Sunsets

A sunset is caused by the angle of refraction of light (or the incident ray) from the sun hitting the atmosphere at a rapidly increasing angle until it reaches 180 degrees and the sun sets. This is because the speed of light changes as it enters the medium of air from the vacuum of space, thus altering the other properties of light accordingly based on Snell's Law:   n1 sin(theta1) = n2 sin(theta2), also interpretted as sin(theta1)/sin(theta2)= v1/v2 = n1/n2. Thus, the light's color shifts as it enters the colloidal atmosphere above the earth. It is easy to see that at different lines of longitude at the same time the intensity and color of light from the sun differ tremendously (you can set up your own live camera network if you are so inclined). If the earth is NOT curved and spherical, how does the color of light change and the angle of the sun approach 180 degrees if it, per your argument, "circles" above the earth as shown in this picture from previous arguments?

It must have something to do with the angle of the sun's rays to the spot where the phenomenon is occurring.  The sun is always above the equator, orbiting a barycenter.  I'd imagine therefore that the further one is from the equator, the more the color shifts.

BTW, I don't know if you were trying to be clever with the name, but Magellan's crew's feat is still possible on a flat earth.

All the good names were taken lol

However, a tropical sunset and a far above the tropic line sunset can be equally spectacular.

Q: Why are sunsets red?

During a sunset, more red light is scattered toward the observer because of aerosols in the lower atmosphere. Since, at sunset, sunlight is passing through a much longer path of the lower atmosphere than when the sun is overhead, the effect of the aerosols becomes much stronger.

Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air. Some occur naturally, originating from volcanoes, dust storms, forest and grassland fires, living vegetation, and sea spray. Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and the alteration of natural surface cover, also generate aerosols. Aerosols are believed to have an "indirect" effect on climate by changing properties of clouds. Indeed, if there were no aerosols in the atmosphere, there would be no clouds. It is very difficult to form clouds without small aerosol particles acting as "seeds" to start the formation of cloud droplets. As aerosol concentration increases within a cloud, the water in the cloud gets spread over many more particles, each of which is correspondingly smaller. Smaller particles fall more slowly in the atmosphere and decrease the amount of rainfall. In this way, changing aerosols in the atmosphere can change the frequency of cloud occurence, cloud thickness, and rainfall amounts.

aerosols occur in different concentrations at different times of day?

I'm sorry, but that explanation fails. You can go to NYC at any time of the day and still have the same amount of polution in the air, but the sky isn't red all day now, is it?

I'm sorry, but that explanation fails. You can go to NYC at any time of the day and still have the same amount of polution in the air, but the sky isn't red all day now, is it?

The sunsets in New York actually have a much more intense hue than sunsets in rural pristine areas. This is due to the increased amount of aerosols in the air. The New York sunset is so intense that the entire city is tinted a light red during the course of a sunset.

have you ever been to new york? I liuve 90 minutes away, and the sunsets are nothing special. In fact, sunsets are generally most spectacular overlooking the ocean, where there would arguably far fewer aerosols due to the overall lack of output.

And you still did not answer the question regarding concentration of aerosols at a given time. Per your argument, we should either always be bathed in red light or aerosols are actually nocturnal creatures that come out right before twilight.

It must have something to do with the angle of the sun's rays to the spot where the phenomenon is occurring.  The sun is always above the equator, orbiting a barycenter.  I'd imagine therefore that the further one is from the equator, the more the color shifts.

BTW, I don't know if you were trying to be clever with the name, but Magellan's crew's feat is still possible on a flat earth.

That's not completely correct. The Sun's orbit in FE varies in radius during the course of a year, with the Sun orbiting above the Tropic of Capricorn during the first day of Summer in the south, for example.

Exactly. The movement of the sun exhibits a sortof a sine graph pattern between the tropics.

But the resultant angle from the sun in the FE example would never satisfy snell's law enough to create refraction and color change in the visible spectrum. And since Aerosols cannot be blamed because we know they are always in the atmosphere and don't just "pop up" at sunset, I would like to have some insight as to how FE deals with this clear problem.

You see, there was this guy Rayleigh....

I would like to have some insight as to how FE deals with this clear problem.

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham addresses the color change of the sun at sunset in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe:


CHAPTER X.
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. The following diagram, fig. 66, will show also that, as the sun recedes from the meridian, over a plane surface, the light, as it strikes the atmosphere, must give a larger disc.


FIG. 66.

Let A, B, represent the upper stratum of the atmosphere; C, D, the surface of the earth; and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the sun, in his morning, forenoon, noon, afternoon, and evening positions. It is evident that when he is in the position 1, the disc of light projected upon the atmosphere at 6, is considerably larger than the disc projected from the forenoon position, 2, upon the atmosphere at 7; and the disc at 7 is larger than that formed at 8, when the sun, at 3, is on the meridian; when at 4, the disc at 9 is again larger; and when at 5, or in the evening, the disc at 10 is again as large as at 6, or the morning position. It is evident that the above results are what must of necessity occur if the sun's path, the line of atmosphere, and the earth's surface, are parallel and horizontal lines. That such results do constantly occur is a matter of everyday observation; and we may logically deduce front it a striking argument against the rotundity of the earth, and in favour of the contrary conclusion, that it is horizontal. The atmosphere surrounding a globe would not permit of anything like the same degree of enlargement of the sun when rising and setting, as we daily see in nature.

So then why does the moon not exhibit this mysterious shape change as it rises and sets, because it too undergos the same motions as the sun without a distorting "lens" of air?

So then why does the moon not exhibit this mysterious shape change as it rises and sets, because it too undergos the same motions as the sun without a distorting "lens" of air?

It does. Have you ever seen the moon near the horizon at its rising or setting? It's huge!

Here is an unzoomed photograph I took a while ago demonstrating this phenomena:



As we can see the moon is large at the horizon and discolored; exactly as Dr. Rowbotham predicts.

While we are on the subject of the Sun, I would like to invite you, Tom, to read my theory on why the North and South experience differing amounts of sunlight during the year.  I also tried to tie it in with the tilting tide theory.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15596.msg251440#msg251440

My friend, the moon appears larger as its phases wax and wane. High in the sky, it appears the same size. You can test this with a quarter held at a length from your face to perfectly obscure the moon at a certain time, and then measure its distance. When you compare it at another time, it is the same distance.

Also Tom I've told you why Chapter 10 in E:NaG is wrong. The way in which he has the sun appear bigger, by being projected in such a way will ONLY elongate it in the direction of the observation, the overall width would remain relatively constant. In Rowbotham's idea, the sun's approximate width would be the size of the sun at point 8, for the entire day. However, the height of the sun would vary and at points 6 and 10 be 2-3 times as tall as it is wide.

Also for a person living significantly North (such as me) or South of the sun's current orbit, in fact anyone not directly beneath the sun, should never see a round sun. Not even at noon. Rowbotham is attempting to portray a 3-d event in 2-d (this rarely works out accurately for the real world by the way). The sun elongates the way it does, because the light from the upper part has farther to travel to reach the atmosphere and be projected (which sounds really stupid, it's projected onto the atmosphere?). However the middle of the sun, where it is widest has to travel the same distance from either side, so there should be no apparent widening as it approaches the horizon. If Rowbotham thought this a good explanation he was probably only slightly more intelligent than you, as you apparently bought his crap.

Once again, any enlarging of the sun due to what Rowbotham describes would only create an elongated oval sun, it would also make the sun round only to those directly beneath it.

I strongly suggest attempting to find a more credible source than E:NaG Tom, it seems to fail... badly.

Quote

So then why does the moon not exhibit this mysterious shape change as it rises and sets, because it too undergos the same motions as the sun without a distorting "lens" of air?

It does. Have you ever seen the moon near the horizon at its rising or setting? It's huge!

Here is an unzoomed photograph I took a while ago demonstrating this phenomena:



As we can see the moon is large at the horizon and discolored; exactly as Dr. Rowbotham predicts.

LOL.  This has been gone over before.  That's an optical illusion and if you were to measure that moon to one that was directly overhead with a ruler you would find it to be exactly the same size, despite appearances.  Why do you even keep trying? 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2007, 09:40:37 AM

Quote

So then why does the moon not exhibit this mysterious shape change as it rises and sets, because it too undergos the same motions as the sun without a distorting "lens" of air?

It does. Have you ever seen the moon near the horizon at its rising or setting? It's huge!

Here is an unzoomed photograph I took a while ago demonstrating this phenomena:



As we can see the moon is large at the horizon and discolored; exactly as Dr. Rowbotham predicts.

LOL.  This has been gone over before.  That's an optical illusion and if you were to measure that moon to one that was directly overhead with a ruler you would find it to be exactly the same size, despite appearances.  Why do you even keep trying? 

To clarify for new people the illusion is caused by having something of a somewhat known size to compare the Moon to.  When the Moon is in the sky above you, there's nothing to give scale reference.  However, when the Moon is over a building it appears larger.  This is simply your mind simplifying the world for you.  It's assuming they're near each other so you come to the conclusion that the Moon is very large.



Oh, your signature rocks Roundy.

Oh, your signature rocks Roundy.

Thank you! 

Think it would be a worthy addition to the RE Primer?

Quote from: CommonCents on July 13, 2007, 11:29:46 AM

Oh, your signature rocks Roundy.

Thank you! 

Think it would be a worthy addition to the RE Primer?

Holy shit I'm so sick of him telling people to read that.  It should be in there.

LOL.  This has been gone over before.  That's an optical illusion and if you were to measure that moon to one that was directly overhead with a ruler you would find it to be exactly the same size, despite appearances.  Why do you even keep trying? 

If Tom were to give up on Rowbotham, he might as well be giving up on his life.

Quote from: Roundy the Liar on July 13, 2007, 11:23:14 AM

LOL.  This has been gone over before.  That's an optical illusion and if you were to measure that moon to one that was directly overhead with a ruler you would find it to be exactly the same size, despite appearances.  Why do you even keep trying? 

If Tom were to give up on Rowbotham, he might as well be giving up on his life.

I don't know about that. It's be really difficult for him, but he'd still have his biblical quotes to rely on. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2007, 09:40:37 AM

Quote

So then why does the moon not exhibit this mysterious shape change as it rises and sets, because it too undergos the same motions as the sun without a distorting "lens" of air?

It does. Have you ever seen the moon near the horizon at its rising or setting? It's huge!

Here is an unzoomed photograph I took a while ago demonstrating this phenomena:



As we can see the moon is large at the horizon and discolored; exactly as Dr. Rowbotham predicts.

LOL.  This has been gone over before.  That's an optical illusion and if you were to measure that moon to one that was directly overhead with a ruler you would find it to be exactly the same size, despite appearances.  Why do you even keep trying? 

Roundy! Holy shit! You got one correct. Seems like you can tell the truth after all...hmmm...   

<snip>
To clarify for new people the illusion is caused by having something of a somewhat known size to compare the Moon to.  When the Moon is in the sky above you, there's nothing to give scale reference.  However, when the Moon is over a building it appears larger.  This is simply your mind simplifying the world for you.  It's assuming they're near each other so you come to the conclusion that the Moon is very large.

Oh, your signature rocks Roundy.

Oh man, CC, you blew it! sorry man... 
Actually, what you wrote is not totally correct. It is an illusion as Roundy pointed out (way to go Roundy - yeah!)
You tried to affirm...sadly, your explanation is only theoretical. Fact is, no one has actually figured out why the moon appears larger...it's still a damn mystery... 

Quote

<snip>
To clarify for new people the illusion is caused by having something of a somewhat known size to compare the Moon to.  When the Moon is in the sky above you, there's nothing to give scale reference.  However, when the Moon is over a building it appears larger.  This is simply your mind simplifying the world for you.  It's assuming they're near each other so you come to the conclusion that the Moon is very large.

Oh, your signature rocks Roundy.

Oh man, CC, you blew it! sorry man... 
Actually, what you wrote is not totally correct. It is an illusion as Roundy pointed out (way to go Roundy - yeah!)
You tried to affirm...sadly, your explanation is only theoretical. Fact is, no one has actually figured out why the moon appears larger...it's still a damn mystery... 

Why do you finish all your posts with a wink?  Is there something sexual going on there? 

Quote from: sharkzf6 on July 13, 2007, 11:12:39 PM

Quote

<snip>
To clarify for new people the illusion is caused by having something of a somewhat known size to compare the Moon to.  When the Moon is in the sky above you, there's nothing to give scale reference.  However, when the Moon is over a building it appears larger.  This is simply your mind simplifying the world for you.  It's assuming they're near each other so you come to the conclusion that the Moon is very large.

Oh, your signature rocks Roundy.

Oh man, CC, you blew it! sorry man... 
Actually, what you wrote is not totally correct. It is an illusion as Roundy pointed out (way to go Roundy - yeah!)
You tried to affirm...sadly, your explanation is only theoretical. Fact is, no one has actually figured out why the moon appears larger...it's still a damn mystery... 

Why do you finish all your posts with a wink?  Is there something sexual going on there? 

Check out this picture I took a few minutes later.

Oh and one other thing. When I was in fifth grade my teacher explained why the sun/moon look red at sunrise/sunset by setting up a water tank, orienting a flood light at one end with the light shining through the tank horizontally. He then pored milk into the tank while we all watched in amazement from the opposite end of the tank as the light turned red…Oooooo. I don’t recall him referring to the pollutant (the milk) as aerosols but he did explain what was happening. I was left with the impression that even a normal (read no pollution) atmosphere would cause this effect simply due to the fact the sunlight is passing through much more of it (the atmosphere) right before it sets…seems very simple and obvious to me…not sure WTF you’re talking about Tom…

How come the sun isn't overly oval at sunrise and sunset.  If we're looking at a spotlight, where the only part giving off light is a circle, we would see an oval.

Check out this picture I took a few minutes later.

lol yeah, I knew he was lying like a little bitch when he said he took the photograph.. one must wonder what else he lies about