Once again: how does the sun go down?

Because I find it particularly difficult to imagine the grand scale of things, I have taken the liberty of making a to-scale drawing of the flat earth.

The scale is 1 pixel = 8 miles. The blue line is the line of vision of someone at the equator on the opposite side of the Earth from the sun looking toward the sun during an equinox. These are the measurements I used, which I found in the FAQ:
Diameter of the Earth: 24,000 miles (3112.5 pixels)
Diameter of the Sun:   32 miles (4 pixels)
Distance to the Sun:   3,000 miles (375 pixels)

None of the measurements are off by more than a pixel or two, due to rounding.



I find it difficult to understand how the sun would appear to even approach the horizon, let alone go beneath it.

Any (serious) answers?

That post is outstanding...

That post is outstanding...

We will prevail.

Did you read through Earth Not a Globe before making this thread?

Did you read Jane Austen's period classic 'Pride and Prejudice' before making a reply? No of course you didn't, because the content of your reply is not dependent on the words in that great book (and it is great).

Had the OP read Earth: Not A Globe, how do you think his/her thread would differ? (S)he used figures from the FES to come up with that diagram, can you suggest a correction?

Not consulting a book is totally irrelevant unless it contains some information that might lead us to construct our proof/disproof differently. If you cannot explain how (s)he should modify the OP (and I propose that you can't) then you have no basis for making the reply you did.

Haha Tom owned by Gin.

...Any (serious) answers?

Sorry, but as a REer and with the best of intentions of assisting you in honing your point, I disagree. You see the FAQs and Rowbotham both state that the Sun is a spotlight shining down on the FE. It seems to be a sphere, but I don't see that stated explicitly.

Your point requires that the Sun shine with equal intensity in all directions. Imagine the revision to your diagram if the Sun shone down at from zero degrees to 45^o but not at 46^o or higher.

Now, the FE still a numerous problems with this. The angle of the Sun in the sky to observer is wrong. Sunset would never appear like a disc sliding below the horizon.

You've made a good point, but it just needs some work. (Otherwise, poor debaters like TomB will simply attack this small oversight and never respond to the brilliance of your insights.)

I hope that helps!

Did you read through Earth Not a Globe before making this thread?

Not in its entirety, but I just read the "Sunrise and Sunset" section.  Here's an excerpt:

A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is 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. When a balloon sails away from an observer, without increasing or decreasing its altitude, it appears to gradually approach the horizon. In a long row of lamps, the second--supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series---will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the .second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 63.



FIG. 63.

Now I have a few questions:

1. Size: Why is it that the sun (or moon) always appears the same size in the sky?  If it gets far enough away to make the Earth get so dark, why doesn't it get smaller?

2. Speed: If the sun really did just pass overhead parallel to the earth, why is its speed always the same, especially at sundown?  Take this drawing, for example:

Let's say the sun was traveling along the road at a constant speed.  It would take the sun just as long to travel distance A as it would distance B.  So not only would the sun appear to get smaller as it got further away, but it would also appear to slow down.

Did you read Jane Austen's period classic 'Pride and Prejudice' before making a reply? No of course you didn't, because the content of your reply is not dependent on the words in that great book (and it is great).

Had the OP read Earth: Not A Globe, how do you think his/her thread would differ? (S)he used figures from the FES to come up with that diagram, can you suggest a correction?

Not consulting a book is totally irrelevant unless it contains some information that might lead us to construct our proof/disproof differently. If you cannot explain how (s)he should modify the OP (and I propose that you can't) then you have no basis for making the reply you did.

Thank you, Gin.

Quote from: thesublime514 on June 03, 2007, 05:57:40 PM

...Any (serious) answers?

Sorry, but as a REer and with the best of intentions of assisting you in honing your point, I disagree. You see the FAQs and Rowbotham both state that the Sun is a spotlight shining down on the FE. It seems to be a sphere, but I don't see that stated explicitly.

Your point requires that the Sun shine with equal intensity in all directions. Imagine the revision to your diagram if the Sun shone down at from zero degrees to 45^o but not at 46^o or higher.

Now, the FE still a numerous problems with this. The angle of the Sun in the sky to observer is wrong. Sunset would never appear like a disc sliding below the horizon.

You've made a good point, but it just needs some work. (Otherwise, poor debaters like TomB will simply attack this small oversight and never respond to the brilliance of your insights.)

I hope that helps!

I shall make them as foolproof as possible from now on.

Did you read through Earth Not a Globe before making this thread?

Hey TomB, ever read a good high school physics textbook and performed the labs? I didn't think so. Maybe once you've done some lab work, you can get around to documenting that view of the bay that you lied about!

The simplest disproofs are the best, and Tom's frantic googling, book-throwing and post-copying isn't doing the usual magic of wiggling out of this one.

Tom, if you have an answer kindly present it.

Despite clear and obvious disproof of their theory (so far anyway) Flat Earthers should in no way be expected to convert to RE or anything like that. I imagine the purpose of this thread (if I may be so bold) and of the one I started on a similar line is to demonstrate that FE theory is a non-scientific theory. In my experience, most of the REers here just want people (Tom mainly) to stop passing FET off as a realistic alternative to modern science.

FE has been shown to be neither complete nor correct. FEers, please modify your theory (Dogplatter is particularly good at this, as he doesn't seem to think that Rowbotham is God and FET is totally infallible).

1. Size: Why is it that the sun (or moon) always appears the same size in the sky?  If it gets far enough away to make the Earth get so dark, why doesn't it get smaller?

As the sun recedes, its shrinking due to perception is counteracted by the effect described in Chapter 10.

"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 vapor 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 vapory 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 color."

2. Speed: If the sun really did just pass overhead parallel to the earth, why is its speed always the same, especially at sundown?

The sun actually does slow as it approaches the horizon.

...

Quote

2. Speed: If the sun really did just pass overhead parallel to the earth, why is its speed always the same, especially at sundown?

The sun actually does slow as it approaches the horizon.

BUZZ!! TomB, please ponder more before you post.

You can stand outside this morning and watch for yourself. The Sun covers the same angle in the sky in every hour, even every minute, of the day. Always has and always will.

RE explains and predicts this accurately. I have delivered to you proof in SunSpots.xlsx. Enter the current date and time and your current location. Then increment your time by an hour and notice the change in the angle to the Sun. Repeat until convinced.

You can also verify this by examining sundials. Those the don't use a projection, but rather case the shadow onto a ring, have equal spacing between the hours. Those that use a projection don't, because of the projection. In this case the area of each hour is the same, analogous to Kepler's Law. So both demonstrate that the Sun moves at the same rate throughout the day.

TomB, I did the math. I've shown the proof.

Quote

1. Size: Why is it that the sun (or moon) always appears the same size in the sky?  If it gets far enough away to make the Earth get so dark, why doesn't it get smaller?

As the sun recedes, its shrinking due to perception is counteracted by the effect described in Chapter 10.

"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 vapor 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 vapory 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 color."

...

BUZZ!! Wrong again, TomB. Why not actually debate an issue instead of your current disastrous algorithm:
1) See a challenge to FE.
2) Copy and paste a pat answer, especially one that quotes Mr. Rowbotham or insults the poster.
3) Watch as you are again proven wrong.
4) Ignore the response. (Any progress on starting that new thread to predict sunrise in Mexico City?)

You used this same response on March 4, 2007; April 19, 2007; May 8, 2007; and May 24, 2007. You received overwhelming rebuttals. Roundy, Agent, and I have not received a response to our rebuttals. You should answer all three of us BEFORE you post your point again.

Let me recap that rebuttal: 1) The Sun appears to be a well-defined disc that slips over the horizon. Your point does nothing to explain this. 2) The Sun remains the same apparent size at all times, just as RE predicts.

Everyone: Please keep the pressure up on TomB to either answer his rebuttals or stop spamming us with points that stand discredited.

IMFO, it's due to refraction effects and total internal reflection in the lower layers of the atmolayer. This causes, among others, the following effects:

1) Disappearing of distant objects, such as ships;
2) Not being able to see Polaris south of the Equator;
3) Approximately half of the Earth’s plane being illuminated by the Sun.

IMFO, it's due to refraction effects and total internal reflection in the lower layers of the atmolayer. This causes, among others, the following effects:

1) Disappearing of distant objects, such as ships;
2) Not being able to see Polaris south of the Equator;
3) Approximately half of the Earth’s plane being illuminated by the Sun.

Would you please explain how those two effects in your opinion explain those three observations? I don't see any reason to believe that either effect could in part, let alone enitrely, explain any of the three effects. Thanks.

The index of refraction essentially increases with altitude, although it may also change as the distance from the Earth's axis changes, so the light rays coming from a point-like source at some height above the Earth will deflect as they move to the surface of the Earth. When they hit the Earth, the tangent to the path of the ray builds a smaller angle with the horizon than the connecting line between the light source and the observation point. At greater distances from the normal from the source to the Earth, this angle decreases, and, when it becomes zero, total internal reflection occurs and the point source is no longer observable from points further away.

You can stand outside this morning and watch for yourself. The Sun covers the same angle in the sky in every hour, even every minute, of the day. Always has and always will.

Which, Tom, is why a sundial works

The index of refraction essentially increases with altitude, although it may also change as the distance from the Earth's axis changes, so the light rays coming from a point-like source at some height above the Earth will deflect as they move to the surface of the Earth. When they hit the Earth, the tangent to the path of the ray builds a smaller angle with the horizon than the connecting line between the light source and the observation point. At greater distances from the normal from the source to the Earth, this angle decreases, and, when it becomes zero, total internal reflection occurs and the point source is no longer observable from points further away.

Sorry, but you've got it exactly backwards. Please review Snell's Law. Please reference this High School Text. Light traveling along the course you describe would bend upwards. Indeed this effect explains the reason that an RE model predictions that do not consider this have sunrise late and sunset early. We get about 4 to 6 minutes more of daylight each day thanks to the atmosphere.

You can see Polaris in the Southern Hemisphere because of two effects. A view from a height and the bending of light by the atmosphere both contribute to allow Polaris to be seen in a few limited areas south of the Equator.

Also the refractive index of air is about 1.0003 or something of similar magnitude. It is hardly enough cause total internal reflection at an incident angle of 30 degrees or similar. There is no way refraction alone could explain the sunrise and sunset.

Quote

1. Size: Why is it that the sun (or moon) always appears the same size in the sky?  If it gets far enough away to make the Earth get so dark, why doesn't it get smaller?

As the sun recedes, its shrinking due to perception is counteracted by the effect described in Chapter 10.

"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 vapor 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 vapory 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 color."

Quote

2. Speed: If the sun really did just pass overhead parallel to the earth, why is its speed always the same, especially at sundown?

The sun actually does slow as it approaches the horizon.

Let's say that your explanation of the sun is acceptable.  But then, of course, we have the moon.  Why is it then, Tom, that the moon appears the same size?  Even if it did emit "cold light", there still is no way that its size could be mistaken so much.  Look at the clear outline of the moon; it appears this way in the sky whether up above or on the horizon:


And a final question, though not exactly on topic (I realize that every point I make has probably at some time in the past been made in some form or another, but I haven't yet seen it):  You say that this Ice Wall around the Earth is about 150 feet high, right?  Well, we all know that air has weight.  So, if the earth is accelerating at ~9.8 m/sec^2, why hasn't the atmosphere higher than 150 feet slipped off the sides of the earth down below to your dark energy blanket, since, clearly, the Ice Wall couldn't have contained it?  Why is it that I was still able to breathe when I went on top of that thirty-story Holiday Inn last summer?

The atmosphere is contained thanks to the surface tension created by all the polar particles in the air. The ice wall does add a little stability to this structure, but only at the base.

The atmosphere is contained thanks to the surface tension created by all the polar particles in the air. The ice wall does add a little stability to this structure, but only at the base.

This seems to be dribble. Please define "polar particles". Please explain the mechanism that would cause the required surface tension. Please explain how a meteorite would not disrupt the surface tension. Please explain why "polar particles" has never been used in the Forum before.

Quote from: narcberry on June 04, 2007, 12:31:57 PM

The atmosphere is contained thanks to the surface tension created by all the polar particles in the air. The ice wall does add a little stability to this structure, but only at the base.

This seems to be dribble. Please define "polar particles". Please explain the mechanism that would cause the required surface tension. Please explain how a meteorite would not disrupt the surface tension. Please explain why "polar particles" has never been used in the Forum before.

And please explain where did you find surface tension on GASES! You might even get a Nobel Prize just by giving evidence of the existence of surface tension on a gas, but, of course, you do not have space in your shelves for another trophy, or do you?

The simplest disproofs are the best, and Tom's frantic googling, book-throwing and post-copying isn't doing the usual magic of wiggling out of this one.

Tom, if you have an answer kindly present it.

There is no answer, we all know that. He is either just fucking with us or is really seriusly retarded. The best we can do is leave this forum, or just ignore him like he does....which consequently leads to leaving this forum.

If he want's to waste his life on a crazy lie...hey it's his choice.

Tom, can we have your word on this?

The moon's size is attributable to atmospheric distortion. The atmosphere in general has a lensing effect on objects percieved through it, and the moon is subject to this to a far greater extent when it approaches the horizon (it's light passes through more atmosphere). It is for this reason that it always appears the same size. While it might seem a coincidence, RE says that the moon is just the perfect size and distance to cause an eclipse. Pretty coincidental don't you think?

It is my personal belief that God made the world the way it is, and these phenomena are due to the perfection of his grand design, but I am aware that many of my fellow FEers do not share my faith.

The moon's size is attributable to atmospheric distortion. The atmosphere in general has a lensing effect on objects percieved through it, and the moon is subject to this to a far greater extent when it approaches the horizon (it's light passes through more atmosphere). It is for this reason that it always appears the same size. While it might seem a coincidence, RE says that the moon is just the perfect size and distance to cause an eclipse. Pretty coincidental don't you think?

It is my personal belief that God made the world the way it is, and these phenomena are due to the perfection of his grand design, but I am aware that many of my fellow FEers do not share my faith.

Since the atmosphere, except for rare inversion, increase in density constantly with decreasing altitude, I can understand how light is bent in one direction (up along the near horizontal), but you'll have to educate me on how you get a lensing effect from the atmosphere.

Once you've done that, we can discuss how the Moon just happens to magnified to all observers at any place on the FE all at the same time, throughout the seasons, and in all sorts of weather, the same apparent size out distortion or loss of detail.  Pretty coincidental don't you think?

I think it's pretty coincidental.  I also think it's pretty coincidental that anything that can't be explained is part of the conspiracy.  Which can't be debunked. Because the government is the pwnz0r.

Quote from: Bushido on June 04, 2007, 12:37:45 AM

The index of refraction essentially increases with altitude, although it may also change as the distance from the Earth's axis changes, so the light rays coming from a point-like source at some height above the Earth will deflect as they move to the surface of the Earth. When they hit the Earth, the tangent to the path of the ray builds a smaller angle with the horizon than the connecting line between the light source and the observation point. At greater distances from the normal from the source to the Earth, this angle decreases, and, when it becomes zero, total internal reflection occurs and the point source is no longer observable from points further away.

Sorry, but you've got it exactly backwards. Please review Snell's Law. Please reference this High School Text. Light traveling along the course you describe would bend upwards. Indeed this effect explains the reason that an RE model predictions that do not consider this have sunrise late and sunset early. We get about 4 to 6 minutes more of daylight each day thanks to the atmosphere.

You can see Polaris in the Southern Hemisphere because of two effects. A view from a height and the bending of light by the atmosphere both contribute to allow Polaris to be seen in a few limited areas south of the Equator.

Go to High School you nimcapoop.