« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt

  • 123 Replies
  • 22429 Views
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2012, 06:02:34 AM »
Quote from: squevil on July 29, 2012, 02:20:36 PM
clouds can be explained in another way, quite simply really. however the plane in question was solid evidence. the plane being a solid object was really the point.

This is one of the very few useful threads I've seen on here. Thank you squevil, for starting this.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2012, 07:43:47 AM »
heres some more observed evidence. there is a distinct lack of argument in all these threads. the best way to present a topic is to use the zetetic method. all these posts follow that and it makes them into a solid argument. sometimes the zetetic method works well.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52981.msg1298630.html#msg1298630

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52745.msg1292938.html#msg1292938
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2012, 08:40:14 AM »
Quote from: squevil on July 30, 2012, 07:43:47 AM
heres some more observed evidence. there is a distinct lack of argument in all these threads. the best way to present a topic is to use the zetetic method. all these posts follow that and it makes them into a solid argument. sometimes the zetetic method works well.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52981.msg1298630.html#msg1298630

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52745.msg1292938.html#msg1292938

You know, I actually recall reading the spotlight sun one now. The "more work on spotlight sun theory." Perhaps I shall try and watch the ISS orbit from an angle, say down near the equator, as it is on a 50 degree orbit, they say. That should provide enough of an angle for me to watch it's angular velocity change. I'll have to document everything of course. If someone else is already in the position to do the experiment though, that would be wonderful. You'll have to be on large, open flatlands so that you can watch the ISS come "up" from the west, and "down" in the east, and the velocity will appear to change, however it is actually holding rather steady at ~7,700 m/s
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2012, 09:49:57 AM »
Quote from: squevil on July 27, 2012, 02:27:07 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 08:19:52 AM
The answer is that due to perspective, when the sun is setting it near the eye level of the observer, and therefore its rays are coming at you from the side. The sun's rays are also hitting clouds and plane from the side. The back end of the cloud/plane is facing you, so it appears as if the plane/cloud is illuminated from the bottom.



almost, but perspective does not make the sun parallel to me. it looks like it is but it would still be 3000 miles above. the whole of the underside was lit up and not just the point that was facing me. even the trail behind it was glowing.
sorry tom it would fool some but just because the sun looks like its touching the ground doesnt mean that it is at ground level.
i like the drawings though, thanks for the effort! i honestly appreciate that

Actually, perspective does make the sun parallel to you.

See Chapter 9: The cause of Sunrise and Sunset
Logged
?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2012, 11:10:19 AM »
Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on July 27, 2012, 11:16:07 AM
When I see planes flying at 30000 (ish)ft they're small dots with white puffy clouds behind them, there's no way I could see anything reflecting off the bottom of it.

Yeah I agree, planes up that high are very small, it must have been taking off or landing.
Logged
?

Kendrick

  • 369
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2012, 11:35:42 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:49:57 AM
Actually, perspective does make the sun parallel to you.

See Chapter 9: The cause of Sunrise and Sunset

Rowbothams explanation is wrong.

As the sun moves down towards the horizon it does not look like it is getting further and further away - its size stays roughly the same and features on the sun's surface maintain the same level of visiblity.

Here is a snapshot I took of the sun as it hung low in the sky during the recent transit of venus.



With this picture we see that the sun's apparent size is not maintained by glare as it moves away across the earth-plane.   If this were the case Venus would not be visible, its profile would have been consumed by the glare similar to a spec on a light-bulb.

I also noticed with this picture that Venus did not travel down across the sun's profile would be expected as the sun moved away across the earth-plane.  It continued horizontally across the sun's profile.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 11:54:09 AM by Kendrick »
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM »
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

It is not a glare in the eye lens of the user, but a projection of the sun's image upon the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 12:06:39 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM »
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2012, 12:11:15 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I asked you two questions. I just want to know. I didn't say anyone proved it wrong. Although Kendrick has made excellent points to which you have not responded. But regardless, you didn't answer my questions.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
?

Kendrick

  • 369
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2012, 12:15:16 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

It is not a glare in the eye lens of the user, but a projection of the sun's image upon the atmosphere.

That explanation is also wrong. 

Also, as mentioned previously, Venus did not move down towards the horizon as expected, rather continuing its path horizonatally across the sun's profile.
Logged
*

garygreen

  • 603
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2012, 12:17:17 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did.  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM »
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did.  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 01:21:04 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2012, 01:23:42 PM »
Quote from: Kendrick on July 30, 2012, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

It is not a glare in the eye lens of the user, but a projection of the sun's image upon the atmosphere.

That explanation is also wrong. 

Also, as mentioned previously, Venus did not move down towards the horizon as expected, rather continuing its path horizonatally across the sun's profile.

"This explanation is wrong" is not a valid rebuttal we will accept.

Venus did not move down the sun by any significant degree because it is very close to the sun, many orders of magnitude lesser distance between you and the sun.
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2012, 01:28:13 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did.  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

I thought it was a atmolayer?

How can the atmosphere magnify and block the sun's rays Tom? If it magnifies it, it will get brighter and larger, not remain the same angular size and get darker. If it blocks it, it will simply fade from view, not "go down." If it does one, it won't do the other, have you ever used a magnifying glass or a telescope? Use one, then put some translucent gray paint on it, and use it again. Tell me what happens.

Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

Lorddave

  • 18387
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2012, 01:30:42 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did.  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.
This is in conflict with the clouds.  Clouds have a much greater optical density than air.  If normal atmosphere can easily block the sun's rays then surely the cloud would completely block it during sunset and sunrise.
Logged
Quote from: wise on May 26, 2023, 05:06:05 AM
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.
*

garygreen

  • 603
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2012, 01:35:31 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

That's only half of the argument.

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is magnified by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2012, 01:51:59 PM »
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did.  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

I thought it was a atmolayer?

How can the atmosphere magnify and block the sun's rays Tom? If it magnifies it, it will get brighter and larger, not remain the same angular size and get darker. If it blocks it, it will simply fade from view, not "go down." If it does one, it won't do the other, have you ever used a magnifying glass or a telescope? Use one, then put some translucent gray paint on it, and use it again. Tell me what happens.

You are mistaken that magnification makes a light source brighter.

If you place a magnifying glass up to a lightbulb to enlarge the image it won't get any brighter. You are scattering the rays of the lightbulb, and it will therefore become dimmer. But if we flip around the magnifying glass to shrink the light bulb, it will become brighter, as we are concentrating the light rays to a point.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 01:58:17 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2012, 01:58:26 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:51:59 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did.  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

I thought it was a atmolayer?

How can the atmosphere magnify and block the sun's rays Tom? If it magnifies it, it will get brighter and larger, not remain the same angular size and get darker. If it blocks it, it will simply fade from view, not "go down." If it does one, it won't do the other, have you ever used a magnifying glass or a telescope? Use one, then put some translucent gray paint on it, and use it again. Tell me what happens.

You are mistaken that magnification makes a light source brighter.

If you place a magnifying glass up to a lightbulb to enlarge the image it won't get any brighter. You are scattering the rays of the lightbulb, and it will therefore become dimmer. But if we flip around the magnifying glass to shrink the light bulb, it will become brighter, as we are concentrating the light rays to a point.

At sunset when we look at the sun near the horizon it is rather dim, and one can look at it directly without eye damage. When the sun is overhead at noon, on the other hand, looking at it is very painful. This illustrates the dimming of the sun with atmosphere.


Magnification focuses rays of light to a point so you can see smaller objects (or distant objects) appear larger. If you magnifiy a light source, it will appear brighter. It does not scatter rays. Have you ever used one to burn ants? I did it once. It focuses rays of light. You cannot focus rays of light while you are "dimming," which is scattering them.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2012, 01:58:51 PM »
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 01:35:31 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

That's only half of the argument.

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is magnified by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.

If there is too much atmosphere the rays will be blocked, just as if glass is too thick the image through it will be blocked.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 02:06:27 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #50 on: July 30, 2012, 02:03:57 PM »
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 01:58:26 PM
Magnification focuses rays of light to a point so you can see smaller objects (or distant objects) appear larger. If you magnifiy a light source, it will appear brighter. It does not scatter rays. Have you ever used one to burn ants? I did it once. It focuses rays of light. You cannot focus rays of light while you are "dimming," which is scattering them.

One side of the magnifying scatters light and the other side of the magnifying glass concentrates light.

When you use a magnifying glass to enlarge an object, you are pulling the rays of light away from each other to a larger surface area. This dimms the resulting image.

When you use a magnifying glass to shrink an object you are concentrating the rays to a smaller surface area and cause the image to brighten. This is what allows you to burn ants with a magnifying glass.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 02:05:39 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #51 on: July 30, 2012, 02:18:32 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 02:03:57 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 01:58:26 PM
Magnification focuses rays of light to a point so you can see smaller objects (or distant objects) appear larger. If you magnifiy a light source, it will appear brighter. It does not scatter rays. Have you ever used one to burn ants? I did it once. It focuses rays of light. You cannot focus rays of light while you are "dimming," which is scattering them.

One side of the magnifying scatters light and the other side of the magnifying glass concentrates light.

When you use a magnifying glass to enlarge an object, you are pulling the rays of light away from each other to a larger surface area. This dimms the resulting image.

When you use a magnifying glass to shrink an object you are concentrating the rays to a smaller surface area and cause the image to brighten. This is what allows you to burn ants with a magnifying glass.

I should inform you Tom, "scattering" is probably not the correct term to use here.  In common usage it means to throw in random directions (for example light through frosted glass). 

Please read anything other than "ENaG".
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #52 on: July 30, 2012, 02:56:14 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did.  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

yeh well i have shown that the sun being blocked by the atmosphere wrong too. you stated that some of this is explained in EnaG as well but most of the stuff in that book is clearly wrong or misunderstood too.
you could always do some of your own work instead of reading an old book and dismissing anything that disagrees with it. i have and look at the conclusions.
out of the 2 of us i would say that im the true zetetic.
Logged
*

garygreen

  • 603
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #53 on: July 30, 2012, 03:03:44 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:58:51 PM
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 01:35:31 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

That's only half of the argument.

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is magnified by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.

If there is too much atmosphere the rays will be blocked, just as if glass is too thick the image through it will be blocked.

Why does the atmosphere suddenly stop magnifying and start blocking rays of light?  At what point does this occur?  If the dimming of the Sun if caused by increased magnification, then the Sun should sit on the horizon at dusk, gradually dimming into darkness, not dip below it.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #54 on: July 30, 2012, 03:54:17 PM »
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 03:03:44 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:58:51 PM
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 01:35:31 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

That's only half of the argument.

FET explains nighttime by hypothesizing that sunlight is blocked by the atmosphere.  It explains the apparent size of the Sun by hypothesizing that sunlight is magnified by the atmosphere.  These cannot both be true.

If there is too much atmosphere the rays will be blocked, just as if glass is too thick the image through it will be blocked.

Why does the atmosphere suddenly stop magnifying and start blocking rays of light?  At what point does this occur?  If the dimming of the Sun if caused by increased magnification, then the Sun should sit on the horizon at dusk, gradually dimming into darkness, not dip below it.
it doesnt i have demonstrated it in another thread that the atmosphere is not responsible for blocking light.
Logged
?

Kendrick

  • 369
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #55 on: July 30, 2012, 04:05:57 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:23:42 PM
"This explanation is wrong" is not a valid rebuttal we will accept.

Who is 'we'?

If you require further detail reference my earlier posts.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:23:42 PM
Venus did not move down the sun by any significant degree because it is very close to the sun, many orders of magnitude lesser distance between you and the sun.

This reeks of Guesswork and Speculation.

Describe the process you used to demonstrate your above assertion.

Venus continued its horzontal path across the sun as the sun sunk down into the horizon.  As the sun is moving away from us in its path across the earth-plane - the outline of Venus would have travelled down towards the horizon.

If Rowbotham's explanation of the setting sun is correct then Venus would not have been between my eye and the Sun as it was setting.

So yes - that explanation is wrong.

Logged
?

LolaTheRabbit

  • 185
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2012, 12:41:54 AM »
Quote from: Kendrick on July 30, 2012, 04:05:57 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:23:42 PM
"This explanation is wrong" is not a valid rebuttal we will accept.

Who is 'we'?

If you require further detail reference my earlier posts.


Quote from: Moon squirter on July 17, 2012, 08:40:45 AM
Tom Bishop is actually "Team Bishop", a pseudoname for a gaggle of Mexican prostitutes working in shift rotation on their nights off. That is who he represents.  That stuff about Monterey is BS.  It's actually Tijuana where you'll find Team Bishop.
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #57 on: July 31, 2012, 05:56:23 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:51:59 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did.  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

I thought it was a atmolayer?

How can the atmosphere magnify and block the sun's rays Tom? If it magnifies it, it will get brighter and larger, not remain the same angular size and get darker. If it blocks it, it will simply fade from view, not "go down." If it does one, it won't do the other, have you ever used a magnifying glass or a telescope? Use one, then put some translucent gray paint on it, and use it again. Tell me what happens.

You are mistaken that magnification makes a light source brighter.

If you place a magnifying glass up to a lightbulb to enlarge the image it won't get any brighter. You are scattering the rays of the lightbulb, and it will therefore become dimmer. But if we flip around the magnifying glass to shrink the light bulb, it will become brighter, as we are concentrating the light rays to a point.
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 01:58:26 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:51:59 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 12:06:35 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
There is a nice page in the wiki which discusses your query on how the sun maintains its size throughout the day here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Hey, Tom, I have a question.

Do you know how to tell when you've been proven wrong? Or how to tell when no one is going to listen to you anymore?

Who proved the sun magnification explanation wrong?

I did.  Of course, so has anyone who has ever seen a sunset.

You argue that if the atmosphere magnified the sun, we would live in perpetual daylight. This does not follow. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After the sun sets the sky gradually fades to black. This is a sign that the the rays of light are encountering an increasingly thick atmosphere of atoms and molecules.

When the sun is near the horizon there is already so much atmosphere between the sun and the observer that the observer can look directly at it without a straining of the eye.

I thought it was a atmolayer?

How can the atmosphere magnify and block the sun's rays Tom? If it magnifies it, it will get brighter and larger, not remain the same angular size and get darker. If it blocks it, it will simply fade from view, not "go down." If it does one, it won't do the other, have you ever used a magnifying glass or a telescope? Use one, then put some translucent gray paint on it, and use it again. Tell me what happens.

You are mistaken that magnification makes a light source brighter.

If you place a magnifying glass up to a lightbulb to enlarge the image it won't get any brighter. You are scattering the rays of the lightbulb, and it will therefore become dimmer. But if we flip around the magnifying glass to shrink the light bulb, it will become brighter, as we are concentrating the light rays to a point.

At sunset when we look at the sun near the horizon it is rather dim, and one can look at it directly without eye damage. When the sun is overhead at noon, on the other hand, looking at it is very painful. This illustrates the dimming of the sun with atmosphere.


Magnification focuses rays of light to a point so you can see smaller objects (or distant objects) appear larger. If you magnifiy a light source, it will appear brighter. It does not scatter rays. Have you ever used one to burn ants? I did it once. It focuses rays of light. You cannot focus rays of light while you are "dimming," which is scattering them.

I like how you edited your post after I answered you. Magnifying glasses do not dim light. They magnify. Which means "make to appear bigger" which spreads the light over a larger surface area, but to do that, the light has to be focused first. Therefore, when they light hits your eyes, it will appear brighter. Look at the sun with a telescope. I bet your it will hurt. A lot.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #58 on: July 31, 2012, 07:23:30 AM »
Magnifying glasses absolutely dim light. On a bright and sunny day if you use a magnifying glass to concentrate the sun's light to a point you will be able to burn ants. If you flip around the magnifying glass, making the sun's image appear large on the ground, you will not be able to burn ants. Magnifying the image spreads out the sun's energy over a greater surface area, thereby making the resulting image dimmer and cooler.
Logged
?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: i witnessed 1st hand something that should cast doubt
« Reply #59 on: July 31, 2012, 07:35:12 AM »
still arguing the shape of the earth in a thread that destroys FET, tom? perhaps you should stick to nasa conspiracy threads and talk about something thats impossible to prove either way, you dont look as stupid then.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »