Question about the FAQ/FE Theory

  • 21 Replies
  • 5101 Views
*

Maxwell

  • 20
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« on: August 09, 2007, 10:21:06 AM »
Hi! I'm new here, although I've been roaming around for the past week or too. I've read the FAQ a couple of times and stumbled across some things that confuse me. I had no idea FE'ers existed until I found this site.

First of all:

Quote from: FAQ
Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light."

and

Quote from: FAQ
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.

I know the second Answer is only 'possible' but surely you can't have both. You can't have the moon being a spotlight and not being a spotlight, therefore you have no answer for Lunar Eclipses without debunking your answer for the former question.

Quote from: FAQ
Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."

A: It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

So if I get a telescope out and follow the sunset...it will never really set? Or at least, will take A LOT longer to disappear? What I'm saying is...after the sun has disappeared at sunset from the human eye, I just have to get out my telescope, and the sun will be there again?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2007, 05:58:39 PM »
A telescope would not work as you explained. It would amplify the amount of light coming from the direction of the sun. This means you get the same effect of interference (the sun is not visible) only the image is bigger or clearer.

*

Maxwell

  • 20
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2007, 06:02:54 PM »
A telescope would not work as you explained. It would amplify the amount of light coming from the direction of the sun. This means you get the same effect of interference (the sun is not visible) only the image is bigger or clearer.
So lets say....30 minutes after 'sunset' if I look through a telescope in the direction the sun set, I should see light coming from it?

Sorry, I'm just finding it hard to follow these explanations which you don't seem to have thought out much.

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • +0/-0
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2007, 07:03:16 PM »
A telescope would not work as you explained. It would amplify the amount of light coming from the direction of the sun. This means you get the same effect of interference (the sun is not visible) only the image is bigger or clearer.
So lets say....30 minutes after 'sunset' if I look through a telescope in the direction the sun set, I should see light coming from it?

Sorry, I'm just finding it hard to follow these explanations which you don't seem to have thought out much.
Don't mind narcberry, he's just a troll.

?

jonathan41

Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2007, 06:56:50 AM »
Its strange  when  you question the theories off FE you are soon cut off with some daft remark about your abbilty to take things in, or understand the concept off FE.What ever you do do not question it. These ( in my view mad as as a cat being washed) people are living in denial and do not want to be questioned. Let them waste their time and life on some daft idea. I would say they where ethier bullied at school or never fitted in as a teenager...sad but it has got to be somthing to do with thier self assteem. Grow up and injoy life its to late when your dead.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2007, 07:12:55 AM »
Its strange  when  you question the theories off FE you are soon cut off with some daft remark about your abbilty to take things in, or understand the concept off FE.What ever you do do not question it. These ( in my view mad as as a cat being washed) people are living in denial and do not want to be questioned. Let them waste their time and life on some daft idea. I would say they where ethier bullied at school or never fitted in as a teenager...sad but it has got to be somthing to do with thier self assteem. Grow up and injoy life its to late when your dead.

The epitome of ignorance.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

jonathan41

Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2007, 07:36:15 AM »
Let me tell you somthing you fucking fuck wit you are a sad fucker that photo of you says it all, you a have delousions of being some sort off leader. You think you are smart in reality you are the sad ass hole who sits behind a PC 24 7 because you cant cope with the real world. You Know i am right thats why you will delet this post and bar me. Just look at the answer you left to my last post it says it all.

*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2007, 07:41:53 AM »
Let me tell you somthing you fucking fuck wit you are a sad fucker that photo of you says it all, you a have delousions of being some sort off leader. You think you are smart in reality you are the sad ass hole who sits behind a PC 24 7 because you cant cope with the real world. You Know i am right thats why you will delet this post and bar me. Just look at the answer you left to my last post it says it all.

He's not a mod.
A mod will delete your post and ban you, hopefully.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2007, 07:45:22 AM »
Let me tell you somthing you fucking fuck wit you are a sad fucker that photo of you says it all, you a have delousions of being some sort off leader. You think you are smart in reality you are the sad ass hole who sits behind a PC 24 7 because you cant cope with the real world. You Know i am right thats why you will delet this post and bar me. Just look at the answer you left to my last post it says it all.

As Ireland said, I'm not a mod. Nor do I sit "behind" a PC 24/7. I have a thing called a job, and watch something known as a TV and I also take part in social activities and sports. I also don't believe in a flat Earth.

And as I said, the epitome of ignorance.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2007, 08:02:25 AM »
Let me tell you somthing you fucking fuck wit you are a sad fucker that photo of you says it all, you a have delousions of being some sort off leader. You think you are smart in reality you are the sad ass hole who sits behind a PC 24 7 because you cant cope with the real world. You Know i am right thats why you will delet this post and bar me. Just look at the answer you left to my last post it says it all.
"Off" 

Classic.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2007, 08:59:32 AM »
Quote
because you cant cope with the real world.

The real world is overrated, the worlds in your imagination are much nicer

*

Maxwell

  • 20
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2007, 03:28:38 PM »
I wouldn't even mind if jonathan's posts were removed. It's just dragging this into a flame thread. Which I don't want. I just want to see if there's an answer to my question(s).

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2007, 03:32:23 PM »
A telescope would not work as you explained. It would amplify the amount of light coming from the direction of the sun. This means you get the same effect of interference (the sun is not visible) only the image is bigger or clearer.
So lets say....30 minutes after 'sunset' if I look through a telescope in the direction the sun set, I should see light coming from it?

Sorry, I'm just finding it hard to follow these explanations which you don't seem to have thought out much.

A telescope doesn't actually make you closer to the observed object. You observe the same thing, just more of it. This means that, while you observe more light from the sun, you observe a proportionally greater amount of light from the atmosphere. So no, again, it won't work. What you need is some way to filter the light.

*

Maxwell

  • 20
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2007, 03:49:21 PM »
A telescope would not work as you explained. It would amplify the amount of light coming from the direction of the sun. This means you get the same effect of interference (the sun is not visible) only the image is bigger or clearer.
So lets say....30 minutes after 'sunset' if I look through a telescope in the direction the sun set, I should see light coming from it?

Sorry, I'm just finding it hard to follow these explanations which you don't seem to have thought out much.

A telescope doesn't actually make you closer to the observed object. You observe the same thing, just more of it. This means that, while you observe more light from the sun, you observe a proportionally greater amount of light from the atmosphere. So no, again, it won't work. What you need is some way to filter the light.

All that's happening in this picture is it's getting farther away? http://www.mburrphoto.com/images/sunset_ca_big_sun.jpg

And this video? (Best observed towards the end). It's not actually moving downward? It's just getting farther away?

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • +0/-0
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2007, 03:53:04 PM »
ALTHOUGH the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. 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.



Let A, B, represent the altitude throughout of a long row of lamps, standing on the horizontal ground E, D; and C, H, the line of sight of an observer at C. The ordinary principles of perspective will cause an apparent rising of the ground E, D, to the eye-line C, H, meeting it at H; and an apparent descent of each subsequent lamp, from A, to H, towards the same eye-line, also meeting at H. The point H, is the horizon, or the true "vanishing point," at which the last visible lamp, although it has really the altitude D, B, will disappear.

Bearing in mind the above phenomena it will easily be seen how the sun, although always above and parallel to the earth's surface, must appear to ascend from the morning horizon to the noonday or meridian position; and thence to descend to the evening horizon.

In the diagram, fig. 64, let the line E, D, represent the



surface of the earth; H, H, the morning and evening horizon; and A, S, B, a portion of the true path of the sun. An observer at 0, looking to the east, will first see the sun in the morning,

p. 126

not at A, its true position, but in its apparent position, H, just emerging from the "vanishing point," or the morning horizon. At nine o'clock, the sun will have the apparent position, 1, gradually appearing to ascend the line H, 1, S; the point S, being the meridian or noonday position. From S, the sun will be seen to gradually descend the line S, 2, H, until he reaches the horizon, H, and entering the "vanishing point," disappears, to an observer in England, in the west, beyond the continent of North America, as in the morning he is seen to rise from the direction of Northern Asia. An excellent illustration of this "rising" and "setting" of the sun may be seen in a long tunnel, as shown in diagram, fig. 65. The top of the tunnel,



1, 2, and, the bottom, 3, 4, although really equi-distant throughout the whole length, would, to an observer in the centre, C, appear to approach each other, and converge at the points, H, H; and a lamp, or light of any kind, brought in, and carried along the top, close to the upper surface 1, 2, would, when really going along the line, 1, S, 2, appear to ascend the inclined plane H, S, to the centre, S, and after passing the centre, to descend the plane S, H; and if the tunnel were sufficiently long, the phenomena of sunrise and of sunset would be perfectly imitated.

p. 127

A very striking illustration of the convergence of the top and bottom, as well as the sides, of a long tunnel, has been observed in that of Mont Cenis. M. de Porville, when in the centre of the tunnel, noticed that the entrance had apparently become so small that the daylight beyond it seemed like a bright star. "Before us, at an apparently prodigious distance, we beheld a small star at the entrance of the gallery. Its vivid light contrasted strangely with the red glare of the lamps. Its brightness increased as the horses dashed on the way. In a short time its proportions were more clearly defined, and its volume increased. The illusion was quickly dispelled as we got over some kilometres. This soft white light is the extremity of the gallery." 1

We have seen that "sunrise" and "sunset" are phenomena dependent entirely upon the fact that horizontal lines, parallel to each other, appear to approach or converge in the distance. The surface of the earth being horizontal, and the line of sight of the observer and the sun's path being over and parallel with it, the rising and setting of the moving sun over the immovable earth are simply phenomena arising necessarily from the laws of perspective.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2007, 04:14:59 PM by Jimmy Boy »

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2007, 03:55:01 PM »
That post is long
Long posts suck
Therefore your post sucks.


I hope you understand how I carefully avoided your argument there.

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • +0/-0
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2007, 03:58:26 PM »
Fixed  ;D
« Last Edit: August 10, 2007, 04:15:16 PM by Jimmy Boy »

*

Maxwell

  • 20
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2007, 06:35:51 PM »
Jimmy, I'm unsure of your stance on what you just showed, but that can't be explained with curvature of the Earth?

Check out the pic and vid in my previous post. Referring to the actual answer in the FAQ, "it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away."

I see NO reason to believe that is true when I watch a sunset. It's not like the sun really gets a lot smaller than what it was at mid-day, and becomes smaller and smaller until we can't see it...it just moves downward, past the horizon line until we can't see it anymore.

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • +0/-0
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2007, 08:56:54 PM »
Jimmy, I'm unsure of your stance on what you just showed, but that can't be explained with curvature of the Earth?

Check out the pic and vid in my previous post. Referring to the actual answer in the FAQ, "it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away."

I see NO reason to believe that is true when I watch a sunset. It's not like the sun really gets a lot smaller than what it was at mid-day, and becomes smaller and smaller until we can't see it...it just moves downward, past the horizon line until we can't see it anymore.
I posted that as a joke. Whenever a thread is brought up about the question you just asked, Tom Bishop always posts that argument, despite it being proven wrong on numerous occasions.

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2007, 11:18:55 PM »
When does a joke actually get too close to the FAQ and become a scandal?  ::)
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

Maxwell

  • 20
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earther
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2007, 05:50:35 AM »
Anyone got a serious answer?

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • +0/-0
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Question about the FAQ/FE Theory
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2007, 09:20:02 AM »
Anyone got a serious answer?
There isn't one. This is one of the holes in FE. You might want to ask Tom Bishop for a new explanation though.