Wave Crests And Sunsets - UNANSWERED

If the evidence is so overwhelming, then you should be able to reference some experimental evidence for a Round Earth.

Although it's not experimental, essentially everything that's part of the conspiracy.

Quote

You're so right. But we'll just have to explain to the audience that FEers really do exist and hold fast to their beliefs even in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

If the evidence is so overwhelming, then you should be able to reference some experimental evidence for a Round Earth.

The well experiment.  Now whats your evidence the sun can magically move around in the sky? 

Bumping this thread for great justice and adding my own thoughts because this demonstrates mine clearly without making a new thread!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2007, 04:48:40 PM

This means that as the ship shrinks into the horizon it must also sink into mean height of the combined waves. The smaller the ship gets into the distance, the more the waves at the false edge of the horizon will obscure its hull.

Consult Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

Consider a 3D model with an infinite perfectly flat plane. Any receding object on the surface gets smaller and smaller the more distant it gets, right? At the edge of the horizon, any imperfect increase in height, no matter how minuscule, will obscure the object from the bottom up as it shrinks into the distance.

-

As an analogy, lets pretend that the strawberries in this corrected image are waves, and that the orange is either the ship or sun. As the orange recedes and shrinks into the vanishing point it will become obscured by the strawberries in front of it from the bottom up. The bacterium will see the orange 'sink' into the horizon.

How can you say that "any imperfect increase in height, no matter how minuscule, will obscure the object from the bottom up as it shrinks into the distance."   These miniscule imperfections are affected by the same perspective! The perspective does not select certain objects to which it applys.  The imperfections still shrink proportional to the ship! If at 500 feet the ship has been reduced to 1/2 its height, then so has the wave! It does not magically get to stay the same height in your perspective drawing or actual view.

In your "corrected"(LMFAO, pardon me) image, you randomly decide that we are looking at the bottom of the orange. You take the THREAD that is strung between the orange and apple and decide to make it your LoS. That is not what Gin made it out to be at all.
Let us look at this image
This is what you did with the other image.  As you can see, the light blue line connecting the TOP of the APPLE to the BOTTOM of the ORANGE is your LoS. It is always obscured by the strawberries and proves nothing at all.
Your image "corrected" for perspective should have looked like this:
As you can see, the dark blue line is NEVER obscured by the strawberries. No matter how small I make that orange, the strawberries are smaller still! We do not care about the bottom of the orange, just the top... where the dark blue thread is attached, or our true LoS, which i might add, is at 90°. Your new LoS, the light blue line is most definately NOT 90°.

yeah, how did he randomly come up with looking at the bottom of the orange in the first place?

Quote

You're so right. But we'll just have to explain to the audience that FEers really do exist and hold fast to their beliefs even in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

If the evidence is so overwhelming, then you should be able to reference some experimental evidence for a Round Earth.

I already have. I'm even posted a link to an Excel workbook that will allow you to step outside and run a convincing experiment most any daylight hour.

Although not all the things Tom comes up with are great, he has a life and isn't on the forums 24/7.  If you have to wait for a response, than wait, but don't be impatient and rude about it.

I wasn't rude for no reason....he saw the thread but answered nothing... He just went on with his usual ignorant jibberish.

What Gin posted was not evidence of a round earth, but clear evidence that FE can not explain sunsets. Just like it can not explain why the sun travels across the sky with constant angular velocity...

But hey, we're pathetic scientists...we just ignore that and move on....right Tom. Just ignore the brutaly plain facts.

How can anyone expect to convince these knuckleheads in the falseness of FE "theory" if they can not comprehend these simple facts?

It will never appear as if the sun disappeared behind the horizon when it is travelling in parallel to a flat earth. Waves at the horizon are so small due to perspective distortion that the horizon appears as a flat line, they don't make a difference. And of course, the sun has to be a sphere, otherwise we'd be seeing an ellipse all the time. Also, why does it not get smaller when it travels "away" from us, but stays the same size all the time (except for sunset, due to atmospheric distortion, where it gets bigger actually). What about Nullarbor plains? No waves there to block the sun.

Very nice animation. Therefore, any chance that we'd get a clear response in this thread is completely gone, now that there are 3 good explanations in this thread lol.

yeah, how did he randomly come up with looking at the bottom of the orange in the first place?

The horizon line is always at eye level with the observer. At the coast of a beach if you look out towards the ocean the line of the horizon will be at your eye level 90 degrees parallel to the ground. if you are on the top of a mountain the line of the horizon is still at eye level. On a plane, the horizon is at eye level still. As you ascend in height the line of the horizon ascends with you.

It will never appear as if the sun disappeared behind the horizon when it is travelling in parallel to a flat earth. Waves at the horizon are so small due to perspective distortion that the horizon appears as a flat line, they don't make a difference. And of course, the sun has to be a sphere, otherwise we'd be seeing an ellipse all the time.

Your animation stops prematurely. If you continue running the animation the ball would indeed become one with the horizon after a distance.

Lets say that in your animation the additional height of the waves and crests of the ocean make up one or two pixels of additional height to the true horizon. Imagine that there is a thin blue line on top of the horizon in your animation. As the ball recedes and descends into the true horizon it must sink into that thin layer from the bottom up.

Also, why does it not get smaller when it travels "away" from us, but stays the same size all the time (except for sunset, due to atmospheric distortion, where it gets bigger actually).

As the sun recedes into the distance its shrinking 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."

Thus, the smaller the sun becomes, the larger it will appear to the observer.

What about Nullarbor plains? No waves there to block the sun.

No stretch of land on this earth is perfectly flat. If there is an inch increase in height along the vast stretch of land between the observer and the sun then that inch of increased height will block out the sun as it recedes and descends.

As an analogy lets take out a penny, hold it an arms length away and align it with the sun. Marvelously, due to perception, the penny will block out the entire sun!

As an analogy lets take out a penny, hold it an arms length away and align it with the sun. Marvelously, due to perception, the penny will block out the entire sun!

  What does this analogy prove, exactly?

I wasn't rude for no reason....he saw the thread but answered nothing... He just went on with his usual ignorant jibberish.

What Gin posted was not evidence of a round earth, but clear evidence that FE can not explain sunsets. Just like it can not explain why the sun travels across the sky with constant angular velocity...

But hey, we're pathetic scientists...we just ignore that and move on....right Tom. Just ignore the brutaly plain facts.

How can anyone expect to convince these knuckleheads in the falseness of FE "theory" if they can not comprehend these simple facts?

Excuses don't make up for your rudeness.  And find me one claimed scientist on these forums.

What does this analogy prove, exactly?

If a penny can block out the sun then a series of 40 inch waves along the surface of the ocean could do the same, surely.

Additionally, any excess light from the glow of the sun after it descends into the horizon would be obscured by the thick atmosphere which lies along the surface of the earth. After a sufficient distance from the observer the light would become lost in the cloud of the atmosphere.

Quote

What does this analogy prove, exactly?

If a penny can block out the sun then a series of 40 inch waves along the surface of the ocean could do the same, surely.

But you're talking about a penny directly in front of your face, as opposed to waves that are much, much further away.

I'm starting to wonder if you understand perspective...

If a penny can block out the sun then a series of 40 inch waves along the surface of the ocean could do the same, surely.

Yes Tom. If placed in the line of sight....waves are not.

Additionally, any excess light from the glow of the sun after it descends into the horizon would be obscured by the thick atmosphere which lies along the surface of the earth. After a sufficient distance from the observer the light would become lost in the cloud of the atmosphere.

That would make the sun disappear before it touches the horizon...which occasionay happens. But when the air is clean enough it does not. And for those cases FE does not have an expanation

Pathetic...

Additionally, any excess light from the glow of the sun after it descends into the horizon would be obscured by the thick atmosphere which lies along the surface of the earth. After a sufficient distance from the observer the light would become lost in the cloud of the atmosphere.

The sun is getting to me now.  So, the sun is above the atmosphere, and the atmosphere is blocking its light from getting to the world how, again?  Couldn't the light travel through space, and then hit the atmosphere somewhat close to, well, everywhere?

Your animation stops prematurely. If you continue running the animation the ball would indeed become one with the horizon after a distance.

No, because parallel lines never meet, not even in infinity. It would just appear to get ever closer to the horizon, without actually every meeting it. Instead, it will be too small for the human eye still to recognize it because it's too far away.

Lets say that in your animation the additional height of the waves and crests of the ocean make up one or two pixels of additional height to the true horizon. Imagine that there is a thin blue line on top of the horizon in your animation. As the ball recedes and descends into the true horizon it must sink into that thin layer from the bottom up.

It doesn't matter, since at that distance in reality, the waves would never protrude just a single "pixel" above the horizon. There is a difference if an object is right in front of you or several kilometers away from you. It shrinks in size. Is there any calculation how high waves actually would have to be to obstruct the view of the supposedly 32-mile diameter disk (according to the FAQ) of the sun at the maximum viewing distance at sea?

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.

I would attribute this effect to glare/lens flares, which increase the apparent glow around a light source when there is vapor in the air. I'm certainly not an expert when it comes to optical phenomenons though.

No stretch of land on this earth is perfectly flat. If there is an inch increase in height along the vast stretch of land between the observer and the sun then that inch of increased height will block out the sun as it recedes and descends.

As an analogy lets take out a penny, hold it an arms length away and align it with the sun. Marvelously, due to perception, the penny will block out the entire sun!

See the above example with the waves, I'd like to see how high they would have to be at a given distance from the viewer to obstruct a 32-mile disk.

Quote

yeah, how did he randomly come up with looking at the bottom of the orange in the first place?

The horizon line is always at eye level with the observer. At the coast of a beach if you look out towards the ocean the line of the horizon will be at your eye level 90 degrees parallel to the ground. if you are on the top of a mountain the line of the horizon is still at eye level. On a plane, the horizon is at eye level still. As you ascend in height the line of the horizon ascends with you.

Quote

It will never appear as if the sun disappeared behind the horizon when it is travelling in parallel to a flat earth. Waves at the horizon are so small due to perspective distortion that the horizon appears as a flat line, they don't make a difference. And of course, the sun has to be a sphere, otherwise we'd be seeing an ellipse all the time.

Your animation stops prematurely. If you continue running the animation the ball would indeed become one with the horizon after a distance.

Lets say that in your animation the additional height of the waves and crests of the ocean make up one or two pixels of additional height to the true horizon. Imagine that there is a thin blue line on top of the horizon in your animation. As the ball recedes and descends into the true horizon it must sink into that thin layer from the bottom up.

Quote

Also, why does it not get smaller when it travels "away" from us, but stays the same size all the time (except for sunset, due to atmospheric distortion, where it gets bigger actually).

As the sun recedes into the distance its shrinking 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."

Quote

What about Nullarbor plains? No waves there to block the sun.

No stretch of land on this earth is perfectly flat. If there is an inch increase in height along the vast stretch of land between the observer and the sun then that inch of increased height will block out the sun as it recedes and descends.

As an analogy lets take out a penny, hold it an arms length away and align it with the sun. Marvelously, due to perception, the penny will block out the entire sun!
40

Tom, listen we keep trying to explain this to you. You really need to listen. If you are more than 40 inches off the ocean (as in standing upright for most people) then you can always see over an infinite series of 40-inch waves on the oceans of a FE.

Tom, listen we keep trying to explain this to you. You really need to listen. The apparent size of the Sun does not change at any height at any time. The effect to which you refer to does not cause the Sun to appear the same size at all times. It might cause a glow around the disk of the Sun, but the disk would appear to be the same size.

(Now in the spirit of complete disclosure let me add: There is a refractive nature of the atmosphere (Reference Snell's Law) that is pronounced enough at sunrise and sunset to make the Sun appear above the horizon for a few minutes longer each day. Since the refraction occurs only one way (from vacuum to atmosphere's increasing density) there is only the very slightest magnification and then only under special conditions (atmospheric inversions). If you're convinced that you've seen a rising sun or moon to appear larger, you're by no means alone. There is a trick of perspective involved. You've seen it in movies like "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids". The sun appearing behind or just above objects, of which your brain knows the size, fools you into believing that the Sun appears larger. To test this, use a consistent method, like many artists do. Measure the size of the sun at midday, sunrise, and sunset by comparing it to your thumbnail on your upright thumb over a fist held at arm's length with your arm pointing to the sun. You'll see that the sun is always the same size, about the size of your thumbnail.)

Just to remind you Tommy... (I'm sure you did not forget intentionally)

The sun's angular velocity during the day is constant. FE "theory" says it should slow down during the day...

Hm...

Why would it slow down during the day on FE?

Why would it slow down during the day on FE?

Think of being at an air show. Imagine a fly-by by the Blue Angels. They approach from the north, fly directly overhead, travel in a straight line at the same altitude, and, of course, exit to the south. If you turn your head so that you're looking straight at them as they leave, as long as you can, you'll find that you have to move your head downward more quickly (as their apparent angle changes quickly) at first than as they travel out of sight (as their apparent angle changes hardly at all).

Now substitute the Sun for the Angels and consider.

Now substitute the Sun for the Angels and consider.

You say this assuming that the sun moves across the sky at a constant rate, but suns motion through the sky isn't constant. Sometimes it appears to move across the sky at a quicker rate, and sometimes at a slower rate. If any of you have a sundial, you'll be familiar with this effect as the "equation of time" which tells you how much your sundial will deviate from "true time" during the year.

Illustration: http://www.dupageco-il-vetsmemorial.org/seasonal.jpg

How do you REer's account for this discrepancy?

How do you REer's account for this discrepancy?

Well, first, how do you?

Hello everybody. I’m brand new, this is my first post and I don’t expect there’ll be many more, but who knows. I’ve been reading Tom’s posts for a while and I’m finally giving in to my urge to respond because my god Tom, although you’re definitely not the worst FE proponent that I’ve seen here (which on it’s own is a scary thought), you display such a lack of critical thinking that it boggles my mind.

Many individuals have said it, and you’re just not getting it. There is no way that the law of perspective explains sunrises and sunsets, or even ships sinking into the horizon for that matter (especially if you watch them do this with a high powered telescope or a good pair of binoculars). No way, no how. This pseudoscience is worse than what creationists sometimes throw out there (no I’m not calling u a creationist). And yes, I have referred to Chapter 14. The mechanism described is no more valid today than it was over 100 years ago, plain and simple.

While the animation may have ended prematurely, that’s not the point. Yes we know it would eventually become indistinguishable from the horizon. The point is, by the time this happened; the sun would be a very small spot in the sky. Even if the atmosphere were responsible for blocking out the light of the sun over such great distances, what you would observe would be a sun getting smaller and fainter, not a sun suddenly dipping into the horizon, with its bottom half completely obscured in a matter of minutes. Yes I know about the refractive effects making it seem bigger, but these effects play tricks on your brain’s interpretation of the image, nothing more. A computer program would measure the size as being the same when it set as it was at its zenith.

And even if I were to concede that due to some funny unknown property of air, the sun were to somehow be magnified from a small circle to a larger disk at sunset and thus appear to remain similar in size despite it moving away, you would still observe the sun disappearing by gradually becoming fainter until it vanished. You wouldn’t see it abruptly dip into the horizon as it does. 

Tom, even in primitive models of a flat earth, the sun was seen as going around this earth and not just circling overhead, because it doesn’t take a lot to figure out that these laws of perspective simply cannot account for the phenomena observed.

Quote

Now substitute the Sun for the Angels and consider.

You say this assuming that the sun moves across the sky at a constant rate, but suns motion through the sky isn't constant. Sometimes it appears to move across the sky at a quicker rate, and sometimes at a slower rate. If any of you have a sundial, you'll be familiar with this effect as the "equation of time" which tells you how much your sundial will deviate from "true time" during the year.

Illustration: http://www.dupageco-il-vetsmemorial.org/seasonal.jpg

How do you REer's account for this discrepancy?

Wow, rather than answer the question you go off and find that the Sun appears to move faster by a handful of minutes a year when we're talking about one day's observation. Tom, you are really reaching.

Now Mr. Ireland accurately points out that you should answer for FE first, but I'll be gracious. RE holds the RE revolves about the Sun in an ellipse, not quite a circle. The effect on the Sun's appearance can indeed be predicted and measured accurately within Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. I can even do the math with the help of Maple, I bet. If you want to make a wager that I can prove this explanation for the discrepancy with better math than you can, just let us know. I expect that I'll never even hear your explanation, let alone the math behind it.

Tom, this debate will go nowhere if you keep evading. You're losing your credibility. Stand up to the issues, please.

Quote

Now substitute the Sun for the Angels and consider.

You say this assuming that the sun moves across the sky at a constant rate, but suns motion through the sky isn't constant. Sometimes it appears to move across the sky at a quicker rate, and sometimes at a slower rate. If any of you have a sundial, you'll be familiar with this effect as the "equation of time" which tells you how much your sundial will deviate from "true time" during the year.

Illustration: http://www.dupageco-il-vetsmemorial.org/seasonal.jpg

How do you REer's account for this discrepancy?

Tom! Tommy boy!

These are MINOR corrections due to orbital eccentricity and earth's tilt. The effect arising form FE "theory" would be H U G E!

Again...ignoring the brutally clear facts.

Indeed, meany is correct. The discrepancy described results in a deviation of 15 or so minutes over the course of a whole year. That's a discrepancy of 0.00285% over the course of 365 days.. in case you were wondering. For all practical purposes, the sun's motion accross the sky is constant, especially when you're measuring it during any given day. In the proposed FE model however, the variation in the rate of motion at different times of day would be readily detectable.

Indeed, meany is correct. The discrepancy described results in a deviation of 15 or so minutes over the course of a whole year. That's a discrepancy of 0.00285% over the course of 365 days.. in case you were wondering. For all practical purposes, the sun's motion accross the sky is constant, especially when you're measuring it during any given day. In the proposed FE model however, the variation in the rate of motion at different times of day would be readily detectable.

Gold star! Well documented. Well argued.

Although it is good that RE is giving reasoning, I kind of feel, as a RE'er, that we're grouping up against Tom.  It seems that Tom is the only FE'er that is willing to hold open debate about aspects of FE theory, while the rest rarely post at all.  It would be nice if the numbers on the sides were more balanced so the debate wouldn't seem like such a single-man attack, and multiple minds could work together to work out the defense of FE as is happening with RE.

Although it is good that RE is giving reasoning, I kind of feel, as a RE'er, that we're grouping up against Tom.  It seems that Tom is the only FE'er that is willing to hold open debate about aspects of FE theory, while the rest rarely post at all.  It would be nice if the numbers on the sides were more balanced so the debate wouldn't seem like such a single-man attack, and multiple minds could work together to work out the defense of FE as is happening with RE.

Good point. Well expressed. Compassion in all that we post against Tom's arguments should be our rule, if for no other reason than respect for his conviction and willingness to post.

It seems that Tom is the only FE'er that is willing to hold open debate about aspects of FE theory, while the rest rarely post at all. 

Open debate? He keeps ignoring things that don't fit his "theory".

Open debate? He keeps ignoring things that don't fit his "theory".

He's also one man against everyone who arrives.