6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)

  • 58 Replies
  • 11069 Views
?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
If I stand at the North Pole (or anywhere in the arctic circle) then for 6 months of the year there is no daylight, as the sun does not rise.

This means the sun does not come more than 1 or 2 degrees above the horizon.

This means the sun is never less than 85,909 miles away.

Sorry to keep bringing this up but it has met with NO satisfactory answer from any FEer.

The sun remains FE's greatest problem.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 04:15:53 PM by Gin »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2007, 11:30:55 AM »
Q: How do seasons work?

The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.



-

Perpetual night at the North Pole happens when the sun is in its southern annulus.

Perpetual night at the extreme south happens when the sun is in its northern annulus.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 11:33:32 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2007, 11:34:36 AM »
The southern annulus must mean the sun is 85,909 miles away from the north pole then yes?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2007, 11:39:15 AM »
The mark of the southern annulus, the area over which the sun sits during that time of the year, is the Tropic of Capricorn.

The Tropic of Capricorn is not 85,909 miles away from the North Pole.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2007, 11:40:15 AM »
So how does the sun approach within even 1 degree of the horizon?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2007, 11:41:49 AM »
The mark of the southern annulus is the Tropic of Capricorn.

The Tropic of Capricorn is not 85,909 miles away from the North Pole.

round of applause for Mr Bishop, you've just disproved your own thoery, Gin argued that would be how far away the sun would need to be to be less than 1 or 2 degrees abover the horizon, now you say it CAN'T be that far away

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2007, 11:43:08 AM »
Quote
So how does the sun approach within even 1 degree of the horizon?

Because from the perspective of the North Pole the sun recedes over the artificial horizon, into the vanishing point.

Quote
round of applause for Mr Bishop, you've just disproved your own thoery, Gin argued that would be how far away the sun would need to be to be less than 1 or 2 degrees abover the horizon, now you say it CAN'T be that far away

Gin's argument does not accurately take perspective into account.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 11:53:46 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2007, 11:57:55 AM »
My argument, as I have previously stated, is based on the laws of perspective. It is in fact a statement, in simple terms, of the direct consequences of those laws.

Don't make yourself look like more of an idiot.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2007, 12:12:08 PM »
Please describe your "mathematics" in full, explaining why you think it will take 85,909 miles to obscure the receding sun.

Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2007, 12:20:18 PM »
How many times must this simple observational fact be told? THE SUN DOES NOT GET SMALLER AS IT SETS, RISES, OR MOVES. IT THEREFORE IS NOT A PERSPECTIVE EFFECT. ::) For the love of all that is good in the world, stop trying to say otherwise. Three year-olds can observe this without problems, WHY CAN'T YOU? ???
Plato: People are inherently bad.
Aristotle: People are inherently good.
Me: People are inherently stupid.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2007, 12:25:40 PM »
The shrinking of the sun into the horizon is offset by the effect described in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe:

    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 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.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 12:30:10 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2007, 12:34:35 PM »
I've done this already, but just for you I'll be happy to do it again.

The FE model assumes the sun to be 3000 miles from the face of the Earth i.e. the perpendicular distance to the Earth is 3000 miles.

Our aim is to determine the distance to the observer of the point X at which the sun (S) is directly overhead (i.e. the distance to the point on Earth where the sun is 90 degrees from the horizon). We may also determine the actual distance to the sun itself, though this is less relevant to the argument at hand.

We can, using the perpendicular distance to the ground of the sun, construct a right-angled triangle with the sun (S) at one vertex and the observer (O) and point X at the other two:



The distance S->X is 3000 miles. The angle at O is 2 degrees, so the ratio of the distance SX to OX is tan(2) (this is the opposite side divided by the adjacent side).

If SX/OX = tan(2) where we know SX and tan(2), we can rearrange for OX to obtain:

OX = SX/tan(2) which gives the distance as 3000/0.0349207695 which equals approximately 85,909 miles

We therefore conclude that when the sun is at this angle (nearly 4 times its own angular size from the ground) it is above a point 85,909 miles away. This shows that the sun must have traveled well outside the inhabited portion of the FE just to set, which is totally inconsistent with observation. In fact, it would be impossible for parts of the FE to simultaneously receive daylight and others darkness with this arrangement, and the sun would never be observed directly overhead.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

Ethan_MVgolfer2008

  • 119
  • Who says that I don't have a life?
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2007, 12:35:06 PM »
Way to refer to book that isn't worthy enough to be used as toilet paper Mr Bishop. Why, because that "book" provides no facts and relies on hypothetical situations. NASA, The ESA, the japanese and russian space programs have millions of pictures and other evidence of a RE.

Oh I forgot its all a conspiracy. Since there is a possiblity that they are all doctored photographs or just plain fakes, then that means that they are all faked. Even though there is no motive that seems sensible. I always forget about this ever widening conspiracy that reaches to every place in the world. (except for this site somehow)And it goes back to the Ancient greeks who proposed a RE almost 3000 years ago. Who bribed Aristotle? The Persians or the leprechauns? They probably also bribed Galileo and Copernicus.
The most useful tool in the world...sarcasm. The most useless tool in the world...Tom Bishop.

Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2007, 12:35:34 PM »
So by freak coincidence, the rate of the sun's movement directly corrolates to the amount of air its light has to pass through? Give me a break.

Oil , when put in water, forms circles...When first dumped, it forms spheres.
Plato: People are inherently bad.
Aristotle: People are inherently good.
Me: People are inherently stupid.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2007, 12:39:44 PM »
Also you can use the above mathematics to determine that when the sun is directly above the tropic of capricorn, it would be 17 degrees above the horizon at the north pole. That's despite it being winter there.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2007, 02:05:22 PM »
The shrinking of the sun into the horizon is offset by the effect described in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe:

    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 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.

Let's bring this up again.

The problem isn't that the sun doesn't get smaller when it is close to the horizon.  The problem is that if the sun is really starting at a distance from us, getting slowly closer until it is overhead, and then slowly getting farther away after it leaves this point, we should be observing it slowly swelling in size, then shrinking again.  It's not a sudden thing.  If perspective somehow explains the horizon effect then the sun should be visibly growing and shrinking everyday.  It isn't.  What rational reason is there for that?

Answer: the sun is actually much further away and the earth is a rotating sphere.  You still haven't provided a viable FE alternative.

It's another example of something that needs a lot of bells and whistles to work in FE theory, but just fits like a jigsaw puzzle in the RE model.

Like phases of the moon.

And eclipses.

I'll admit that the horizon theory itself actually makes sense, until you realize that Rowbotham himself stated that he was changing our understanding of perspective to make his theory work.

Your explanation above is just coincidental to the extreme.  You're saying that there's just enough air particles blocking the sun (or whatever) in any position in the sky for it to stay about the same size, at any point except around the horizon.  Sorry, but Occam's Razor here, once again, suggests that the explanation is simply a whirling globe.

Sorry for going off-topic, Gin, but I felt that it was appropriate to bring this up in this spot.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 02:07:52 PM by Roundy the Monkey God »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2007, 02:25:11 PM »
Quote
I've done this already, but just for you I'll be happy to do it again.

Gin, the fallacy in your math is assuming that finding the vanishing point is as easy as finding the hypotenuse of a triangle. Not so.

Using geometrical tan equations is entirely irrelevant when considering perspective. The sun does not physically decline and touch the horizon. It is just a perspective effect which gives the illusion of the sun touching the horizon. There is no physical triangle to measure.

If we use your exact equation and consider a flock of birds 500 feet overhead descending into the horizon we find that 500/0.0349207695 equates to a hypotenuse of about 14,318 feet or 2.7 miles. Therefore, according to you the flock of birds should disappear into the horizon at 2.7 miles away. This is highly odd considering that I can, at the time of this writing, clearly see a city on the other side of my bay which is 30 miles away. If I take out a telescope I can even  see flocks of birds over the adjacent city. According to your equation the receding birds should disappear into the sea 2.7 miles out.

Something is clearly wrong with your hypotenuse assumption, obviously. The bird example clearly shows that the vanishing point does not work according to hypothetical side views and imaginary triangles.

You are using the wrong equation.

Quote
So by freak coincidence, the rate of the sun's movement directly corrolates to the amount of air its light has to pass through? Give me a break.

It's not a coincidence. If you observe the sun at setting near the horizon you will notice that it actually appears much larger than it does at zenith. This is due to Rowbotham's magnification effect.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 02:32:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2007, 02:33:35 PM »
We have previously questioned your 30-mile-away city assertion, but even ignoring that...

Quote
Using geometrical tan equations is entirely irrelevant when considering perspective. The sun does not physically decline and touch the horizon. It is just a perspective effect which gives the illusion of the sun touching the horizon. There is no physical triangle to measure.

There is indeed a physical triangle. While I agree the sun does not physically change height at all, that wasn't my point. The triangle is formed by the sun, the point below it, and the observer. This really isn't difficult to understand. My maths class was measuring the heights of trees by the very same method when I was 11. Just imagine the sun is the top of a tall tree (3000 miles tall) and you are standing an unknown distance from it, with a nice angle-measurer.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2007, 02:46:20 PM »
It is a coincidence, because at any point but right around the horizon, it stays the same size.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2007, 02:53:23 PM »
The moon gets bigger though, does anybody know why that is? FE or RE I don't really mind

just call me a thick sh*t if you want, was just curious

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2007, 03:49:17 PM »
Tom, you must have not gone through geometry.  We have not said the sun actually decreases altitude.  It's just that for the sun to have a perspective of 2o, the sun must be so far away that a Flat Earth would be preposterously huge.


*Edit* Incorrect tangent in first picture, but the answer is the same.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 05:43:33 PM by Trekky0623 »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2007, 03:51:48 PM »
Very nice. You did your math the other way round, using the other angle, but it makes no difference. Marvelous work!

Tom have you anything to say?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2007, 04:04:53 PM »
I've already shown through the bird example how fallacious that hypotenuse argument is. It does not work at all by any stretch of the imagination.

A ten foot tall tree receding into the distance would disappear into the horizon 286 feet away from the observer (10/0.0349207695). Do ten foot tall trees disappear into the horizon at 286 feet? No.

A flock of birds 500 feet high would disappear into the horizon at 2.7 miles away from the observer (500/0.0349207695). Yet I can clearly see surface objects and birds farther than 2.7 miles away.

The entire premise and equation is bunk.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 04:09:32 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2007, 04:11:32 PM »
No, it would NOT disappear into the horizon. That's not what the math says. It says that the top of the tree, the sun or the birds would be within two degrees of the horizon. Two degrees is four times the width of the sun or moon, which is no small amount I'm sure you'll agree. It is you flat earthers who insist the sun would magically disappear. All I proved was the before the sun even approaches the point where it could be hidden by a 'false horizon' or anything else, it wouldbe 85,000 miles away.

The sun is still clearly visible at 1 degree above the horizon, putting it at 171,869 miles. The birds would be within 2 sun-widths of the vanishing point (1 degree) when they were 28,644 feet away. Your precious Rowbotham says that the eye can resolve angles much smaller than this, in the range of arc minutes not degrees, so neither the birds nor the tree would 'vanish'.

As any object only touches the vanishing point at infinite distance, it would be fallacious to attempt to calculate the distance at which this occured for the sun. I elected instead to show that to even come near the horizon on FE, it would need to greatly exceed FE's diameter in its horizontal separation from the observer.

To borrow a phrase: "I don't think so Tom."
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 6 Months Of Night
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2007, 04:16:19 PM »
Quote
No, it would NOT disappear into the horizon. That's not what the math says. It says that the top of the tree, the sun or the birds would be within two degrees of the horizon.

At those distances the tree or birds would not approach no where near two degrees of the horizon, either.

Instead of continuing on with your irrelevant and ridiculous math, could you at least address the tree issue? It should be immediately clear to any person that at 286 feet away, the top of a ten foot tall tree is not within two degrees of the horizon.

This is a clear and irrefutable example of how your math does not work.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 04:19:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2007, 04:20:25 PM »
Quote
At those distances the tree or birds would not approach two degrees of the horizon, either.

Yes they would, I just showed that they did.

Quote
Instead of continuing on with your irrelevent and rediculous math, could you at least address the tree issue?

No need to be so scathing. Do not attack it if you can't tell me why it's wrong. There should be a mathematical reason for its incorrectness. And what's the tree issue? As I've already said, two degrees is a lot in perception terms. This moon here is only 0.52 degrees wide:



I know it's not evidence, and the picture is zoomed in, but maybe you can understand that the tree 'issue' isn't an issue at all, just an unexpected result for you.

Edit: Something to be learned about mathematical proof: as long as the reasoning is sound, and the premises on which it is based are sound, the proof is impossible to refute, ever. It's just one of those beautiful things about mathematics. If you don't believe my reasoning (equations etc) or premises (assumptions for the formation of equations) are sound, please point out where and how.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 04:22:50 PM by Gin »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2007, 04:24:36 PM »
Tom, the Sun doesn't disappear.  It's just barely over the horizon.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2007, 04:26:36 PM »


Applying my formula here using the approximate height of the couple (1.7m) puts them at about 187m away. Not too unreasonable now is it...

Edit: Oops, did my calculations for that one in radians not degrees! *fixed*
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 04:30:21 PM by Gin »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2007, 04:28:12 PM »
Tom, you can't argue against math.  Math is the only thing that we humans are sure about.  2 + 2 always equals 4.  To argue against math just shows how stubborn you really are.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2007, 04:32:43 PM »


Here, assuming FE, the sun must be around 54,000 miles away.

On RE, it's just the boring old 93,000,000.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.