Once again: how does the sun go down?

What's dyslectic?

My original idea was is something like this:

@Gulliver (who sucks):

Quote from: Gulliver on June 05, 2007, 09:07:49 AM

Quote from: Bushido on June 05, 2007, 02:54:17 AM

Finally, you've posted the true solution.

Now, as you all know, light bends in gravitational fields. Maybe the UA has something to do with strange "refractive properties" of the atmolayer on a FE?


EDIT:

Sure, we can always define a different physical quantity (RD, or molar refraction in our case by the formula RD = (n² - 1)/(n² + 2) M/ρ) and make an unfounded assumption about it (which is that RD does not change with temperature and density) and that would prove our point, but the fact remains that you used an assumption which you haven't proven.

As a REer, I'm glad to see FE resort to a new unexplained physical quantity to explain obsersavtions. Since RE has a simpler explanation with known physics, we must prefer RE over FE in this round as well. So I won't bother to debate your new invention. (Though you might want to define n in your equation)

Don't be an obtuse SoB. It is you who posted the link pointing to the Lorentz - Lorenz formula:

Quote from: Gulliver on June 05, 2007, 02:48:27 AM

...
We know: "The refractive index increases as pressure increases, due to the resulting increase in density." Please reference: http://www.pirika.com/chem/TCPEE/RI/ourRI.htm.

Why do I have to define refractive index (labeled by n)?  Also, you did not answer the question:

Quote from: Bushido on June 05, 2007, 03:18:30 AM

Looking at the Lorentz - Lorenz equation, we may ask the following question:

What is the refractive index of the medium when the density becomes:

ρ_c = M/RD

Insted of using RD, we can use the parameter ρ_c (since the molar mass M is constant) and rewrite the Lorentz - Lorenz equation in the form:

ρ/ρ_c = (n²-1)/(n²+2)

Now, answer objectively or else go worhip St. Fu.

Quote from: Gayer loves FES on June 06, 2007, 12:29:26 AM

What's dyslectic?

You are. And Gulliver.

You may not be ill. You simply may have a low IQ.

Quote from: JackASCII on June 05, 2007, 01:08:07 PM

Quote from: Bushido on June 05, 2007, 02:41:38 AM

Do you even read, you dislectics?

Is that like dyslexic?

No, it's like dyslectic.

Quote from: Bushido on June 06, 2007, 12:28:45 AM

Quote from: JackASCII on June 05, 2007, 01:08:07 PM

Quote from: Bushido on June 05, 2007, 02:41:38 AM

Do you even read, you dislectics?

Is that like dyslexic?

No, it's like dyslectic.

Yuo wuold but yuo wuoldn't be able to raed it.

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 from: Tom Bishop on June 03, 2007, 07:13:39 PM

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:

Quote

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.

Fcku u poelpe teh earht is ruond homfoags!

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.