How do you explain this?

  • 37 Replies
  • 6759 Views
?

texaslawmen

How do you explain this?
« on: April 04, 2011, 03:32:36 PM »
It is my understanding that according to the FE theory, the earth is a disk and the sun travels a circle nearly along the equator (could change based on the seasons). It also explains why the earth is dark part of the time because the sun is so far away that the light does not reach everywhere. However, how can you explain the setting sun? According the the FE theory, the sun should appear to get smaller and smaller as it drifts farther and farther away and should take a slightly curved path. But if you watch the sun it appears to rise, take a straight path over the earth and descend, sinking, bellow the horizon. All the time, it maintains its same size. (Note: of course the sun is not actually moving, the earth is simply rotating. Itt was just easier to explain it according to the reference frame of someone on earth.)

explain?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2011, 11:58:37 PM »
Quote
However, how can you explain the setting sun?

See this Flat Earth Wiki article on the Setting of the Sun:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun

Quote
According the the FE theory, the sun should appear to get smaller and smaller as it drifts farther and farther away

See this Flat Earth Wiki article on the Magnification of the Sun at Sunset, or How the Sun Maintains its Size Throughout the Day:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset

Quote
and should take a slightly curved path. But if you watch the sun it appears to rise, take a straight path over the earth and descend, sinking, bellow the horizon.

The sun doesn't take a straight path overhead. Not even in the Round Earth model.

RE Illustrations: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=path+of+sun+in+sky
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 12:08:55 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2011, 01:01:17 AM »
Quote
However, how can you explain the setting sun?

See this Flat Earth Wiki article on the Setting of the Sun:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun

Quote
According the the FE theory, the sun should appear to get smaller and smaller as it drifts farther and farther away

See this Flat Earth Wiki article on the Magnification of the Sun at Sunset, or How the Sun Maintains its Size Throughout the Day:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset

Quote
and should take a slightly curved path. But if you watch the sun it appears to rise, take a straight path over the earth and descend, sinking, bellow the horizon.

The sun doesn't take a straight path overhead. Not even in the Round Earth model.

RE Illustrations: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=path+of+sun+in+sky

So you're saying that sunset is nothing more than an optical illusion (multiple illusions, apparently)?  Funny how FET can use optical illusions to explain sunset, yet you cry foul when RET tries to use mirages (illusions, as you call them) to explain the BLE?  Why is that, Tom?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

texaslawmen

Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2011, 05:24:16 AM »
That article was the most stupid explanation possible. As birds fly farther and farther away they do appear to get closer and closer to the horizon, but they get smaller and smaller at the same time. The sun has a completely different effect. The sun clearly maintains it's relative size as it descends. Look at the sun some time while it is half way bellow the horizon. It's the same appear ant size as when it's overhead, and it is clearly a different effect than what that article describes.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2011, 05:26:20 AM »
That article was the most stupid explanation possible. As birds fly farther and farther away they do appear to get closer and closer to the horizon, but they get smaller and smaller at the same time. The sun has a completely different effect. The sun clearly maintains it's relative size as it descends. Look at the sun some time while it is half way bellow the horizon. It's the same appear ant size as when it's overhead, and it is clearly a different effect than what that article describes.

Sun looks bigger at the horizon.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2011, 09:07:32 AM »
So you're saying that sunset is nothing more than an optical illusion (multiple illusions, apparently)?  Funny how FET can use optical illusions to explain sunset, yet you cry foul when RET tries to use mirages (illusions, as you call them) to explain the BLE?  Why is that, Tom?

I don't cry foul when you try to use mirages to explain the Bedford Level Experiment. I simply question why these chance mirages always seem to pop up at the exact moment the experiment is performed, placing the observed body suspended in the air from beneath the horizon to the exact height it would need to be to trick the observer into believing that the earth was flat.

Looking across 3 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 6 feet in the air.

Looking across 5 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 17 feet in the air.

Looking across 7 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 32 feet in the air.

Looking across 9 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 54 feet in the air.

It would need to materialize in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed and account for the distance viewed across to accurately simulate a flat earth.

Ridiculous.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 09:44:12 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2011, 12:14:45 PM »
So you're saying that sunset is nothing more than an optical illusion (multiple illusions, apparently)?  Funny how FET can use optical illusions to explain sunset, yet you cry foul when RET tries to use mirages (illusions, as you call them) to explain the BLE?  Why is that, Tom?

I don't cry foul when you try to use mirages to explain the Bedford Level Experiment. I simply question why these chance mirages always seem to pop up at the exact moment the experiment is performed, placing the observed body suspended in the air from beneath the horizon to the exact height it would need to be to trick the observer into believing that the earth was flat.

Looking across 3 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 6 feet in the air.

Looking across 5 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 17 feet in the air.

Looking across 7 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 32 feet in the air.

Looking across 9 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 54 feet in the air.

It would need to materialize in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed and account for the distance viewed across to accurately simulate a flat earth.

Ridiculous.

Or, the observer being approximately 18" above the water level will be within a thermal gradient where the nearly horizontal rays of light are "ducted" across a great distance.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
In telecommunication, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) (a) are guided or ducted, (b) tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and (c) experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.[1]
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2011, 12:58:49 PM »
Or, the observer being approximately 18" above the water level will be within a thermal gradient where the nearly horizontal rays of light are "ducted" across a great distance.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
In telecommunication, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) (a) are guided or ducted, (b) tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and (c) experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.[1]

Imaginative atmospheric ducts which cause light rays follow the curvature of the earth?

Sounds like someone's trying to reconcile Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth to me.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 01:10:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Oracle

  • 633
  • RE'er with an open, but critical, mind.
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2011, 02:05:55 PM »
Or, the observer being approximately 18" above the water level will be within a thermal gradient where the nearly horizontal rays of light are "ducted" across a great distance.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
In telecommunication, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) (a) are guided or ducted, (b) tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and (c) experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.[1]

Imaginative atmospheric ducts which cause light rays follow the curvature of the earth?

Sounds like someone's trying to reconcile Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth to me.

The Bedford Canal has evidence of a current and a grade (however slight, as noted by Rowbotham, if you can read between the lines) which makes it a poor choice for a lot of surface curvature experiments.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2011, 02:28:57 PM »
Or, the observer being approximately 18" above the water level will be within a thermal gradient where the nearly horizontal rays of light are "ducted" across a great distance.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
In telecommunication, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) (a) are guided or ducted, (b) tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and (c) experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.[1]

Imaginative atmospheric ducts which cause light rays follow the curvature of the earth?

Sounds like someone's trying to reconcile Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth to me.

The Bedford Canal has evidence of a current and a grade (however slight, as noted by Rowbotham, if you can read between the lines) which makes it a poor choice for a lot of surface curvature experiments.

Rowbotham does not say that there is a current. He says that the water was standing, meaning that it was still.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2011, 03:09:04 PM »
Or, the observer being approximately 18" above the water level will be within a thermal gradient where the nearly horizontal rays of light are "ducted" across a great distance.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
In telecommunication, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) (a) are guided or ducted, (b) tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and (c) experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.[1]

Imaginative atmospheric ducts which cause light rays follow the curvature of the earth?

Sounds like someone's trying to reconcile Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth to me.

Nope.  Sounds like someone understands atmospheric refraction.  Unfortunately, that someone does not appear to be you.  :(
Ducting is well documented and well understood.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Oracle

  • 633
  • RE'er with an open, but critical, mind.
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2011, 03:18:06 PM »
Or, the observer being approximately 18" above the water level will be within a thermal gradient where the nearly horizontal rays of light are "ducted" across a great distance.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
In telecommunication, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) (a) are guided or ducted, (b) tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and (c) experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.[1]

Imaginative atmospheric ducts which cause light rays follow the curvature of the earth?

Sounds like someone's trying to reconcile Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth to me.

The Bedford Canal has evidence of a current and a grade (however slight, as noted by Rowbotham, if you can read between the lines) which makes it a poor choice for a lot of surface curvature experiments.

Rowbotham does not say that there is a current. He says that the water was standing, meaning that it was still.

That is correct, he does say that the water was nearly if not perfectly standing/still, hence any slope would have to be very slight, almost undetectable... but he also notices that there is a stretch where a ship will completely sink out of view, and then will appear again as it travels a little further on.  His illustration shows it as a 'v' or a dip in the water.

But, water always seeks it's own level (that's why it has been used for so many years in so many leveling devices and tools), so what you see is a change in grades from almost level, to a slightly steeper slope for a long enough stretch for a boat to disappear, then back to almost level again which allows visibility to be restored later on.

Also, if you look up the history of the Bedford Canal, it was build for the purposes of drainage (from high ground to low ground) in the Bedford area.

A drop of only 20 feet in 6 miles is very very slight (less than a 0.0075 inch drop per foot traveled), and would account for everything Rowbotham documented in his first 5 experiments.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 04:22:34 PM by Oracle »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2011, 03:39:35 PM »
Or, the observer being approximately 18" above the water level will be within a thermal gradient where the nearly horizontal rays of light are "ducted" across a great distance.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
In telecommunication, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) (a) are guided or ducted, (b) tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and (c) experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.[1]

Imaginative atmospheric ducts which cause light rays follow the curvature of the earth?

Sounds like someone's trying to reconcile Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth to me.

Nope.  Sounds like someone understands atmospheric refraction.  Unfortunately, that someone does not appear to be you.  :(
Ducting is well documented and well understood.

No it isn't. Observations that the earth is flat are documented and well understood.

"Atmospheric ducting" is a frivolous and undemonstrated explanation used to justify Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth.

Isn't it convenient that there are a plethora of effects in the RE arsenal which try to explain why the earth appears flat?

Instead of imaginative optical effects which materialize in front of the observer at moment's notice and adjust themselves for the distance viewed, how about the earth appears flat because it is flat? How about that?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 03:45:38 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2011, 07:04:56 PM »
Or, the observer being approximately 18" above the water level will be within a thermal gradient where the nearly horizontal rays of light are "ducted" across a great distance.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct
In telecommunication, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) (a) are guided or ducted, (b) tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and (c) experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.[1]

Imaginative atmospheric ducts which cause light rays follow the curvature of the earth?

Sounds like someone's trying to reconcile Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth to me.

Nope.  Sounds like someone understands atmospheric refraction.  Unfortunately, that someone does not appear to be you.  :(
Ducting is well documented and well understood.

No it isn't. Observations that the earth is flat are documented and well understood.

"Atmospheric ducting" is a frivolous and undemonstrated explanation used to justify Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth.

Isn't it convenient that there are a plethora of effects in the RE arsenal which try to explain why the earth appears flat?

Instead of imaginative optical effects which materialize in front of the observer at moment's notice and adjust themselves for the distance viewed, how about the earth appears flat because it is flat? How about that?

Except for all the times that the earth appears round.  In those cases FET must devise their own imaginative optical effects (perspective causes the sun to appear to dip below the horizon?   :o)
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2011, 12:33:12 PM »
Except for all the times that the earth appears round.  In those cases FET must devise their own imaginative optical effects (perspective causes the sun to appear to dip below the horizon?   :o)

The sunset does not suggest a Round Earth. When the sun sets the sun is disappearing into the horizon. This is what is observed.

The Round Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has dipped below the horizon. It is assumed that the sun is down behind/below the horizon despite no one observing this. The RE'er merely assumes. No one actually sees the sun below the horizon.

The Flat Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has disappeared into the horizon. This is exactly what has been observed. No other assumption is made about the occurrence beyond what was empirically observed - the sun disappearing into the horizon.

The RE interpretation involves making several unverified assumptions about what happens to the sun. The FE interpretation only relies only on what one can see for his or her own self.

Further FE explanations which involve perspective are an explanation of the event on a technical level. We are answering the question of "How does the sun disappear into the horizon?". When a flock of birds passes overhead the flock will eventually disappear into the horizon, just as the sun does. When a plane passes overhead it will eventually disappear into the horizon just as the sun does. There is a precedence for bodies passing by overhead and disappearing into the horizon.

Never do we invoke something which has not been tested or observed. While the RE'er are content with assuming the unobserved and untested (the sun below the horizon), the FE'er uses known occurrences to describe events. No one can doubt that planes disappear into the horizon. No one doubts that flocks of birds disappear into the horizon. We are using that same explanation for why the sun does it. Perspective.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 01:01:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2011, 01:16:58 PM »
Except for all the times that the earth appears round.  In those cases FET must devise their own imaginative optical effects (perspective causes the sun to appear to dip below the horizon?   :o)

The sunset does not suggest a Round Earth. When the sun sets the sun is disappearing into the horizon. This is what is observed.

The Round Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has dipped below the horizon. It is assumed that the sun is down behind/below the horizon despite no one observing this. The RE'er merely assumes. No one actually sees the sun below the horizon.

The Flat Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has disappeared into the horizon. This is exactly what has been observed. No other assumption is made about the occurrence beyond what was empirically observed - the sun disappearing into the horizon.

The RE interpretation involves making several unverified assumptions about what happens to the sun. The FE interpretation only relies only on what one can see for his or her own self.

Further FE explanations which involve perspective are an explanation of the event on a technical level. We are answering the question of "How does the sun disappear into the horizon?". When a flock of birds passes overhead the flock will eventually disappear into the horizon, just as the sun does. When a plane passes overhead it will eventually disappear into the horizon just as the sun does. There is a precedence for bodies passing by overhead and disappearing into the horizon.

Never do we invoke something which has not been tested or observed. While the RE'er are content with assuming the unobserved and untested (the sun below the horizon), the FE'er uses known occurrences to describe events. No one can doubt that planes disappear into the horizon. No one doubts that flocks of birds disappear into the horizon. We are using that same explanation for why the sun does it. Perspective.

I don't recall ever seeing a flock of birds or an airplane disappear into the horizon.  Typically they disappear because they become too small to see, not because they have merged with the horizon.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2011, 01:22:31 PM »
So you're saying that sunset is nothing more than an optical illusion (multiple illusions, apparently)?  Funny how FET can use optical illusions to explain sunset, yet you cry foul when RET tries to use mirages (illusions, as you call them) to explain the BLE?  Why is that, Tom?

I don't cry foul when you try to use mirages to explain the Bedford Level Experiment. I simply question why these chance mirages always seem to pop up at the exact moment the experiment is performed, placing the observed body suspended in the air from beneath the horizon to the exact height it would need to be to trick the observer into believing that the earth was flat.

Looking across 3 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 6 feet in the air.

Looking across 5 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 17 feet in the air.

Looking across 7 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 32 feet in the air.

Looking across 9 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 54 feet in the air.

It would need to materialize in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed and account for the distance viewed across to accurately simulate a flat earth.

Ridiculous.

You see Tom, this is why we don't respect you as a scientist. You dismiss well documented occurring because they disagree with your stance.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2011, 02:20:36 PM »
Further FE explanations which involve perspective are an explanation of the event on a technical level. We are answering the question of "How does the sun disappear into the horizon?". When a flock of birds passes overhead the flock will eventually disappear into the horizon, just as the sun does. When a plane passes overhead it will eventually disappear into the horizon just as the sun does. There is a precedence for bodies passing by overhead and disappearing into the horizon.

You most certainly do not answer the question of how does the sun disappear.  Instead you invent a completely bogus theory of perspective.  Meanwhile we're observing the sun move across the sky at the same speed irrespective of its position, contradicting the perspective argument.

I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

Oracle

  • 633
  • RE'er with an open, but critical, mind.
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2011, 10:01:43 PM »
Nope.  Sounds like someone understands atmospheric refraction.  Unfortunately, that someone does not appear to be you.  :(
Ducting is well documented and well understood.

No it isn't. Observations that the earth is flat are documented and well understood.

"Atmospheric ducting" is a frivolous and undemonstrated explanation used to justify Flat Earth observations on a Round Earth.

Isn't it convenient that there are a plethora of effects in the RE arsenal which try to explain why the earth appears flat?

Instead of imaginative optical effects which materialize in front of the observer at moment's notice and adjust themselves for the distance viewed, how about the earth appears flat because it is flat? How about that?

Actually... the RE explanations only demonstrate why the earth appears to have a larger or smaller diameter at times then has already been measured and verified through other means... that at times it may appear to be less convex or more convex at times, not that it ever really appears to be truly flat, unless of course you limit yourself to a series of experiments in very specialized and localized environments only and limit yourself to a distance not exceeding 10 miles or so.

?

Oracle

  • 633
  • RE'er with an open, but critical, mind.
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2011, 10:07:02 PM »
Except for all the times that the earth appears round.  In those cases FET must devise their own imaginative optical effects (perspective causes the sun to appear to dip below the horizon?   :o)

The sunset does not suggest a Round Earth. When the sun sets the sun is disappearing into the horizon. This is what is observed.

The Round Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has dipped below the horizon. It is assumed that the sun is down behind/below the horizon despite no one observing this. The RE'er merely assumes. No one actually sees the sun below the horizon.

The Flat Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has disappeared into the horizon. This is exactly what has been observed. No other assumption is made about the occurrence beyond what was empirically observed - the sun disappearing into the horizon.

The RE interpretation involves making several unverified assumptions about what happens to the sun. The FE interpretation only relies only on what one can see for his or her own self.

Further FE explanations which involve perspective are an explanation of the event on a technical level. We are answering the question of "How does the sun disappear into the horizon?". When a flock of birds passes overhead the flock will eventually disappear into the horizon, just as the sun does. When a plane passes overhead it will eventually disappear into the horizon just as the sun does. There is a precedence for bodies passing by overhead and disappearing into the horizon.

Never do we invoke something which has not been tested or observed. While the RE'er are content with assuming the unobserved and untested (the sun below the horizon), the FE'er uses known occurrences to describe events. No one can doubt that planes disappear into the horizon. No one doubts that flocks of birds disappear into the horizon. We are using that same explanation for why the sun does it. Perspective.

As I observe the sun setting, it magnifies as it approaches the horizon, appearing larger than it does when over head, not smaller.

As it disappears into the horizon, I see the bottom of it disappearing first and it 'appears' to 'sink' into the water, before the whole of it shrinks to an imperceptible dot and winks out as you would see if it actually was lost to the vanishing point due to perspective.

Perspective does not explain the 'sinking' effect/illusion upon a flat earth for the sun or the moon.  And no...telescopes do not restore the sunken parts... no matter how powerful they are.

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2011, 10:37:23 PM »
Except for all the times that the earth appears round.  In those cases FET must devise their own imaginative optical effects (perspective causes the sun to appear to dip below the horizon?   :o)

The sunset does not suggest a Round Earth. When the sun sets the sun is disappearing into the horizon. This is what is observed.

The Round Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has dipped below the horizon. It is assumed that the sun is down behind/below the horizon despite no one observing this. The RE'er merely assumes. No one actually sees the sun below the horizon.

The Flat Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has disappeared into the horizon. This is exactly what has been observed. No other assumption is made about the occurrence beyond what was empirically observed - the sun disappearing into the horizon.

The RE interpretation involves making several unverified assumptions about what happens to the sun. The FE interpretation only relies only on what one can see for his or her own self.

Further FE explanations which involve perspective are an explanation of the event on a technical level. We are answering the question of "How does the sun disappear into the horizon?". When a flock of birds passes overhead the flock will eventually disappear into the horizon, just as the sun does. When a plane passes overhead it will eventually disappear into the horizon just as the sun does. There is a precedence for bodies passing by overhead and disappearing into the horizon.

Never do we invoke something which has not been tested or observed. While the RE'er are content with assuming the unobserved and untested (the sun below the horizon), the FE'er uses known occurrences to describe events. No one can doubt that planes disappear into the horizon. No one doubts that flocks of birds disappear into the horizon. We are using that same explanation for why the sun does it. Perspective.

well, you make the sun dip into the horizon, by using an effect that is unverified and untested, by stating that although the angle of the sun to the viewer is always greater than 0, it still seems as if the angle is less than 0...
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

?

Oracle

  • 633
  • RE'er with an open, but critical, mind.
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2011, 09:12:04 AM »
Observe, a sunset:



We can clearly see the top half of the sun... the sun does not appear to be diminished in size due to perspective, it has the appearance of 'sinking' into the horizon.

Let's advance a little:



Still looks like the sun is sinking below the horizon, does not look like it has diminished to an infinitesimally small, but still a fully round, dot approaching the horizon from above.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 09:15:14 AM by Oracle »

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2011, 11:01:04 AM »
Except for all the times that the earth appears round.  In those cases FET must devise their own imaginative optical effects (perspective causes the sun to appear to dip below the horizon?   :o)

The sunset does not suggest a Round Earth. When the sun sets the sun is disappearing into the horizon. This is what is observed.

The Round Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has dipped below the horizon. It is assumed that the sun is down behind/below the horizon despite no one observing this. The RE'er merely assumes. No one actually sees the sun below the horizon.

The Flat Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has disappeared into the horizon. This is exactly what has been observed. No other assumption is made about the occurrence beyond what was empirically observed - the sun disappearing into the horizon.

The RE interpretation involves making several unverified assumptions about what happens to the sun. The FE interpretation only relies only on what one can see for his or her own self.

Further FE explanations which involve perspective are an explanation of the event on a technical level. We are answering the question of "How does the sun disappear into the horizon?". When a flock of birds passes overhead the flock will eventually disappear into the horizon, just as the sun does. When a plane passes overhead it will eventually disappear into the horizon just as the sun does. There is a precedence for bodies passing by overhead and disappearing into the horizon.

Never do we invoke something which has not been tested or observed. While the RE'er are content with assuming the unobserved and untested (the sun below the horizon), the FE'er uses known occurrences to describe events. No one can doubt that planes disappear into the horizon. No one doubts that flocks of birds disappear into the horizon. We are using that same explanation for why the sun does it. Perspective.

You fail to acknowledge that the Sun never descends below 10 degrees at midnight in your model, dispite my repeated demonstration of this problem.  Deliberate ignorance of this irrefutable fact makes both you and Rowbotham appear to lack the understanding necessary to have any impact on anyone else's understanding of the earth's shape.

?

Oracle

  • 633
  • RE'er with an open, but critical, mind.
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2011, 01:49:31 PM »
Except for all the times that the earth appears round.  In those cases FET must devise their own imaginative optical effects (perspective causes the sun to appear to dip below the horizon?   :o)

The sunset does not suggest a Round Earth. When the sun sets the sun is disappearing into the horizon. This is what is observed.

The Round Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has dipped below the horizon. It is assumed that the sun is down behind/below the horizon despite no one observing this. The RE'er merely assumes. No one actually sees the sun below the horizon.

The Flat Earth interpretation of the event is that the sun has disappeared into the horizon. This is exactly what has been observed. No other assumption is made about the occurrence beyond what was empirically observed - the sun disappearing into the horizon.

The RE interpretation involves making several unverified assumptions about what happens to the sun. The FE interpretation only relies only on what one can see for his or her own self.

Further FE explanations which involve perspective are an explanation of the event on a technical level. We are answering the question of "How does the sun disappear into the horizon?". When a flock of birds passes overhead the flock will eventually disappear into the horizon, just as the sun does. When a plane passes overhead it will eventually disappear into the horizon just as the sun does. There is a precedence for bodies passing by overhead and disappearing into the horizon.

Never do we invoke something which has not been tested or observed. While the RE'er are content with assuming the unobserved and untested (the sun below the horizon), the FE'er uses known occurrences to describe events. No one can doubt that planes disappear into the horizon. No one doubts that flocks of birds disappear into the horizon. We are using that same explanation for why the sun does it. Perspective.

You fail to acknowledge that the Sun never descends below 10 degrees at midnight in your model, dispite my repeated demonstration of this problem.  Deliberate ignorance of this irrefutable fact makes both you and Rowbotham appear to lack the understanding necessary to have any impact on anyone else's understanding of the earth's shape.

To illustrate how perspective actually works, see the following illustration, the Suns across the top shows the relative actual position in the sky based on a FE model, the smaller images shows the relative angular viewed positions and relative apparent size differences due to the change in distance and angular perspective:


?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2011, 08:29:09 AM »
The sun is obviously a part of the conspiracy.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2011, 12:44:27 PM »
or obviously, the flat earth hypothesis for sunsets does not match their model
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2011, 07:31:16 PM »
Hmm...I'm gonna call Photoshop on all of those images, whether it's a photograph or not, just to be safe.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2011, 07:37:58 PM »
Hmm...I'm gonna call Photoshop on all of those images, whether it's a photograph or not, just to be safe.

Oracle's is obviously MS Paint.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2011, 07:42:16 PM »
Hmm...I'm gonna call Photoshop on all of those images, whether it's a photograph or not, just to be safe.

Oracle's is obviously MS Paint.

FE VICTORY!!!
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: How do you explain this?
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2011, 09:54:12 PM »
Hmm...I'm gonna call Photoshop on all of those images, whether it's a photograph or not, just to be safe.

Oracle's is obviously MS Paint.

NO VICTORY YET!!!

if we call the other pictures on wiki false. no?
and also, they have provided explanations as well, no?
and diagrams?
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy