Questioning the sunset optical illusion

  • 35 Replies
  • 3692 Views
Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« on: March 04, 2007, 12:22:14 PM »
According to one of the major FE models, the sun sets due to some optical illusion having to do with more atmosphere between yourself and the sun.  If this is true, then wouldn't you be able to wait until the exact second the sun disappears from vision, drive down your street toward the sun, and see it rise again before your eyes?  I'm fairly sure we'll all agree that's impossible.

?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • Screw you.
Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2007, 12:25:46 PM »
damn. Why didn't I think of that one?
Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2007, 12:28:45 PM »
That would actually work, but you would need to be traveling at over 1000 mph to catch up with the receding sun.

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2007, 12:42:30 PM »
That would actually work, but you would need to be traveling at over 1000 mph to catch up with the receding sun.

Where'd you get that figure?  It doesn't take such a short time for it to disappear from view, so if you wait for the exact second it disappears it shouldn't be hard to catch up with.

I was originally going to propose taking only a few steps forward to see it again.

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2007, 12:50:49 PM »
Quote
Where'd you get that figure?  It doesn't take such a short time for it to disappear from view, so if you wait for the exact second it disappears it shouldn't be hard to catch up with.

I was originally going to propose taking only a few steps forward to see it again.

The distance around the equator in FE is 24,900 miles. For the sun to compete one circuit per 24 hours it must be traveling at a speed over 1000 mph.

24,900 / 24 = 1037.5 mph to be exact.

Thus, at the equator, to see the sun rise again you would need to travel towards it at a speed greater than 1037.5 mph in order to outrun the sun.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 12:58:41 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2007, 01:02:18 PM »
The distance around the equator in FE is 24,900 miles. For the sun to compete one circuit per 24 hours it must be traveling at a speed over 1000 mph.

24,900 / 24 = 1037.5 mph to be exact.

Thus, at the equator, to see the sun rise again you would need to travel towards it at a speed greater than 1037.5 mph in order to outrun the sun.

Good point, I didn't realize this was equivalent to the earth's rotation.

While we're on this topic, though, could you explain in depth the optical illusion of the sunset?  In terms of refraction, atmospheric blockage, et cetera.  If anything might be unclear in your explanation, a diagram would be good to include.

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2007, 01:11:22 PM »
Cue link to "Earth not a Globe"...3...2...1...

?

EricTheRed

  • 106
  • Cogito et sum
Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2007, 01:13:57 PM »
According to one of the major FE models, the sun sets due to some optical illusion having to do with more atmosphere between yourself and the sun.  If this is true, then wouldn't you be able to wait until the exact second the sun disappears from vision, drive down your street toward the sun, and see it rise again before your eyes?  I'm fairly sure we'll all agree that's impossible.
No actually this is an RE explanation as well unless you think Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset has been taken over by Flat-Earthers.  Now there's a conspiracy for you.
"Subtle is the Lord" Albert Einstein

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2007, 02:21:06 PM »
Quote
Good point, I didn't realize this was equivalent to the earth's rotation.

While we're on this topic, though, could you explain in depth the optical illusion of the sunset?  In terms of refraction, atmospheric blockage, et cetera.  If anything might be unclear in your explanation, a diagram would be good to include.

Without invoking the bending of light, the setting sun in the Accelerating Coin model is achieved through a simple law of perspective. I shall quote the beginning text from Chapter 10 of book "Earth Not a Globe" by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

    ALTHOUGH the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend as it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them.

For additional details see: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 02:23:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2007, 02:27:20 PM »
Tom you made one fatal error. Well crazy old Rowbotham did anyway. The flock of birds also gets smaller and never reaches the horizon...Unless of course they are get far away enough to drop over it. In this case they would be too tiny to even see with the naked eye I would imagine. You would at least struggle.
My point? Sun isn't circling above Earth.

Not only that but they also look flatter and flatter until such time as they look like they are flying infront of you.
My point here? Sun isn't disk shaped.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 02:34:55 PM by kasroa »

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2007, 02:34:04 PM »
    ALTHOUGH the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend as it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them.

For additional details see: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm

1) An analogy isn't proof.
2) That analogy isn't valid.
3) They only appear to descend because they are getting smaller - but still centered - in your field of vision.  The sun doesn't get smaller in your field of vision, it just ascends from and descends behind the horizon.  The size remains virtually unchanged (except at the horizon, where it sometimes appears to be slightly LARGER - which would make no sense if the illusions caused by it moving away and getting smaller...).

Also, how do you explain the Aphelion and Perihelion?
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/news/sky0706.htm

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2007, 02:37:15 PM »
Quote
Tom you made one fatal error. Well crazy old Rowbotham did anyway. The flock of birds also gets smaller and also never reaches the horizon...Unless of course they are get far away enough to drop over it. In this case they would be too tiny to even see with the naked eye I would imagine. You would at least struggle.

The Sun and Moon are actually magnified and appear much larger when they are near the horizon. But this is due to another illusion entirely. Search for "moon illusion" in Google for the mechanism.

Due to this radical effect, it would be difficult to judge the true size of the sun at the horizon.

Quote
Not only that but they also look flatter and flatter until such time as they look like they are flying infront of you.

My point here? Sun isn't disk shaped.

That's right. The sun is a sphere 3,000 miles from the earth.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 02:40:10 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2007, 02:41:09 PM »
What causes the moon to appear enlarged? If this is a universal effect wouldn't other things appear the same size as the moved away?

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2007, 02:41:29 PM »
The moon illusion is a trick of the eye that makes the sun appear to be bigger. What has this to do with what we're talking about? Are you seriously trying to reason that an object of only 32 miles in diameter and some 12000+ miles away (Which is roughly it's distance at sun set or sun rise on FE) will actually look the same size or even bigger than when it is 3000 miles away?

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2007, 02:45:57 PM »
Oh and Tom, I take vast amounts of pleasure in saying this too: Read the FAQ

Quote from: FAQ
: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2007, 02:46:52 PM »
Spot-light spheres! Do the sun and moon have some kind of eye-lid system?

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2007, 02:48:04 PM »
Quote
Are you seriously trying to reason that an object of only 32 miles in diameter and some 12000+ miles away (Which is roughly it's distance at sun set or sun rise on FE) will actually look the same size or even bigger than when it is 3000 miles away?

The 32 mile diameter sun is very intense. Due to this intensity, the atmospheric illusion at the horizon is quite vivid.

Quote
Oh and Tom, I take vast amounts of pleasure in saying this too: Read the FAQ

Perhaps you should read it. The FAQ does not specifically define the sun as a flat disk.

What causes the moon to appear enlarged? If this is a universal effect wouldn't other things appear the same size as the moved away?

There is a subchapter to Chapter 10 of "Earth Not a Globe" I shall quote from the beginning paragraph.


    CAUSE OF SUN APPEARING LARGER WHEN RISING AND SETTING THAN AT NOONDAY.

    IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light or "glare" upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour.


For more information on this effect see: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 02:55:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2007, 02:51:09 PM »
    ALTHOUGH the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend as it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them.

For additional details see: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm

1) An analogy isn't proof.
2) That analogy isn't valid.
3) They only appear to descend because they are getting smaller - but still centered - in your field of vision.  The sun doesn't get smaller in your field of vision, it just ascends from and descends behind the horizon.  The size remains virtually unchanged (except at the horizon, where it sometimes appears to be slightly LARGER - which would make no sense if the illusions caused by it moving away and getting smaller...).

Also, how do you explain the Aphelion and Perihelion?
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/news/sky0706.htm

You FE'ers sure do like ignoring posts, so long as theyre coherent, relevant and straightforward.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2007, 02:52:07 PM »
But the sun and moon don't look glared at all. In fact the moon has an extremely sharp edge and definate shapes on it. Another question about the spotlight thing. At 32 miles in diameter could the mass of the sun produce enough energy to heat the earth? Especially with miles of ether between it and the earth the amount of heat needed would be tremendous. Your thoughts Tom?

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2007, 02:59:17 PM »
Tom it isn't glare. But keep on digging. Also explain to me how a spherical sun can have a "spotlight" effect on Earth. If it were spherical we would see it from anywhere on Earth. Face it, this whole branch of FE theory has more holes than a tennis racquet.

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2007, 03:08:55 PM »
Quote
At 32 miles in diameter could the mass of the sun produce enough energy to heat the earth? Especially with miles of ether between it and the earth the amount of heat needed would be tremendous. Your thoughts Tom?

In past threads FE proponents have run calculations revealing that the FE sun would actually produce less energy per square inch than the RE sun. Due to its closeness to the earth, the FE sun would need to produce much less heat to warm the atmosphere.

Quote
Tom it isn't glare. But keep on digging.

Have you ever bothered to look at the sun? It looks like one big glare to me.

Quote
lso explain to me how a spherical sun can have a "spotlight" effect on Earth.

The spherical FE sun is very small and very close to the earth.  By necessity its light would be confined to a spotlight on the disk of the earth.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 03:10:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2007, 03:11:06 PM »
If the sun is a sphere, then why the hell would it only shine on us?

I hate to break it to you guys, but we aren't the center of the universe!
Plato: People are inherently bad.
Aristotle: People are inherently good.
Me: People are inherently stupid.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2007, 03:13:09 PM »
Quote
At 32 miles in diameter could the mass of the sun produce enough energy to heat the earth? Especially with miles of ether between it and the earth the amount of heat needed would be tremendous. Your thoughts Tom?

In past threads FE proponents have run calculations revealing that the FE sun would actually produce less energy per square inch than the RE sun. Due to its closeness to the earth, the FE sun would need to produce much less heat to warm the atmosphere.

I find that hard to believe since at 32 miles in diameter it would be hundreds of millions times smaller than the RE sun. Could you give some facts to back up this claim? Oh and what resistance does ether offer to light?

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2007, 03:14:14 PM »



Please, continue ignoring my posts.  It's not like this is my thread or anything.  ::)

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2007, 03:17:07 PM »
 looks like someone was ignored by their parents as a child.;D

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2007, 03:49:31 PM »
if earth were round then light would radiate from it in 360 degrees  causing the whole world to be able to see it at all times. ... silly tom trix are for kids
s all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream? -Edgar Allen Poe

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2007, 03:49:51 PM »
Quote
At 32 miles in diameter could the mass of the sun produce enough energy to heat the earth? Especially with miles of ether between it and the earth the amount of heat needed would be tremendous. Your thoughts Tom?

In past threads FE proponents have run calculations revealing that the FE sun would actually produce less energy per square inch than the RE sun. Due to its closeness to the earth, the FE sun would need to produce much less heat to warm the atmosphere.

Quote
Tom it isn't glare. But keep on digging.

Have you ever bothered to look at the sun? It looks like one big glare to me.

Quote
lso explain to me how a spherical sun can have a "spotlight" effect on Earth.

The spherical FE sun is very small and very close to the earth.  By necessity its light would be confined to a spotlight on the disk of the earth.

To the naked eye the sun is a glare yes. What's your point?

No it wouldn't be confined to a spotlight. Where do you get this notion from?


I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the Sun doesn't get any smaller as it goes from around 3000 miles away to more than 12000 miles away. No it's not glare.

You say the FE sun would need to produce less heat....What I want to know is how is it producing any heat at all? Fe doesn't even dare try and explain the nature of the sun, it just fantasises that it's exactly the same as the real sun except many magnatudes smaller. It doesn't work like that though.

*

Splox

  • 76
Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2007, 02:02:02 AM »
The distance around the equator in FE is 24,900 miles.

This seems to contradict the FAQ Tom, by a lot.

FAQ indirectly gives the distance around the equator as about 39,113 miles. 
Quote from: FAQ
: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall.

Thats a equatorial diameter of 24,900/2 or 12,450 miles.  So, 12,450*pi miles or 39,113 miles equals the circumference of the equator. That means the sun sets on the equator at 39,113/24 mph or 1630 mph.  One would simply have to observe a sunset speed of about 1000 mph on the equator to disprove the whole FE hypothesis.

Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2007, 04:20:20 AM »
HI GUYS

*

Rudd Master 3000

  • 452
  • Lil Kev
Re: Questioning the sunset optical illusion
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2007, 04:43:34 AM »
Here's what the sun should look like 2,490 miles south of the equator on March 21st (the equinox)...


Despite the fact that it is the equinox the location will only be under the "spotlight" for 6 hours, 4 minutes and 35 seconds.