# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Jonny B Smart on November 23, 2017, 12:15:50 PM

Title: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Jonny B Smart on November 23, 2017, 12:15:50 PM
Sun sets due to perspective?

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?

Discuss.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 23, 2017, 01:38:58 PM
Sun sets due to perspective?

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!)
Is this a long winded way of saying that things look smaller the further they are away from you?

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/525/674/418)

Quote
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?

Presumably this is debunking the garbage in Earth is Not a Globe?  Rowbotham just makes that shit up.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: JackBlack on November 23, 2017, 01:43:14 PM
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)
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2017, 03:01:25 PM
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)
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.
See Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using the boat model/perspective/telescope, wouldn't the Sun be the same? « Message by rabinoz on August 16, 2017, 04:00:34 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71639.msg1942722;topicseen#msg1942722)
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Jonny B Smart on November 23, 2017, 05:21:50 PM
I have a diagram (photo), but I’m not sure how to insert it. Is that possible from an iPhone?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 23, 2017, 07:15:10 PM
I have a diagram (photo), but I’m not sure how to insert it. Is that possible from an iPhone?

You'll need to upload it (try Imgur) and post the image address as an image using the (square bracket) img tag.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Jonny B Smart on November 23, 2017, 07:55:48 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/UQynmWI_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Jonny B Smart on November 23, 2017, 08:10:42 PM
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)
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: NAZA on November 23, 2017, 08:42:28 PM
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)

Notice the distance between the lamps appears to decrease as well.
Not only would it's size shrink, the sun"s transit across the sky would appear to slow down as it set.
Neither of the two happen in reality.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 23, 2017, 11:57:13 PM
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: JackBlack on November 24, 2017, 12:03:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 24, 2017, 12:05:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2017, 12:29:53 AM
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.

If you disagree, please post something better than empty words from empty skulls.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Jonny B Smart on November 24, 2017, 06:37:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: RocketSauce on November 24, 2017, 08:31:26 AM
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.

HA!
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Jonny B Smart on November 24, 2017, 11:41:08 AM
Funny how they ignore when confronted with something that isn’t in their guidebook.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 24, 2017, 12:02:01 PM
It's just a stock jroa answer - his heart's not really in it nowadays.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2017, 02:52:12 PM
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?

He used to make such good posts against the flat earth, then got seduced to the Dark Side, probably by Darth Vadis Davis.

I guess any 4 year old would love his very own DarkSabre to wield.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Jonny B Smart on November 24, 2017, 07:16:45 PM
Seriously? “The Sun sets by perspective” is core, and they’re just going to roll over that easily?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on November 25, 2017, 04:30:24 PM
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.
The poor dummies don't understand that their silence is highly visible to all newcomers to the forum and makes them look pathetic.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: JackBlack on November 25, 2017, 05:26:04 PM
Yep. If they don't answer, we can't argue with them, we can't score any points.
The poor dummies don't understand that their silence is highly visible to all newcomers to the forum and makes them look pathetic.
They can use silence to try and bury posts.
By focusing on other threads, where they can at least attempt some kind of debate it makes those threads more active, brings them to the top and makes it look like FE can be defended to some extent.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Jonny B Smart on November 25, 2017, 06:12:18 PM
I really thought that this would get someone to bite.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on November 26, 2017, 05:07:32 AM
I really thought that this would get someone to bite.

Nah, not any more. Same with my "what is the longitude of the south pole" thread. These days they've given up posting in threads where they know they're going to get taken to pieces.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 26, 2017, 06:56:38 AM
There is a definite lack of motivation on the part of FE'ers to debate basic observable phenomena that indicate the earth is spherical.

They appear to prefer arguing over complex topics where they can hide behind the fact that most people won't know enough about the real science to effectively challenge their bogus arguments.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: markjo on November 26, 2017, 01:03:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 26, 2017, 02:25:14 PM
But, just look how successful jroa has been at his assigned task of derailing any thread that looks like killing FE yheory stone dead.
A simple post like:
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.

Congratulations are due to jroa for an excellent derailing job! I wonder how he gets paid.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 26, 2017, 03:32:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 26, 2017, 03:35:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Jonny B Smart on November 26, 2017, 03:36:09 PM
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.

Please explain how refraction interacts with perspective to make the Sun appear to be lower but not appear to shrink. Did you look at my diagram and the photo of the lampposts?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 26, 2017, 03:36:23 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 26, 2017, 03:37:21 PM
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.

Are you claiming the poles somehow show the shape of the Earth?  ::)
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 26, 2017, 03:39:17 PM
Funny how they ignore when confronted with something that isn’t in their guidebook.

I am sorry, you may not have had a major holiday in your backwards country, but we did here.  Did you ever think that maybe there are more important things for us FE'ers to do, like spend time with our families, rather than hear you lie about refraction only working in one direction?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 26, 2017, 03:41:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 26, 2017, 03:43:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on November 26, 2017, 04:01:39 PM
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.

Let me explain what Jora is trying to do. He's trying to bait someone into making a definite claim about the direction that refraction works, and will then post the same old link to weather phenomena like looming and some situations where refraction does bend light the opposite way to how it normally does.
Unfortunately, the tiny-brained Jora doesn't understand that these phenomena are notable precisely because they are not the norm. He doesn't understand that the link he wants to post indicates that atmospheric refraction is highly researched and well understood, and therefore if it created the effect of magnifying the sun in order to combat shrinkage from perspective, then it would be well documented by conventional science.
Fail harder next time, John.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 26, 2017, 04:31:17 PM
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?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 26, 2017, 06:22:48 PM
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?

But refraction almost invariably makes the sun at sunrise and sunset a little (about 0.5°) higher than its geometric position.
Though it can never make the sun appear 15° or more lower than its geometric position.

Any objections, oh learned one?

There are plenty of cases of refraction (and the related looming and mirage) making things appear higher, such as quite large ships well above the water and sailing boats flying.
 (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 thatmay have led to the Flying Dutchman myth

Now maybe you could show us some objects appearing over 15° lower than their real positions.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 26, 2017, 06:28:28 PM
Who 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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 26, 2017, 06:52:10 PM
Who 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.
I simply asked that question, "Who claimed that refraction always makes things appear higher in the sky?" then
added asserted, with a little evidence, that refraction usually makes objects appear higher.

But, there is no way that refraction can rescue your pathetic claims of atmoplanic lensing explaining sunrises and sunsets!
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: markjo on November 26, 2017, 06:52:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Sam Hill on November 26, 2017, 07:05:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 27, 2017, 12:12:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 27, 2017, 01:10:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 27, 2017, 02:37:29 AM
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.

You aren't making it up as you go along? Really? Because making it up as you go along appears to be EXACTLY what you're doing.

Well, according to my observations refraction does not behave in the manner you claim.

So what now? We all just live in our own little bubble where our interpretations of our own specific observations are 'correct' to ourselves?

That sounds like solid foundations for technological and social progression.

Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: MicroBeta on November 27, 2017, 03:46:36 AM
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.
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.

Further, the elevation and azimuth of the sun varies very little from year to year.  The elevation and azimuth of the sun on May 15th, in Norwich, CT, at noon is essentially the same year after year.  Since the amount of atmospheric refraction varies from hour to hour and even by location the sun’s elevation and azimuth values would never be consistent or predictable...especially at sunrise & sunset.

Since the atmospheric variables to calculate refraction are wildly variable, atmospheric refraction cannot be what causes the sun to appear the size and rise/set below the horizon.  It just isn’t logical.

Mike
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 27, 2017, 03:59:17 AM
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".

Yes, jroa, you do such a wonderful job of derailing threads away from issues that flatties are so abysmal at comprehending.

The inability of flat-earthers to understand perspective probably started with Rowbotham's totally confused ideas on the matter.

So you, jroa, have to keep discussion away from your Achilles' Heel, perspective at any cost.

And, jroa, you obviously excelled in your derailing classes in the Flat Earth Indoctrination Academy.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Jonny B Smart on November 27, 2017, 04:37:46 AM
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).
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 27, 2017, 05:59:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 27, 2017, 08:15:56 AM
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.
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?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 27, 2017, 08:21:13 AM
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.

No, us non flatties simply ask that an explanation with a range of supporting observational evidence is given, as opposed to one liners and spur of the moment flights of fancy.

Use your zetetic method, I don't care, but give more than 'it could be refraction' for heavens sake.

I'm not asking for an accurate peer reviewed breakdown of how refraction achieves the phenomena you claim it does, just observable examples that show refraction behaving as it would need to for it to be the explanation for the OPs question.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: JackBlack on November 27, 2017, 12:37:50 PM
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.
This has already been explained to you.

For the same situation, refraction only works in one direction.
If you change the situation, you can have it refract the other way.

From what is known about the atmosphere, typically light will refract downwards making things appear higher.
It is only transient events which have light refract the other way. That cannot explain the everyday occurance of sunsets.

You are asking me to make guesses
Well thanks for admitting you have no idea.
See, the real scientists (and even plenty of lay-people) know how refraction works.

And that is the key difference.
The things you ask us to explain, you have no better idea/explanation. Meanwhile the things we ask you to explain are well known and verified in real science.

We know that light bends towards the normal of a higher refractive index medium.
We know that for air, the refractive index is related to density such that more dense air will have a higher refractive index.
We know that in general, the air is less dense the higher you are.

All of this will lead to the conclusion that, in general, light will refract downwards through the atmosphere and thus make objects appear higher.

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.
You FEers make a guess, that Earth is flat, then make more and more guesses to try and explain away observations.

If you were going to make observations, analyse the data and then draw logical conclusions, you would have concluded that Earth is round.

This thread is on perspective and the effects thereof.

We can make observations, of numerous objects of known size and position, and find that they shrink the further away they go. We can even fit these to formulas, where their apparent angular size is given by 2*atan(s/2d), where s is their real size and d is the distance to them. (it gets more complex when you aren't viewing them straight on.

We can then apply this to the sun (with an appropriate filter to remove glare). We note that it remains roughly the same size.
This indicates it must remain roughly the same distance away from us.

Thus the best conclusion based upon that is that from our perspective, the sun is circling us, or a point near to us.

By taking these observations from various places on Earth we conclude that the distance to the sun must make the distance as you move around Earth insignificant.

This, combined with different time-zones leads to the conclusion that the sun can't be travelling over a flat surface.

This is what real zeteticism would lead to.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Badxtoss on November 27, 2017, 01:02:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on November 28, 2017, 02:28:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 12:45:34 AM
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?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 01:18:18 AM
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.
Instead, it must be BS, not only because you are unable to provide any known mechanism, but because it contradicts observations and seems to be just put in to make Earth magically be flat while appearing round.
There are already explanations which work which can explain the observed phenomenon.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 01:21:07 AM
Please fix your quote so it does not look like I am the one saying dumb shit.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 01:57:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 03:04:06 AM
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity.  ::)
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 29, 2017, 03:08:53 AM
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!
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: MicroBeta on November 29, 2017, 03:13:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 29, 2017, 03:40:37 AM
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.

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.
It certainly looks as though you have nothing "better than empty words from your empty skulls.

"Refraction does not care about" anything - it is not able "care"!

But, atmospheric refraction usually makes an object near the horizon appear a little higher and is usually quite small.
Look at this
(http://jgiesen.de/refract/img/refract.gif)
From the Atmospheric Refraction Applet (http://jgiesen.de/refract/index.html)

So atmospheric refraction is far too small to make your 5000 km high sun appear to approach the horizon and simply cannot make it appear to dip below the horizon.

But, in case you hadn't noticed, the thread is on, "Rethinking Perspective" not "atmospheric refraction".

Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Crutchwater on November 29, 2017, 03:41:53 AM
I am still awaiting your explanation for the mechanism of gravity.  ::)

Aren't you supposed to be explaining perspective and the observation of sunset and sunrise?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 03:47:50 AM
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?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: MicroBeta on November 29, 2017, 03:51:12 AM
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.

Mike
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 03:53:35 AM
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.

Mike

Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 29, 2017, 03:55:21 AM
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.

Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 29, 2017, 03:58:55 AM
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?
No, we can't agree on that.
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"!
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 04:21:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 04:23:50 AM
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?
No, we can't agree on that.
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"!

Your peoples (roundies) were the ones claiming that if I can not explain the exact specific way something works, then it is false.  Please read before you type.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 29, 2017, 04:31:52 AM
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.

Of course, but not being able to find ANY answers to support an assertion definitely hints at the fact that the assertion is bullshit.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 29, 2017, 04:34:03 AM
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:
sunrises and sunsets,
sunrise and sunset times and directions,
24 hour daylight everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle,
six month sunlight at the South Pole from Sep 21 to Mar 21,
lunar phases and
lunar eclipses
and the other "theory" (heliocentric Globe Theory) can explain all these and much much more

is very good evidence that Flat Earth Theory is grossly deficient.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 04:36:12 AM
Aren't those in their own threads?  Why do you insist on spamming and derailing every thread you read, rab?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 29, 2017, 04:45:32 AM
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?

Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 04:47:08 AM
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?

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?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: rabinoz on November 29, 2017, 05:02:58 AM

I stay on topic.
Incorrect! The topic is "Rethinking Perspective" and you  did your best at diverting that onto "refraction" way back with this post
You people seem to fail to take into account the effects of refraction.

Quote from: jroa
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.

There's a big difference!
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 05:06:41 AM
Do you deny that either perspective or refraction exists and affects the way we perceive things?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 29, 2017, 05:09:19 AM
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?

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?

Off topic, stop derailing.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 05:17:05 AM
Et tu Brute?
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: MicroBeta on November 29, 2017, 05:51:17 AM
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
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 29, 2017, 05:56:08 AM
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

Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Badxtoss on November 29, 2017, 05:58:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 29, 2017, 06:33:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Badxtoss on November 29, 2017, 07:11:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: braingrunt on November 29, 2017, 08:27:20 AM
Haven't you heard of the new "personal sky" theory or the donut field theory?

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.  Not one that makes any real sense necessarily, it just looks kinda cool.  Meanwhile putting that data on a globe just points to the sun.  BOOORING!  Like the flat earth picture better!  Want flat earth picture!

The personal sky theory is quite nebulous but usually involves refraction.  In that sense, flat earthers assign a VERY important job to refraction: GET THE SUN WHERE ITS SUPPOSED TO BE DARNIT!  This is a job that needs high precision and stability (in order to match orderly reality), and refraction is not known for always behaving precisely and stably.  In addition, they need stunningly powerful refractions, bending in the opposite way to what we expect. (we have good reason to believe refraction bends toward higher density, not vice-versa as flat earthers need)  I view this theory as another absurdity.

SORRY, tangent: to bring this back on topic: no, perspective does not set the sun nor get it in the right place.  They need other mechanisms such as refraction etc.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 29, 2017, 08:51:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: MicroBeta on November 29, 2017, 10:40:20 AM
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

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'

Mike
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 01:01:47 PM
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.

If you can't offer a mechanism or any sort of explanation or justification, we will stick with the known mechanisms.

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 take it you missed the last part.
It has to make at least a little sense. Your crap does not.

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?
Sure seems like you do exactly what you are accusing others of.
Title: Re: Rethinking Perspective
Post by: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 01:05:44 PM
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.
They use 2D data (azimuth and angle of elevation) to try and determine a 3D position of the apparent location of the sun above Earth.
The problem is all they could actually do is show the sun's position as a line (or a cone to show uncertainty), and if they did that for a flat or round Earth they would find out it matches a round Earth.