How does sunset happen?

Don't be an effing moron.

Temperatures in the desert vary by at least 40 degrees celcius between night and day.

GJ.

Quote from: "You undeducated morons"

Quote from: "mariaconda"

There's no sunset you morons!! If the sun never dips below the horizon there can't be a sunset, no can there? Have you ever actually seen a sunset with your own eyes? I didn't think so, CAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! It's just a myth, so shut up about the stupid nonexistent sunset.

Oh, I see, it is one of those handy 'optical illusions', right? Caused by 'atmospheric conditions'? :wink:

To be fair, your question is unreasonable, which is why nobody answered.

It's as if you asked your science teacher to explain mirages and said, "But don't use 'optical illusion' in your explanation.  I want to know why on a hot day, water gathers in pools far away from you, and then drains suddenly when you get near it!  It's not an illusion, I could see the water right there, and now it's gone!"

Nobody answered because there is no answer. It is impossible for the sun to be at the horizon in one part of the earth, and to be directly above another part of the earth. The flat earth model is impossible.

That is very correct, but with these flat earth believers they might say that there are to suns, or the sun stretches out or something.

That is very correct, but with these flat earth believers they might say that there are to suns, or the sun stretches out or something.

Or they might say that sunset is a part of the big conspiracy. :roll:






I am STILL waiting for a FE'er to try to answer the question.

The illusion of a sunset is created by the refraction of light as it passes from less dense mediums (space, upper atmosphere) into mediums of greater density (atmosphere closer to the ground). The light from the edges of the sun spotlight approach the earth at a more shallow angle than that light which shines "straight down", and thus is refracted to a greater extent. In fact, the maximum refraction occurs such that, at the edges of "daylight" on the flat earth, the light from the sun is traveling nearly parallel to the ground. This creates the illusion of the sun - which is still the same height above the earth - being close to the horzion, and eventually sinking into it.


Excuse the painbrush rendition, but it illustrates my point. If the sun is moving from left to right in the picture, "sunset" would be occuring on the left side.

There's no sunset you morons!! If the sun never dips below the horizon there can't be a sunset, no can there? Have you ever actually seen a sunset with your own eyes? I didn't think so, CAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! It's just a myth, so shut up about the stupid nonexistent sunset.

BLOL. Thanks for making laugh. That is the stupidest logic I have ever seen. I have seen over way over 1000 sunsets in my time and they arent even that uncommon. Wow, do you seriously spend all of your time indoors? Unless its cloudy, there is a sunset every night, for everybody. You seriously need a reality check.

He was making a pretty transparent attempt at satire. Clearly the sun appears to set into the horizon every night, the discussion is about what causes that illusion.

How does the sun move a direction everytime it sets if it is a illusion? The Earth needs to speherically rotate for the sun to move and act the way it does. What are you a 3-year old Columbus?

The Earth needs to speherically rotate for the sun to move

Unless the sun is actually moving.

Don't be an effing moron.

I think the word you were attempting to say was "fucking".


Theres nothing wrong with this word.
By replacing it with you"censored" (hahaha) version,

You only portray yourself as some sort of asshole.

So, in essence, you do admit that you're actually a fucking moron.

..."fucking".


Theres nothing wrong with this word.

According to some, there is much wrong with this word. One could, in fact, easily use that very same word as an adjective in a description of anyone so discourteous as to use it in the presence of those who don't share one's beliefs in what constitues a "good" or "bad" word.


--Chal

The illusion of a sunset is created by the refraction of light as it passes from less dense mediums (space, upper atmosphere) into mediums of greater density (atmosphere closer to the ground). The light from the edges of the sun spotlight approach the earth at a more shallow angle than that light which shines "straight down", and thus is refracted to a greater extent. In fact, the maximum refraction occurs such that, at the edges of "daylight" on the flat earth, the light from the sun is traveling nearly parallel to the ground. This creates the illusion of the sun - which is still the same height above the earth - being close to the horzion, and eventually sinking into it.


Excuse the painbrush rendition, but it illustrates my point. If the sun is moving from left to right in the picture, "sunset" would be occuring on the left side.

Wrong, try again. Rays of light do not curve as you have illustrated. Light travels in a straight line. The refraction you are talking about is what makes our sky blue during the day.

The refraction you are talking about is what makes our sky blue during the day.

The reason the sky is blue has less to do with refraction and more to do with the scattering of photons. Photons that are of a wavelength near the blue end of the spectrum are more easily scattered by particles in the air so when these photons reach your eye they are essentially coming from a random direction. Almost everywhere you look you see blue photons, that is why the sky appears blue.

Wrong, try again. Rays of light do not curve as you have illustrated. Light travels in a straight line. The refraction you are talking about is what makes our sky blue during the day.

This is patently false. There really isn't anything else to say. Have you ever tried to look through a round glass jar?

Quote from: "You undeducated morons"

Wrong, try again. Rays of light do not curve as you have illustrated. Light travels in a straight line. The refraction you are talking about is what makes our sky blue during the day.

This is patently false. There really isn't anything else to say. Have you ever tried to look through a round glass jar?

That's not light curving, that different rays of light hitting different parts of the jar and changing direction.

Yes, and that process is called "refraction"...

Wrong, try again. Rays of light do not curve as you have illustrated. Light travels in a straight line. The refraction you are talking about is what makes our sky blue during the day.

I hate to bring this issue up, but what exactly do you mean by "straight line"?  Do you disagree with general relativity, which says that spacetime is curved, and shows as evidence examples of light bending around stars?

Light, in a vacuum, can still travel on curved paths.

-Erasmus

Quote from: "You undeducated morons"

Wrong, try again. Rays of light do not curve as you have illustrated. Light travels in a straight line. The refraction you are talking about is what makes our sky blue during the day.

I hate to bring this issue up, but what exactly do you mean by "straight line"?  Do you disagree with general relativity, which says that spacetime is curved, and shows as evidence examples of light bending around stars?

Light, in a vacuum, can still travel on curved paths.

-Erasmus

Hate to point out the amazingly obvious:

The earth has an atmosphere.

Quote from: "You undeducated morons"

Wrong, try again. Rays of light do not curve as you have illustrated. Light travels in a straight line. The refraction you are talking about is what makes our sky blue during the day.

I hate to bring this issue up, but what exactly do you mean by "straight line"?  Do you disagree with general relativity, which says that spacetime is curved, and shows as evidence examples of light bending around stars?

Light, in a vacuum, can still travel on curved paths.

-Erasmus

I meant relatively straight. For light coming from a sun 3,000 miles up, it would never appear to be at the horizon, even if there was a black hole curving the light.

I meant relatively straight. For light coming from a sun 3,000 miles up, it would never appear to be at the horizon, even if there was a black hole curving the light.

While this might be true, it is also quite irrelevent. The change in direction of the light is caused by the increasing density of the earth's atmosphere as you get closer to the surface.

Erasmus has just accepted openly that light bends around stars showing that a central force-motion exists, at least for celestial bodies. He was just disputing this elsewhere.

Also, for completeness, light IS continually refracted, in air whose density changes continuously, however this effect can be quantified and cannot make an object totally disappear below an illusory horizon. Light is indeed affected by the gravity of stars ( synonymous with the bending of space-time ) , as FEers regularly deny.

I hate to bring this issue up, but what exactly do you mean by "straight line"?  Do you disagree with general relativity, which says that spacetime is curved, and shows as evidence examples of light bending around stars?

Light, in a vacuum, can still travel on curved paths.

You're a total pisstaker.

Erasmus has just accepted openly that light bends around stars showing that a central force-motion exists, at least for celestial bodies. He was just disputing this elsewhere.

*my quotes elided*

You're a total pisstaker.

I'm sorry, what's the point of this post?

According to some, there is much wrong with this word. One could, in fact, easily use that very same word as an adjective in a description of anyone so discourteous as to use it in the presence of those who don't share one's beliefs in what constitues a "good" or "bad" word.

--Chal

These people you speak of need to stop being such cry-babies.

It's a fucking set of sounds associated with a distasteful thought.

Things could be worse.

Quote from: "Chaltier"

According to some, there is much wrong with this word. One could, in fact, easily use that very same word as an adjective in a description of anyone so discourteous as to use it in the presence of those who don't share one's beliefs in what constitues a "good" or "bad" word.

--Chal

These people you speak of need to stop being such cry-babies.

It's a fucking set of sounds associated with a distasteful thought.

Things could be worse.

Taken directly from the terms you agreed to when you signed up on this forum:

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed).

I advise you to cut back on the profanity and insults, as they serve no purpose other than giving moderators a reason to ban you.

Rules didn't cross my mind, seeing how I thought we all has are wits about us, But ok, Fine.

But now I got a question:
On what grounds/how/why would you inform my(or anyone elses) ISP?

I thought we all has are wits about us.

Actually, you are increasingly sounding as though you are fighting back the urge to commit bloody murder.

The point of my last post was to point out that you were relying on something in your argument which you have previously refuted.

Obviously.

The little kid with his fingers in his ears shouting wah wah wah wah again.

Nice one Cyril.

The point of my last post was to point out that you were relying on something in your argument which you have previously refuted.

Are we talking about stuff that happened all in one thread?

I never claimed to be consistent in my use of premises or even in my conclusions.  If you think that such consistency is important, then that's your loss.

Yes mate, I think its important...

otherwise discussion is totally pointless.. if you can't see that, then it's your loss... and I have really been wasting my time a bit.

No I don't think it happened on one thread...

Look seriously if one can't CONSISTENTLY argue against round-earth, how can you expect people to have any respect for the arguments?