I think your position is illogical

The Doppler Effect is a hoax created by the government to create the illusion of a spherical sun and Earth.  Light does not change color as it approaches you or moves away from you.  There is evidence that says the Earth is round, but this is false and taught to us since childhood.  I know for a fact, simply by looking at my window, that light stays the same color regardless of which direction it it traveling.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 22, 2012, 08:02:32 PM

The sun looks like it meets the surface of the earth when it sets. It doesn't. Hence, the sunset is an illusion.

That is an opinion, not fact. Many people, including me, do not see the sun meeting the horizon in the way you describe. I see the sun moving closer to the horizon and finally setting behind it. I never once thought the sun is  crashing into Earth. That would be silly.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 22, 2012, 08:02:32 PM

The sun looks like it meets the surface of the earth when it sets. It doesn't. Hence, the sunset is an illusion.

That is an opinion, not fact. Many people, including me, do not see the sun meeting the horizon in the way you describe. I see the sun moving closer to the horizon and finally setting behind it. I never once thought the sun is  crashing into Earth. That would be silly.

Also, in RET the the earth is spinning to cause the sunset. The sun isn't actually setting, as the very word 'sunset' implies. Yet another illusion which contradicts claims that there are none.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2012, 07:40:19 AM

Also, in RET the the earth is spinning to cause the sunset. The sun isn't actually setting, as the very word 'sunset' implies. Yet another illusion which contradicts claims that there are none.

If you cannot tell that the sun is not crashing into Earth you have pretty bad depth perception.

Anywho, I'm done with you. Im not very found of brick walls with little common sense.

Also, in RET the the earth is spinning to cause the sunset. The sun isn't actually setting, as the very word 'sunset' implies. Yet another illusion which contradicts claims that there are none.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2012, 07:40:19 AM

Also, in RET the the earth is spinning to cause the sunset. The sun isn't actually setting, as the very word 'sunset' implies. Yet another illusion which contradicts claims that there are none.

Tom, do remind us how the sun can possible "set" on a flat earth, when elementary geometry tells us it will never do this (not without the light bending):

No perceptive theories are needed here.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved elementary geometry to be wrong. It is an inaccurate representation of reality.

IT is now demonstrated that the earth is a plane, and therefore the distance of the sun may be readily and most accurately ascertained by the simplest possible process. The operation is one in plane trigonometry, which admits of no uncertainty and requires no modification or allowance for probable influences.

Quote from: Moon squirter on July 25, 2012, 05:08:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2012, 07:40:19 AM

Also, in RET the the earth is spinning to cause the sunset. The sun isn't actually setting, as the very word 'sunset' implies. Yet another illusion which contradicts claims that there are none.

Tom, do remind us how the sun can possible "set" on a flat earth, when elementary geometry tells us it will never do this (not without the light bending):

No perceptive theories are needed here.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved elementary geometry to be wrong. It is an inaccurate representation of reality.

A mathematical model does not account for limits to human perspective. Man cannot see forever into the distance. The vanishing point is a finite distance away, not an infinite distance. Your diagram does not even take the vanishing point into account.

Trigonometry is not Geometry.

Bye! Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Physics says no. Physics says light will continue from the point of origin until it meets an object in it's way, in which case it will bounce. Your eyes may be the stopping point for the light, in which case, you will see what ever it is this light came from, because that's it's point of origin. It doesn't matter how far away it is. The eye does not have a distance limit. It has a brightness limit. I can see any distance, as long as there is something bright there for me to see. What you are saying is that it essentially works the other way around. It seems to me that you and Rowbotham think that the eye draws light to it, but can only draw it from so far away. Correct me if I'm wrong. But physics says no.

Do you actually have an argument for why they're incommensurate, or are you basing it simply on the fact that the words are different?

The two disciplines are directly related.  They are based on the same rules and logic.  If anything, trigonometry is a subset of geometry.  If not, explain how.  Show me where Rowbotham disproves any geometric theorem.

Every trigonometric function can be expressed geometrically.

Considering how air is never thicker than water, regardless of altitude, and that water only bends the straw so much

http://www.spiritualliving.net/straw%20glass%20smalll.jpg

it would be impossible for light to bend due to some sort of intermediate medium in order to account for the sunrise or sunset

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 25, 2012, 08:04:34 AM

Physics says no. Physics says light will continue from the point of origin until it meets an object in it's way, in which case it will bounce. Your eyes may be the stopping point for the light, in which case, you will see what ever it is this light came from, because that's it's point of origin. It doesn't matter how far away it is. The eye does not have a distance limit. It has a brightness limit. I can see any distance, as long as there is something bright there for me to see. What you are saying is that it essentially works the other way around. It seems to me that you and Rowbotham think that the eye draws light to it, but can only draw it from so far away. Correct me if I'm wrong. But physics says no.

Yes, the eye has a distance limit. Why don't you think you can see people walking around on the streets when you look down from an international flight?

Do you actually have an argument for why they're incommensurate, or are you basing it simply on the fact that the words are different?

The two disciplines are directly related.  They are based on the same rules and logic.  If anything, trigonometry is a subset of geometry.  If not, explain how.  Show me where Rowbotham disproves any geometric theorem.

Every trigonometric function can be expressed geometrically.

Considering how air is never thicker than water, regardless of altitude, and that water only bends the straw so much

http://www.spiritualliving.net/straw%20glass%20smalll.jpg

it would be impossible for light to bend due to some sort of intermediate medium in order to account for the sunrise or sunset

I encourage you to look up definitions for the words "Trigonometry" and "Geometry".

The branch of mathematics concerned with the properties and relations of points, lines, surfaces, solids, and higher dimensional analogs.

The branch of mathematics dealing with the relations of the sides and angles of triangles and with the relevant functions of any angles.

The study of angles and of the angular relationships of planar and three-dimensional figures is known as trigonometry.

The field evolved during the third century BC as a branch of geometry used extensively for astronomical studies.

And, again, all of the trigonometric functions can be expressed geometrically.  They're based on the same rules, axioms, theorems, etc.  Trigonometry is a form of geometry.  Saying something does not make it so. 

Quote from: Moon squirter on July 25, 2012, 05:08:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2012, 07:40:19 AM

Also, in RET the the earth is spinning to cause the sunset. The sun isn't actually setting, as the very word 'sunset' implies. Yet another illusion which contradicts claims that there are none.

Tom, do remind us how the sun can possible "set" on a flat earth, when elementary geometry tells us it will never do this (not without the light bending):

No perceptive theories are needed here.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved elementary geometry to be wrong. It is an inaccurate representation of reality.

A mathematical model does not account for limits to human perspective. Man cannot see forever into the distance. The vanishing point is a finite distance away, not an infinite distance. Your diagram does not take the vanishing point into account.



Also, a mathematical model does not account for Snell's Law. Light is bent when traveling through thicker mediums. The atmosphere is a fluid. Light will be bent when traveling though thicker mediums, as it is when a straw is placed into a glass of water:



It stands to reason, when the sun is shining through 100 miles of atmosphere straight up overhead it is being shifted at a lesser degree and when it is shining through thousands of miles of atmosphere at its setting. The path of light is deflected to another angle as per Snell's Law and has more time and space over thousands of miles to move from its original position.

Because light spreads out over a distance. It's not the eye's fault. There's less light to pick up. If my eye had a zoom lense, I could magnify that light. But I'm not a hawk. And Hawks don't fly at 30,000 feet.

You do realize how very little .2 degrees is right? And how far does the light have to go before being deflected that .2 degrees? A millimeter? A meter? A kilometer? You have to take these things into account. It seems, though, that since you're saying "if," that you don't have a real number, that is just a for instance and you actually have no idea how much the atmosphere deflects light.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 11:24:28 AM

I encourage you to look up definitions for the words "Trigonometry" and "Geometry".

Ok.

Geometry:

Quote

The branch of mathematics concerned with the properties and relations of points, lines, surfaces, solids, and higher dimensional analogs.

Trigonometry:

Quote

The branch of mathematics dealing with the relations of the sides and angles of triangles and with the relevant functions of any angles.

1. My diagram does not need to show a "vanishing point", because it is a depicts a 2D section (verticle intersection) of the earth and heavens.  It is not a 3D projection like your rail tracks.

2. My diagram tells us that the perspective effect on the observer will put the sun at 12 degrees above the horizon at midnight.  Therefore light would need to bent to allow any "setting" on a FE.

3. The limits of human perspective (resolution?) are well capable of observing angular diameters of 12 degrees, which is about 24 sun-disk diameters.  Again, light would need to bent to allow any setting on a FE.

4.  Lastly, Snells law predicts that light rays will be bent downwards by the lower atmosphere, because it is denser. The sun will therefore appear higher, not lower.  This atmospheric effect is already well understood and contributes to extended daylight.

Quote from: ThinkingMan

You do realize how very little .2 degrees is right? And how far does the light have to go before being deflected that .2 degrees? A millimeter? A meter? A kilometer? You have to take these things into account. It seems, though, that since you're saying "if," that you don't have a real number, that is just a for instance and you actually have no idea how much the atmosphere deflects light.

The point was to illustrate that very small numbers can have large results. If the atmosphere deflects light 0.2 degrees at point A, then the modified path would be a great distance over 14,000 miles at point B, despite 0.2 degrees being a rather small number.

How large would the rim of 0.2 degrees of a pie chart be, if the pie chart had a radius of 14,000 miles?

Snells Law bends the light downwards, hence the light would appear to set into the ground, when in reality it has not.

Quote from: Moon squirter on July 25, 2012, 03:08:33 PM

1. My diagram does not need to show a "vanishing point", because it is a depicts a 2D section (verticle intersection) of the earth and heavens.  It is not a 3D projection like your rail tracks.

As your diagram does not take the vanishing point into consideration, it is a bunk representation of reality.

Quote

2. My diagram tells us that the perspective effect on the observer will put the sun at 12 degrees above the horizon at midnight.  Therefore light would need to bent to allow any "setting" on a FE.

Your representation does not account for Snell's Law.

Quote

3. The limits of human perspective (resolution?) are well capable of observing angular diameters of 12 degrees, which is about 24 sun-disk diameters.  Again, light would need to bent to allow any setting on a FE.

The limits of human perspective are not related to whether the sun can or cannot be seen in the sky, but how soon the perspective lines merge. They do not merge an infinite distance away as oft depicted in art school.

Quote

4.  Lastly, Snells law predicts that light rays will be bent downwards by the lower atmosphere, because it is denser. The sun will therefore appear higher, not lower.  This atmospheric effect is already well understood and contributes to extended daylight.

Snells Law bends the light downwards, hence the light would appear to set into the ground, when in reality it has not.

Quote from: ThinkingMan

Because light spreads out over a distance. It's not the eye's fault. There's less light to pick up. If my eye had a zoom lense, I could magnify that light. But I'm not a hawk. And Hawks don't fly at 30,000 feet.

So you agree that eyes have limits then. Thanks

Quote from: garygreen on July 25, 2012, 12:41:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 11:24:28 AM

I encourage you to look up definitions for the words "Trigonometry" and "Geometry".

Ok.

Geometry:

Quote

The branch of mathematics concerned with the properties and relations of points, lines, surfaces, solids, and higher dimensional analogs.

Trigonometry:

Quote

The branch of mathematics dealing with the relations of the sides and angles of triangles and with the relevant functions of any angles.

They look like different definitions to me.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 03:23:00 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan

You do realize how very little .2 degrees is right? And how far does the light have to go before being deflected that .2 degrees? A millimeter? A meter? A kilometer? You have to take these things into account. It seems, though, that since you're saying "if," that you don't have a real number, that is just a for instance and you actually have no idea how much the atmosphere deflects light.

The point was to illustrate that very small numbers can have large results. If the atmosphere deflects light 0.2 degrees at point A, then the modified path would be a great distance over 14,000 miles at point B, despite 0.2 degrees being a rather small number.

How large would the rim of 0.2 degrees of a pie chart be, if the pie chart had a radius of 14,000 miles?

Let's pretend that it is a 0.2 degree difference. The atmosphere is approximately 11 miles (the number may be off because there is no real boundary), but let's say it was 20 miles. If I had a circle with a radius of 20 miles, and I examined a 0.2 degree slice, the arc length would be 0.07 miles. That's 112 meters! This could not account for the sunrise or sunset in any way.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 03:35:12 PM

Snells Law bends the light downwards, hence the light would appear to set into the ground, when in reality it has not.

I don't think you understand how snells law works. When light hits a surface, you can draw two things from this point; a tangent to the surface, and a normal, which would be parallel to the tangent. When light is moving from one medium to a denser one, the angle between the path of the ray of light and the normal decreases. In other words, if a ray of light hit the surface of the atmosphere, it would bend towards the ground, and not up from it, causing it to seem more above us than it actually is.



In that picture, the right side is the denser medium. If you rotate it 90 degrees, so that the left becomes the top, the you'll see why your argument makes no sense

1.  OK, you're effectively saying that when something is drawn to scale, the angles change.  I don't think that type of idiotic reasoning requires any further attention.  I will leaving you in your own reality on this one.

2.  If my diagram did take Snells law into account, the angle would be greater than 12 degrees (see point 4~)

3.  Perspective lines are not applicable to a 2D scale diagram.  See point 1 above regarding idiocy.

4.  Snell's law will cause sunlight rays to enter the eye at a steeper angle.  You cannot see light rays hitting the ground. I think you had this conversation a few years ago, and you still don't get it.  It's not my fault if your brain cannot comprehend that light must enter the eye to be detected.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 03:23:00 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan

Because light spreads out over a distance. It's not the eye's fault. There's less light to pick up. If my eye had a zoom lense, I could magnify that light. But I'm not a hawk. And Hawks don't fly at 30,000 feet.

So you agree that eyes have limits then. Thanks

If you perhaps read the whole thing, you would realize that the limit is not related to distance, it's related to how wide the pupil is and how much light can get it. Which has nothing to do with distance. It's a limit on light through a medium. Not a limit on the eye being able to see. I can see the light reflecting off of individual windows on an airliner if the angle is right. I can also see a jet-fighter at high altitude, and a satellite go by, which is very far, and satellites are generally no bigger than a  motorbike, or perhaps a golf cart.