W0Gx1vD1CRE/maxresdefault.jpg)
I have a diagram (photo), but I’m not sure how to insert it. Is that possible from an iPhone?
note how the lamps atop the posts seem smaller as the posts appear to shrink. Why would perspective bring the Sun to the horizon but not shrink it? The trusty “lamp post argument” ain’t holding up.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-r2bantf4-r8/V2J7QYWjfXI/AAAAAAAAQ3E/O1AB05R4tGcr_1QbtqR3j4q3Sz4aWz5DgCLcB/s1600/10769499-winter-park-in-the-evening-covered-with-snow-with-a-row-of-lamps.jpg)
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.No, it is just not all that important. Sure, it makes things appear slightly higher, but that doesn't help the flatties.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.No we don't!
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
It's just a stock jroa answer - his heart's not really in it nowadays.Why? Isn't the FES paying him enough to derail posts anymore?
Seriously? “The Sun sets by perspective” is core, and they’re just going to roll over that easily?
Yep. If they don't answer, we can't argue with them, we can't score any points.They can use silence to try and bury posts.
The poor dummies don't understand that their silence is highly visible to all newcomers to the forum and makes them look pathetic.
I really thought that this would get someone to bite.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.I'm sorry but it isn't our fault that your understanding of refraction is just as wrong as your understanding of perspective.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.has completely turned everyone's attention away from any real discussion about Rethinking Perspective.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.No, it is just not all that important. Sure, it makes things appear slightly higher, but that doesn't help the flatties.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?
Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.No, it is just not all that important. Sure, it makes things appear slightly higher, but that doesn't help the flatties.
lol, you are claiming that refraction only works in one direction. Discussing this with you is like explaining relativity to a child.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.No we don't!
Refraction usually makes the sun on the horizon appear about 0.5° higher not lower.
This is quite negligible when considering all the extra you need to explain sunsets in your pancake planet.
That doesn't help your silly ideas about sunset one little bit.
If you disagree, please post something better than empty words from empty skulls.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
Please explain how refraction interacts with perspective to cause the apparent height of the poles/altitude of the Sun to shrink while causing the lamps to shrink but not the Sun.
Funny how they ignore when confronted with something that isn’t in their guidebook.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?
Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.
There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc. The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that." You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?
Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.
There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc. The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that." You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.
There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.
Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?
Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?
Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.
There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc. The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that." You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.
There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.
Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?
Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?
Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to. Do some research on mirages. They are proof that light can bend every direction.
So, then, can we all agree that refraction does not always make things appear higher in the sky, and any roundy noob who comes here claiming otherwise is either a liar or simply ignorant of physics?Who claimed that refraction always makes things appear higher in the sky?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g98t4nz8daf3fc4/Red%20Ship%20with%20Mirage.jpg?dl=1) The Red Ship Rides above the Ocean! | (http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png) And how do you like a "flying boat"? | even back when everyone knew that the earth was a Globe. (https://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Superior_mirage_of_the_boats_paintinga.jpg) This is a drawing of a sighting that may have led to the Flying Dutchman myth |
Who claimed that refraction always makes things appear higher in the sky?
No, it is just not all that important. Sure, it makes things appear slightly higher, but that doesn't help the flatties.
I simply asked that question, "Who claimed that refraction always makes things appear higher in the sky?" thenWho claimed that refraction always makes things appear higher in the sky?
Perhaps you should start actually reading threads before you respond to them.No, it is just not all that important. Sure, it makes things appear slightly higher, but that doesn't help the flatties.
Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to. Do some research on mirages. They are proof that light can bend every direction.Would you care to describe the physics that would cause light to refract in such a way as to result in a sunset on a flat earth?
Would you care to describe the physics that would cause light to refract in such a way as to result in a sunset on a flat earth?Don't forget to include the reason that refraction always results in the sun appearing to set, every single unobscured night, no matter what the atmospheric conditions are.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?
Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.
There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc. The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that." You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.
There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.
Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?
Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?
Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to. Do some research on mirages. They are proof that light can bend every direction.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?
Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.
There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc. The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that." You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.
There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.
Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?
Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?
Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to. Do some research on mirages. They are proof that light can bend every direction.
'Do some research' - what a fucking joke.
I'm not talking about which direction light bends, so stop being an ass with your pathetic one liners.
Describe the mechanism that CONSISTENTLY allows the sun to get further away while staying the same size.
Describe how the distance between the sun and horizon can CONSISTENTLY shrink 'due to perspective' while the sun itself stays the same size.
Describe a mechanism for this that works as well and consistently as the earth being a sphere orbiting the sun.
If you are unable to do so that's fine, I think we all know what a one line non answer really means.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
So refraction works on the visual distance between one edge of the sun and the other, but not on the visual distance between the sun and the horizon?
Refraction can choose what it affects... amazing.
There are a lot of funny things that light does: refract, reflect, diffract, diffuse, etc. The hilarious part is when you roundies come here claiming that "light always only does this or that." You people are so naive, and even your own roundy scientists would tell you that.
There is a difference between saying 'light always only does this or that' and saying 'what evidence is there that light does what you claim'.
Or was that just more nonsense to avoid putting any meaningful point forward?
Do you have other observable instances where refraction behaves as you claim?
Light can refract any direction that physics causes it to. Do some research on mirages. They are proof that light can bend every direction.
'Do some research' - what a fucking joke.
I'm not talking about which direction light bends, so stop being an ass with your pathetic one liners.
Describe the mechanism that CONSISTENTLY allows the sun to get further away while staying the same size.
Describe how the distance between the sun and horizon can CONSISTENTLY shrink 'due to perspective' while the sun itself stays the same size.
Describe a mechanism for this that works as well and consistently as the earth being a sphere orbiting the sun.
If you are unable to do so that's fine, I think we all know what a one line non answer really means.
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed. That is not how Zeteticism works. We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible. That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.
There is one thing atmospheric refraction certainly is and that's variable. Things such as temperature, humidity, pressure, and even pollution conditions affect atmospheric refraction. If the size and position of the sun is based in part on atmospheric refraction then we would to need know those atmospheric variables to calculate and predict the elevation and azimuth of the sun. Since it is impossible to predict the future atmospheric variables it is therefore impossible to predict elevation and azimuth of the sun. Yet the elevation and azimuth of the sun is predictable and very accurate year after year.You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.No, it is just not all that important. Sure, it makes things appear slightly higher, but that doesn't help the flatties.
lol, you are claiming that refraction only works in one direction. Discussing this with you is like explaining relativity to a child.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.Did anyone notice that the thread was on, "Rethinking Perspective", until jroa butted in with "the effects of refraction".
Jroa, you need to answer the question posed by the thread. If you cannot, then just say, “I don’t know.” Yes, there is a frontier of science where things are fuzzy. However, you FE folks pretend that all known science can be chucked and reinvented. Yet here we are all playing with quantum mechanics (computers).
But you can't even present proof that your overarching idea works. You claim "The sun sets because of perspective" yet that claim has no basis in the math behind perspective, no basis in trigonometry, and no basis in any known/cataloged effects. Cavendish shows there is attraction between masses. The overarching idea behind gravity is sound in that evidence. The basic equation even works the majority of the time. FE however is claiming basic math breaks down for no given reason in order to make the sun set. Where is the evidence for this?Jroa, you need to answer the question posed by the thread. If you cannot, then just say, “I don’t know.” Yes, there is a frontier of science where things are fuzzy. However, you FE folks pretend that all known science can be chucked and reinvented. Yet here we are all playing with quantum mechanics (computers).
Your own roundy scientists can not even agree on what gravity is, or why the galaxies and universe do not follow Newtonian physics, yet, somehow, you people claim that our theories cannot possibly be correct unless we can fully explain every detail that you demand of use. You people will lap what ever the prevailing roundy theory is of the month, yet mock us for theorizing without absolute proof for this or that. You people are hypocrites.
Jroa, you need to answer the question posed by the thread. If you cannot, then just say, “I don’t know.” Yes, there is a frontier of science where things are fuzzy. However, you FE folks pretend that all known science can be chucked and reinvented. Yet here we are all playing with quantum mechanics (computers).
Your own roundy scientists can not even agree on what gravity is, or why the galaxies and universe do not follow Newtonian physics, yet, somehow, you people claim that our theories cannot possibly be correct unless we can fully explain every detail that you demand of use. You people will lap what ever the prevailing roundy theory is of the month, yet mock us for theorizing without absolute proof for this or that. You people are hypocrites.
lol, you are claiming that refraction only works in one direction. Discussing this with you is like explaining relativity to a child.You really seem to enjoy acting like a broken record.
You are asking me to make guessesWell thanks for admitting you have no idea.
That is not how Zeteticism works. We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible.That is nothing like what you FEers do, that is pretty much what real scientists (those that conclude Earth is round) do.
So, then, can we all agree that refraction does not always make things appear higher in the sky, and any roundy noob who comes here claiming otherwise is either a liar or simply ignorant of physics?So explain how it works to make the sun and moon appear the same size all day and then appear to set below the horizon. At a predictable time every day despite weather, air pressure etc.
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed. That is not how Zeteticism works. We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible. That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed. That is not how Zeteticism works. We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible. That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.
Is this really the best you can do? Comedy gold. Start trying to desperately derail and deflect attention from your total failure to use conventional physics for your own purposes, by clutching at straws about aspects of physics which all scientists (and I mean ALL scientists) would describe as lacking data, requiring further research, and difficult to observe and test without highly specialised equipment. Absolutely the complete opposite of refraction, which can be investigated by school children in a classroom and which has been understood both behaviourally and mathematically since the time of Newton.
I didn't think you actually could fail harder, little cockroach, but you have managed.
In case you have a hard time comprehending what you have read Neil, it was stated that if I can't describe the mechanisms through which my theories exist, then they must be BS. I suppose that that makes string theory BS as well, right?In case you have a hard time comprehend what you have read (or just ignored), it was explained that that was not the case at all.
Please fix your quote so it does not look like I am the one saying dumb shit. Thanks.There you go. It has been fixed so you are the one saying dumb shit, not dino neil.
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity. ::)Nice try, but "the mechanism of gravity" is totally irrelevant in a thread on "Rethinking Perspective".
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity. ::)More to the topic, I'm still waiting for you to reply to my post on refraction.
It certainly looks as though you have nothing "better than empty words from your empty skulls.You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.No we don't!
Refraction usually makes the sun on the horizon appear about 0.5° higher not lower.
This is quite negligible when considering all the extra you need to explain sunsets in your pancake planet.
That doesn't help your silly ideas about sunset one little bit.
If you disagree, please post something better than empty words from empty skulls.
Please, try again. Refraction does not care about which direction is up, down, left or right.
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity. ::)
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity. ::)Nice try, but "the mechanism of gravity" is totally irrelevant in a thread on "Rethinking Perspective".
Go derail some thread in CN!
That is certainly a true statement. As long as the theory fits the observation, and at least makes a little sense, knowing the mechanism can come later.I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity. ::)Nice try, but "the mechanism of gravity" is totally irrelevant in a thread on "Rethinking Perspective".
Go derail some thread in CN!
Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck that something?
That is certainly a true statement. As long as the theory fits the observation, and at least makes a little sense, knowing the mechanism can come later.I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity. ::)Nice try, but "the mechanism of gravity" is totally irrelevant in a thread on "Rethinking Perspective".
Go derail some thread in CN!
Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck that something?
Mike
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed. That is not how Zeteticism works. We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible. That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.
Is this really the best you can do? Comedy gold. Start trying to desperately derail and deflect attention from your total failure to use conventional physics for your own purposes, by clutching at straws about aspects of physics which all scientists (and I mean ALL scientists) would describe as lacking data, requiring further research, and difficult to observe and test without highly specialised equipment. Absolutely the complete opposite of refraction, which can be investigated by school children in a classroom and which has been understood both behaviourally and mathematically since the time of Newton.
I didn't think you actually could fail harder, little cockroach, but you have managed.
In case you have a hard time comprehending what you have read Neil, it was stated that if I can't describe the mechanisms through which my theories exist, then they must be BS. I suppose that that makes string theory BS as well, right?
No, we can't agree on that.Go derail some thread in CN!
Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck(sic) that something?
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed. That is not how Zeteticism works. We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible. That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.
Is this really the best you can do? Comedy gold. Start trying to desperately derail and deflect attention from your total failure to use conventional physics for your own purposes, by clutching at straws about aspects of physics which all scientists (and I mean ALL scientists) would describe as lacking data, requiring further research, and difficult to observe and test without highly specialised equipment. Absolutely the complete opposite of refraction, which can be investigated by school children in a classroom and which has been understood both behaviourally and mathematically since the time of Newton.
I didn't think you actually could fail harder, little cockroach, but you have managed.
In case you have a hard time comprehending what you have read Neil, it was stated that if I can't describe the mechanisms through which my theories exist, then they must be BS. I suppose that that makes string theory BS as well, right?
Stop comparing observable phenomena that can be practically tested with theoretical physics. As you well know many scientists do question string theory/dark matter etc... I don't see anywhere near as many questioning our understanding of large scale refraction.
We are all currently arguing over bullshit rather than discussing the question raised in the OP.
The fact is you have thrown out refraction as the answer to the question with no justification or additional information that shows us your thought process in arriving at the conclusion, a conclusion that requires refraction to behave differently to how it's observed to behave in all other circumstances.
You may as well have said its all down to bunnies.
No, we can't agree on that.Go derail some thread in CN!
Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck(sic) that something?
Do you even know the "exact specific mechanism" of something as well understand as electrostatic attraction?
And even when the "exact specific mechanism" of electrostatic attraction was not as well understood as it is now, was electrostatic attraction any less real.
But, in any case, it's irrelevant to this thread, the topic is "Rethinking Perspective"!
Describe for me the mechanism for gravity, dark matter, and dark energy. You are asking me to make guesses and that is all you or your roundy scientists can do to describe the mechanisms for the things I listed. That is not how Zeteticism works. We do not just make guesses; we make observations, analyze the data, and draw logical conclusions based on the best data possible. That does not mean we are always right, but at least we are not just making it up as we go along like your roundy theoretical physicists.
Is this really the best you can do? Comedy gold. Start trying to desperately derail and deflect attention from your total failure to use conventional physics for your own purposes, by clutching at straws about aspects of physics which all scientists (and I mean ALL scientists) would describe as lacking data, requiring further research, and difficult to observe and test without highly specialised equipment. Absolutely the complete opposite of refraction, which can be investigated by school children in a classroom and which has been understood both behaviourally and mathematically since the time of Newton.
I didn't think you actually could fail harder, little cockroach, but you have managed.
In case you have a hard time comprehending what you have read Neil, it was stated that if I can't describe the mechanisms through which my theories exist, then they must be BS. I suppose that that makes string theory BS as well, right?
Stop comparing observable phenomena that can be practically tested with theoretical physics. As you well know many scientists do question string theory/dark matter etc... I don't see anywhere near as many questioning our understanding of large scale refraction.
We are all currently arguing over bullshit rather than discussing the question raised in the OP.
The fact is you have thrown out refraction as the answer to the question with no justification or additional information that shows us your thought process in arriving at the conclusion, a conclusion that requires refraction to behave differently to how it's observed to behave in all other circumstances.
You may as well have said its all down to bunnies.
Well, then, it sounds to me that we can both agree that not having all of the answers is not negative proof. Thank you.
Well, then, it sounds to me that we can both agree that not having all of the answers is not negative proof. Thank you.Though I would say that if one "theory" (Flat Earth Theory) cannot explain simple things like:
Aren't those in their own threads? Why do you insist on spamming and derailing every thread you read, rab?I do believe that I was answering your post, is that not allowed now?
Aren't those in their own threads? Why do you insist on spamming and derailing every thread you read, rab?I do believe that I was answering your post, is that not allowed now?
Why do you insist on derailing every thread you read, jroa?
Incorrect! The topic is "Rethinking Perspective" and you did your best at diverting that onto "refraction" way back with this postWhy do you insist on derailing every thread you read, jroa?
I stay on topic.
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
I don't make irrelevant lists about things that I don't like about the roundies and post it in every thread. Do you see the difference?I did not make any "lists about things that I don't like about the flatties". I made a list of things flatties can't explain.
Aren't those in their own threads? Why do you insist on spamming and derailing every thread you read, rab?I do believe that I was answering your post, is that not allowed now?
Why do you insist on derailing every thread you read, jroa?
I stay on topic. I don't make irrelevant lists about things that I don't like about the roundies and post it in every thread. Do you see the difference?
Do you deny that either perspective or refraction exists and affects the way we perceive things?Of course they exist. However, as I previously posted and you ignored, perspective or refraction cannot explain sunsets/sunrises.
Do you deny that either perspective or refraction exists and affects the way we perceive things?Of course they exist. However, as I previously posted and you ignored, perspective or refraction cannot explain sunsets/sunrises.
Mike
Aren't those in their own threads? Why do you insist on spamming and derailing every thread you read, rab?Ok I just have to say, coming from you that was seriously funny.
Ok, so to get back to the point of the thread, it would appear that there is currently no known and understood explanation for why the sun does not get smaller as it moves towards sunset in FE.I think that sums it up well.
Ok, so to get back to the point of the thread, it would appear that there is currently no known and understood explanation for why the sun does not get smaller as it moves towards sunset in FE.I mean, Rowbotham claims it's due to the "Well known magnification of bright lights by the atmoplane" and lamp posts are frequently cited as evidence. This becomes somewhat problematic when one brings in glare reduction, but it's the only explanation I've ever seen.
You didn't actually read the first post did you? The OP starts out with "Sun sets due to perspective?". So perspective of sunsets is exactly what this thread is about and you're the one who brought up refraction...just sayin'Do you deny that either perspective or refraction exists and affects the way we perceive things?Of course they exist. However, as I previously posted and you ignored, perspective or refraction cannot explain sunsets/sunrises.
Mike
Good thing that this thread is not about sunrise/sunset then. ::)
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity. ::)And we are still waiting for you to get back to discussing the topic.
Well, then, can we agree that not knowing the exact specific mechanism of something does do automatically debunck that something?As I have told you repeatedly, the issue is that you are rejecting the known mechanism, replacing it with only pure ignorance, to try and pretend that Earth can be flat.
I take it you missed the last part.That is certainly a true statement. As long as the theory fits the observation, and at least makes a little sense, knowing the mechanism can come later.Thank you for your support.
I stay on topic. I don't make irrelevant lists about things that I don't like about the roundies and post it in every thread. Do you see the difference?So what was with you bitching about gravity and dark matter and so on?
Haven't you heard of the new "personal sky" theory or the donut field theory?I have, and it is a load of nonsense which requires ignoring simple facts.
Honestly, that thing where they map sun position, is nothing more than putting the data on the flat earth map, and OOHing that it makes a cute picture.There is actually a far bigger problem with that.