sorry to be a bother but I have another question

  • 35 Replies
  • 4946 Views
sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« on: December 13, 2011, 07:01:21 AM »
I've posted three questions so far, and I haven't gotten a sensible answer to any of them. The discussion of each of them has devolved into nonsense and insults. :( If I didn't know better, I'd say that some of the people on these boards are not taking this subject seriously! Let us proceed with civility, and let us reason together:

I live near a large American airport. Often I will see planes take off and fly away. The plane appears big when it takes off, and then it gets smaller and smaller, until it's the size of a dot, and then I inevitably lose track of it as it flies below the horizon or behind a building.

From what I can tell, this is the Flat Earth explanation for sunsets. The Sun gets further and further away, until you can no longer see it. But if that is the case, then why does the disk of the Sun not appear smaller as this happens? The Sun appears to be roughly the same diameter at sunset that it does during noontime. One explanation I have seen proffered on these boards is that the Sun's size is magnified due to some sort of atmospheric lensing, but this seems impossible; a flat Earth implies a flat atmosphere, and as anyone who's ever worn glasses or used a magnifying glass can attest, lenses only work if they are curved. And in any case, why would this not happen for airplanes also?

The FAQ makes no mention of this conundrum, and this is an unfortunate oversight. (Surely I am not the first person to ask about this!)
1. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi
2. I'm being ignored and laughed at
3. Therefore I'm right

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2011, 07:21:29 AM »
I agree with your concern. Here's a thread that dealt with the issue: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12511. The 'Search' function is your friend.



Thanks.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2011, 07:45:39 AM »
Thank you so much for pointing that out! I try to use the search function but often that leads me to confusing and contradictory results.

I read through that thread you linked to but I am afraid it is not convincing. You're saying that the size discrepancy is due to "glare", for the same reason that faraway lights appear the same size as nearby lights? Well, they don't really, and that doesn't explain the fact that the disk of the Sun (and the Moon, also) has clearly visible edges. And if the effect is more pronounced when the air is "moist and vapoury", why does the disk of the Sun not appear much larger on misty days?

1. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi
2. I'm being ignored and laughed at
3. Therefore I'm right

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2011, 07:56:05 AM »
and another thing, if it's the case that things get larger and brighter as you move further away, then why does the sun suddenly disappear? Shouldn't you be able to see it all the time? The user "Tom Bishop" posted a link to a photo of a city. Look at the very faraway lights, they look like tiny dots. Why does the sun never appear as a tiny dot?
1. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi
2. I'm being ignored and laughed at
3. Therefore I'm right

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2011, 07:59:02 AM »
Thank you so much for pointing that out! I try to use the search function but often that leads me to confusing and contradictory results.

I read through that thread you linked to but I am afraid it is not convincing. You're saying that the size discrepancy is due to "glare", for the same reason that faraway lights appear the same size as nearby lights? Well, they don't really, and that doesn't explain the fact that the disk of the Sun (and the Moon, also) has clearly visible edges. And if the effect is more pronounced when the air is "moist and vapoury", why does the disk of the Sun not appear much larger on misty days?
I've mislead you. I apologize. I have never seen a decent logical argument about this topic in favor of FET. Quite simply, Roundy has asked your question very well and no FEer answered it convincingly. (Really, Tom, the Sun's glare makes it look the same size throughout the day (save the 'squashed' image right around sunrise and sunset)? Then put on polarized sunglasses and look again. By the Zetetic method, you've already done that BEFORE making your conclusion that the Sun's glare causes it to change apparent size, right? You gather all of the evidence, then ponder, then conclude, right?

I agree the 'Search' function requires some reading of the 'manual' and some practice. Take your time though and you'll get it. Thanks.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Lorddave

  • 16453
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2011, 03:38:35 AM »
Why are you looking for a logical answer backed by experimental evidence?

A good portion of FET is vague or even unknown. This is a prime example. Some say glare. I've seen some say a lensing effect.
You also have the issue that the optical density of air combined with the luminosity of the Sun would allow it to be seen from the other side of the world on a flat Earth.

This is one of many mysteries that FET has no solid explanation for at present.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2011, 08:28:08 AM »
This has been a frustrating experience for me. ??? I am getting the impression that very few people seriously believe that the Earth is flat, and that the ones who do have not given it much thought, or do not have much in the way of scientific literacy or critical thinking skills. :-\
1. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi
2. I'm being ignored and laughed at
3. Therefore I'm right

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2011, 10:40:56 AM »
I am getting the impression that very few people seriously believe that the Earth is flat

It took you fourteen posts before you figured this one out. The average is six.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41782
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2011, 10:44:02 AM »
I am getting the impression that very few people seriously believe that the Earth is flat

It took you fourteen posts before you figured this one out. The average is six.

Most of the bright ones figure it out by lurking moar.
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.

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2011, 05:02:48 AM »
Why are you looking for a logical answer backed by experimental evidence?

A good portion of FET is vague or even unknown. This is a prime example. Some say glare. I've seen some say a lensing effect.
You also have the issue that the optical density of air combined with the luminosity of the Sun would allow it to be seen from the other side of the world on a flat Earth.

This is one of many mysteries that FET has no solid explanation for at present.

Basically, there's no FET. It's just a collection of more or less far-fetched ideas. Some ludicrous like the Moon shrimps. Some making more sense like... Damm, I can't find an example!
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16714
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2011, 06:18:10 AM »
This has been a frustrating experience for me. ??? I am getting the impression that very few people seriously believe that the Earth is flat, and that the ones who do have not given it much thought, or do not have much in the way of scientific literacy or critical thinking skills. :-\
Very few people on this site perhaps, and less everyday it seems.  Some of us have given it a lot of thought, are scientifically literate and have excellent critical thinking skills and believe in a flat earth both on this site and those who have never been here.  I myself am on sabbatical tackling some personal and public flat earth projects so I haven't been around lately.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2011, 09:32:21 AM »
  I myself am on sabbatical tackling some personal and public flat earth projects so I haven't been around lately.

Translation: changing nappies and realising how much more fulfilling looking after a small child is compared to winding people up on the internet.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16714
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2011, 10:23:29 AM »
  I myself am on sabbatical tackling some personal and public flat earth projects so I haven't been around lately.

Translation: changing nappies and realising how much more fulfilling looking after a small child is compared to winding people up on the internet.
Mostly I've been working on redesigns for the United Flat Earth Society's news site, working on a few articles for it, finding other interested authors in other societies and groups, organizing press releases/interviews, and starting my book over from scratch.  And yes, looking after my child and working. 

I have no interest in winding anyone up or convincing anyone of anything.   Your speculations on my motives for being here are ludicrous, though not anymore so than I've come to expect.   I'm here for my own benefit, and occasionally as it suits me the benefit of those who come here.  This has always been the case.  Now, if you are done using my child as a lever to lift your mad theories and attacks towards me off the ground, I'll wish you happy holidays and be on my way.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 10:46:45 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2011, 03:15:17 PM »
I have no interest in winding anyone up or convincing anyone of anything.
Why the book writing then? People don't write a book proposing throwing the entirety of mainstream physics, geology and history out the window unless they feel very strongly that others should read it and agree with them. Sorry, but "I'm writing a book about FET" is not compatible with "I have no interest in convincing people".

Quote
Your speculations on my motives for being here are ludicrous
Argumentum ad ridiculum. Just because a theory sounds outlandish does not mean it's wrong. My theory is you come here to get a kick out of making people think you really think the earth is flat. Maybe if I see an actual copy of your book one day, I will rethink that theory. Until then, posting garbage on an internet forum proves nothing.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Thork

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2011, 03:27:34 PM »
... and starting my book over from scratch.

I am confident that you have no intention of letting anyone ever read your work.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16714
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2011, 03:57:04 PM »
I have no interest in winding anyone up or convincing anyone of anything.
Why the book writing then? People don't write a book proposing throwing the entirety of mainstream physics, geology and history out the window unless they feel very strongly that others should read it and agree with them. Sorry, but "I'm writing a book about FET" is not compatible with "I have no interest in convincing people".

Quote
Your speculations on my motives for being here are ludicrous
Argumentum ad ridiculum. Just because a theory sounds outlandish does not mean it's wrong. My theory is you come here to get a kick out of making people think you really think the earth is flat. Maybe if I see an actual copy of your book one day, I will rethink that theory. Until then, posting garbage on an internet forum proves nothing.
I don't have time to trade words with insolent youth.  You need to review argumentum ad ridiculum as well as the concept of a logical fallacy in general. Once you know the simple concept of a fallacy and can recognize one, I'll give you the time of day again.  Also your lack of imagination in conjecturing my motives for writing a book is not proof that your postulate (that I want to convince people the earth is flat while simultaneously not wanting to and thus causing me to have a sabbatical) is correct. 

... and starting my book over from scratch.

I am confident that you have no intention of letting anyone ever read your work.
Actually, from scratch is a bit misleading.  I'm basically tearing out and expanding the historical theory sections and putting them in a project I'm doing with a few other flat earthers from this site and elsewhere (both secular and religious).  Its an attempt to bring folks interested in flat earth theory up to date, especially those that would not bother reading anything but ENaG, like many on this site.  It currently is set to cover ancient and prehistoric flat earth theory up to the early 1990s.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 04:11:35 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2011, 04:03:01 PM »
Look there, its what we call the "I'm super serial guys" troll. Notice how he has a "name" as a screen name. Totally super serial here.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16714
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2011, 04:13:08 PM »
Notice how he has a "name" as a screen name. Totally super serial here.
Yes, the same name I use everyday, I use for my work, I use in the interviews I do, I use on facebook, I have on my passport, I sent cards to members of this site from,  and I have on my license etc.  Nice sleuthing Sherlock.  Why don't you lurk more before you make yourself look like an idiot.

In the past I would have posted a picture of my id, but honestly it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference. 
« Last Edit: December 20, 2011, 04:32:25 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2011, 06:39:06 PM »
Notice how he has a "name" as a screen name. Totally super serial here.
Yes, the same name I use everyday, I use for my work, I use in the interviews I do, I use on facebook, I have on my passport, I sent cards to members of this site from,  and I have on my license etc.  Nice sleuthing Sherlock.  Why don't you lurk more before you make yourself look like an idiot.

In the past I would have posted a picture of my id, but honestly it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference.
It seems a shame to have to remind a mod, but the topic of interest here is the size and shape of the Sun. In particular, we've challenged that glare which can be easily eliminated does not account for the Sun's invariant apparent size. Polaroid film, for example, can eliminate glare. We've demonstrated that Tom Bishop has lied about this issue regarding the Moon.

Oh, and if we could ask:  Please learn the difference between "its" (possessive pronoun) and "it's" (a contraction for "it is"). You might also want to use the question mark to indicate that you're asking a question more often. As you've said, it's polite to use proper grammar.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2011, 06:57:30 PM »
Notice how he has a "name" as a screen name. Totally super serial here.
Yes, the same name I use everyday, I use for my work, I use in the interviews I do, I use on facebook, I have on my passport, I sent cards to members of this site from,  and I have on my license etc.  Nice sleuthing Sherlock.  Why don't you lurk more before you make yourself look like an idiot.

In the past I would have posted a picture of my id, but honestly it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference.

I'm super serial guuuys! You're definitely the worst kind of troll, the non-humorous kind. Nothing you just said was funny at all and I am very disappoint.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2011, 07:10:36 PM »
I live near a large American airport. Often I will see planes take off and fly away. The plane appears big when it takes off, and then it gets smaller and smaller, until it's the size of a dot, and then I inevitably lose track of it...

This answer is easy. The atmosphere is not completely transparent. At certain distances the air itself causes you to not be able to see things. That combined with the fact that objects get smaller the greater distance they are away from you, and you cease to see it.

I too lived near an airport when I lived at my Uni. I used to watch the planes all the time, but eventually they just become white noise and I lost interest.

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2011, 07:12:30 PM »
I live near a large American airport. Often I will see planes take off and fly away. The plane appears big when it takes off, and then it gets smaller and smaller, until it's the size of a dot, and then I inevitably lose track of it...

This answer is easy. The atmosphere is not completely transparent. At certain distances the air itself causes you to not be able to see things. That combined with the fact that objects get smaller the greater distance they are away from you, and you cease to see it.

I too lived near an airport when I lived at my Uni. I used to watch the planes all the time, but eventually they just become white noise and I lost interest.
So why does the Sun and the Moon and the stars and comets and more stay the same size throughout the magic rotation of the sky?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2011, 07:15:34 PM »
I live near a large American airport. Often I will see planes take off and fly away. The plane appears big when it takes off, and then it gets smaller and smaller, until it's the size of a dot, and then I inevitably lose track of it...

This answer is easy. The atmosphere is not completely transparent. At certain distances the air itself causes you to not be able to see things. That combined with the fact that objects get smaller the greater distance they are away from you, and you cease to see it.

I too lived near an airport when I lived at my Uni. I used to watch the planes all the time, but eventually they just become white noise and I lost interest.
So why does the Sun and the Moon and the stars and comets and more stay the same size throughout the magic rotation of the sky?

That has nothing to do with my post. I know the OP asked multiple questions, but I would like to get through them one at a time so there is no confusion for him with different quote blocks and such.

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2011, 07:23:23 PM »
I live near a large American airport. Often I will see planes take off and fly away. The plane appears big when it takes off, and then it gets smaller and smaller, until it's the size of a dot, and then I inevitably lose track of it...

This answer is easy. The atmosphere is not completely transparent. At certain distances the air itself causes you to not be able to see things. That combined with the fact that objects get smaller the greater distance they are away from you, and you cease to see it.

I too lived near an airport when I lived at my Uni. I used to watch the planes all the time, but eventually they just become white noise and I lost interest.
So why does the Sun and the Moon and the stars and comets and more stay the same size throughout the magic rotation of the sky?

That has nothing to do with my post. I know the OP asked multiple questions, but I would like to get through them one at a time so there is no confusion for him with different quote blocks and such.
So you've got nothing, again. Noted. Let us know when you want to make a special pleading fallacy to add some new idea to your version of FET.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2011, 07:57:51 PM »
So you have no real response to my post? Ok.

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2011, 10:01:12 PM »
So you have no real response to my post? Ok.
Okay, if you want me to point out another one of your errors, I'll oblige. No, airplanes don't disappear just because the air gets too thick to see them through it. On a clear day, you can see planes, just like ships, that are headed away from you until they go over the horizon of the round Earth.

(You're really making this too easy. I mean really... confusing velocities and forces.)
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2011, 04:23:36 AM »
a project I'm doing with a few other flat earthers from this site and elsewhere

Names or they don't exist.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2011, 11:53:38 AM »
So you have no real response to my post? Ok.
Okay, if you want me to point out another one of your errors, I'll oblige. No, airplanes don't disappear just because the air gets too thick to see them through it. On a clear day, you can see planes, just like ships, that are headed away from you until they go over the horizon of the round Earth.

It does not matter if it is a "clear" day. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, so at certain distances it will not be possible to see through it.

a project I'm doing with a few other flat earthers from this site and elsewhere

Names or they don't exist.

Lurk moar. It is well known here who are the users that actually run real-world chapters of the flat earth society.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2011, 07:58:00 PM »
From what I can tell, this is the Flat Earth explanation for sunsets. The Sun gets further and further away, until you can no longer see it. But if that is the case, then why does the disk of the Sun not appear smaller as this happens?

Please see this wiki article:

http://wiki.theflatearthsociety.net/index.php/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Distinctness_of_the_Sun

Re: sorry to be a bother but I have another question
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2011, 09:35:58 PM »
From what I can tell, this is the Flat Earth explanation for sunsets. The Sun gets further and further away, until you can no longer see it. But if that is the case, then why does the disk of the Sun not appear smaller as this happens?

Please see this wiki article:

http://wiki.theflatearthsociety.net/index.php/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Distinctness_of_the_Sun
Demonstrably false, as usual. I have to wonder if FEers are even trying any more.

Let's take the obvious counterexample. Put on polarized sunglasses. Look at the Sun at midday and then at sunset (or sunrise). The glasses remove the glare. The Sun resolves to a clear disc and at the same apparent size, though very near the horizon there is a bit of magnification and distortion.

Do the same for the Moon and the planets, of course with a telescope if needed and without the sunglasses. Again the apparent size remains constant. Yet the Wiki article states that the source must be intense enough to have the needed effect. So the dim sources demonstrate the Wiki wrong, as usual.

Oh, and here's a thread where TheEngineer tells Tom that he's wrong and Tom produces a picture. Ask Tom about how he got that picture and made sure that the image of the Moon wasn't magnified.



Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards