What causes the circle of darkness?

Low light levels combined with the refraction of light through the atmosphere would cause a roughly elliptical view of earth from the observer.

False. The spotlight isn't circular for most of the year. Just saying a random phrase doesn't make it true. Would you like to try again?

roughly elliptical

Quote from: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 07:43:34 AM

False. The spotlight isn't circular for most of the year. Just saying a random phrase doesn't make it true. Would you like to try again?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 11, 2012, 07:40:21 AM

roughly elliptical

I suggest you improve your reading comprehension. Since I neither said it was circular and we were not discussing the sun's spot of light.

Alright, so I've looked through every thread about high-altitude photography I could find, and the FE explanation for the obvious curvature is always the same: it's the spot of light from the sun. As you can see from the Project Soar website, that supposed circle of light gradually turns into a circle of darkness daily. As the sun leaves, the curvature remains. This has never been explained from the FE perspective. Anyone?

Oh, and for those eccentric few (even by FE'er standards) who would attempt to dodge the issue by claiming airplane windows and cameras distort the pictures, I should warn you that that won't work here. There are no windows, and the still camera they use is a regular consumer Canon. Be sure to look over these specs and explain how they can support your argument, otherwise please don't bother.

Since you seem to have left the discussion about the Sun's spotlight, perhaps you'd take a moment to tell us what you're talking about.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 07:58:36 AM

Since you seem to have left the discussion about the Sun's spotlight, perhaps you'd take a moment to tell us what you're talking about.

You should read the OP again. Zarg mentions the Sun's spot of light but we are not discussing it directly. Zarg is instead discussing the circle of darkness left over after the sun has "set" below the horizon. Which leads to the title of the thread, "What causes the circle of darkness?" which I responded to accordingly. Again, your reading comprehension comes in to question. I'm starting to doubt you read the OP at all, actually.

How does low lighting affect shape?

How does refraction cause distortion in the direction your explanation requires?

Quote from: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 08:09:02 AM

How does low lighting affect shape?

The low lighting makes it harder to discern a true "end point" of the horizon. In darkness, our eyes tend to see what we want them to see more than is actually there, even if its a dark video. Not to mention the resolution is usually terrible, even for photos of a well-lit section of the disc.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 08:09:02 AM

How does refraction cause distortion in the direction your explanation requires?

Refraction causes light to go in a different direction and since you can not see light not going towards you, it would appear black. This causes the gradual fade starting from the observer point. However, it only becomes prominent at a great distance from the observer.

1) You argue for bias of the observer, without any evidence thereof. Surely not all observers would have such a bias. That fallacy would be the faultly generalization fallacy. Furthermore, photographic evidence would not be subject to the same unconfirmed bias.

2) That's a non sequitur. You cannot argue that no light reaches the observer because some light does not.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 09:20:12 AM

1) You argue for bias of the observer, without any evidence thereof. Surely not all observers would have such a bias. That fallacy would be the faultly generalization fallacy. Furthermore, photographic evidence would not be subject to the same unconfirmed bias.

All observers have bias. To assert that they don't is naive. Whether that is FET or RET bias depends on the observer.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 09:20:12 AM

2) That's a non sequitur. You cannot argue that no light reaches the observer because some light does not.

That was not my argument at all. That is the third time in one thread your reading comprehension has been lacking.

2) Did I say that was your argument? I was using a boundary condition to prove you wrong. Do pay attention.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 09:43:10 AM

2) Did I say that was your argument? I was using a boundary condition to prove you wrong. Do pay attention.

I see, redirective backpedaling. I noticed you attempted to derail the thread at first and when that didn't happen you started posting with an unfortunate arguing style. You knew you would lose this before it even began.

But do keep trying, as it's fun to watch you struggle.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 10:03:07 AM

But do keep trying, as it's fun to watch you struggle.

The low lighting makes it harder to discern a true "end point" of the horizon. In darkness, our eyes tend to see what we want them to see more than is actually there, even if its a dark video.

Not to mention the resolution is usually terrible, even for photos of a well-lit section of the disc.

Summary

On August 7th 2010, a team gathered in the predawn hours to launch a capsule called PURSUIT to the edge of space via high altitude balloon on a mission called Sunrise Soar II. PURSUIT flew to an estimated altitude of 80,000 feet and flew 30 miles downrange from the launch site in San Marcos, Texas before landing near Spring Branch, Texas. To our knowledge, Sunrise Soar II captured the highest resolution images of sunrise ever taken from the edge of space by a high altitude balloon flight. This is the detailed story of how it was done.

Refraction causes light to go in a different direction and since you can not see light not going towards you, it would appear black. This causes the gradual fade starting from the observer point. However, it only becomes prominent at a great distance from the observer.

Mmkay, so to clarify: the night curvature and day curvature are caused by two unrelated phenomena?

What about the intermediate period, and why do both phenomena result in the exact same amount of apparent curvature?

Doesn't the degree of curvature depend on the nearness of the sun, which changes with the seasons?

Why does this "low light observer bias" correspond with any property of the sun when the observer can't see the sun at all?

It is not curvature.

They do not result in the exact same amount.

It has nothing to do with the sun. We are talking about the circle of darkness, correct?

• explain why the correlation exists
• demonstrate that the correlation doesn't exist
• admit that the daytime curvature also has nothing to do with the sun

The links in the op don't demonstrate anything about a "circle of darkness."

False. The spotlight isn't circular for most of the year. Just saying a random phrase doesn't make it true. Would you like to try again?

False. The spotlight isn't circular for most of the year.

Just saying a random phrase doesn't make it true. Would you like to try again?

Here's you answering your own post... with the same post!

Quote from: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 07:43:34 AM

False. The spotlight isn't circular for most of the year. Just saying a random phrase doesn't make it true. Would you like to try again?

Let's hold you to your own standards there. Here's you answering your own post... with the same post!

Quote from: ClockTower A on January 11, 2012, 07:43:34 AM

False. The spotlight isn't circular for most of the year.

Quote from: ClockTower B on January 11, 2012, 07:43:34 AM

Just saying a random phrase doesn't make it true. Would you like to try again?

(once we destroyed your contention that there are two Australias)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52543.msg1291287;topicseen#msg1291287
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40062.msg1003680;topicseen#msg1003680
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40159.msg1003783;topicseen#msg1003783
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41987.msg1043708;topicseen#msg1043708
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42028.msg1045835;topicseen#msg1045835
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42028.msg1045978;topicseen#msg1045978
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43858.msg1090030;topicseen#msg1090030
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52457.msg1286365;topicseen#msg1286365

Just saying a random phrase doesn't make it true. Would you like to try again?

A large mistake in your posts is that you seem to claim that FET would reflect RET perfectly. It doesn't. Instead, it reflects reality. The illuminated area in RET and FET will not be identical, only vaguely similar.

In RET, the Sun shines on exactly half of the Earth at all times (ignoring solar eclipses and atmospheric effects). At the equinox, every location (except the geographic poles) on Earth receives 12 hours of light and 12 hours of dark. (The poles receive 24 hours of twilight.) This matches observation.

In FET, the shape of the Sun's illumination on the Earth varies with the season. Yes, on the equinoxes, the illuminated area is a semicircle with the terminator halfway around the disc from the Sun. In June Solstice the illuminated area includes everywhere north of the Arctic Circle throughout the day, but nowhere south of the Antarctic Circle anytime during the day. In the December Solstice, the Sun's illumination includes everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle all day and nowhere north of the Arctic Circle any time during the day.

For the observer south of the Antarctic Circle at midnight on the December Solstice, the Sun appears due south, even though the shortest distance to the Sun would be to the north across the darkness at the North Pole.

Clearly RET has the better explanation.

"This matches observation" is a random phrase. Do you remember what saying random phrases does not cause? C'mon, boy, I know you can do it!

"Yes, on the equinoxes, the illuminated area is a semicircle with the terminator halfway around the disc from the Sun. In June Solstice the illuminated area includes everywhere north of the Arctic Circle throughout the day, but nowhere south of the Antarctic Circle anytime during the day. In the December Solstice, the Sun's illumination includes everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle all day and nowhere north of the Arctic Circle any time during the day.

For the observer south of the Antarctic Circle at midnight on the December Solstice, the Sun appears due south, even though the shortest distance to the Sun would be to the north across the darkness at the North Pole." - An interesting claim. Where's the support?

The previous location of the goal posts was simply to show that the claim was based on matching reality vice RET.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 03:17:14 AM

The previous location of the goal posts was simply to show that the claim was based on matching reality vice RET.

Really? I don't recall setting such a goal post. I recall pointing out that, according to yourself, just saying a random phrase doesn't make it true.
Oh, guess what, you've just said yet another random phrase. Following your own standards seems to stump you.

A large mistake in your posts is that you seem to claim that FET would reflect RET perfectly.

Here you go:

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 22, 2012, 01:14:33 AM

A large mistake in your posts is that you seem to claim that FET would reflect RET perfectly.