Question about the sun, moon, planets and stars

I would like to please ask how FEers know the size of the above-mentioned and their distance from earth? If this is in the wrong place, please post links to the correct threads.

I'm pretty sure it's in the wiki, or the sun at least is

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

I'd assume the distance to the other objects will be based on similar calculations.

Using triangulation in FET is utter rubbish. Triangulation always shows that the sun is 1 AU distant from the earth. If you use triangulation in FET, you would never ever be able to determine the distance to the sun because of the extreme variableness of the refractive index of the firmament or the top of the atmosphere. And then there is this (from the link in the wiki):

"That is, as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparent size of the sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work."

That is true regardless of the model. 900 miles is not far enough to blame refraction for the sun remaining the same apparent size.

Is this related to how they claim sunsets are caused by the sun dwindling to a dot? Can people clarify that?

no, because it makes absolutely no sense! it flat out contradicts what we observe everyday..

Is this related to how they claim sunsets are caused by the sun dwindling to a dot? Can people clarify that?

Actually, that's more related to how you have an inability to read the book we keep telling you guys to read.

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

If the fet is true . The sun wouldn't stay the same size and drop down the horizon and then pop up from the other side.

If the fet is true . The sun wouldn't stay the same size and drop down the horizon and then pop up from the other side.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 18, 2012, 11:35:16 AM

Is this related to how they claim sunsets are caused by the sun dwindling to a dot? Can people clarify that?

Actually, that's more related to how you have an inability to read the book we keep telling you guys to read.

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

So the image of the sun or the moon is magnified on the horizon, but the angular distance of stars a few hours later remains unaffected by this phenomena.

Please explain this, and explain why physicists have never noticed the magnifying effect of air before - particularly since refraction is such a well understood mechanism.

Quote from: Sphere on December 20, 2012, 11:09:07 AM

If the fet is true . The sun wouldn't stay the same size and drop down the horizon and then pop up from the other side.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Maybe you should realize that just because a book tells you that this is true doesn't mean it is. It's just like people who have told me the bible is true just because it says so in it. You don't ever seem to look at evidence or test anything yourself. I've been seeing a lot of RE's write up great posts with a lot of greatly explained evidence, just to be ignored and pointed to an FAQ or a book without any of your own evidence or explanation.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 18, 2012, 11:35:16 AM

Is this related to how they claim sunsets are caused by the sun dwindling to a dot? Can people clarify that?

Actually, that's more related to how you have an inability to read the book we keep telling you guys to read.

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

This is astonishing. Not in its ground breaking rethinking of the laws of physics, but in what a total joke it is. If you are suckered by this as an explanation, then you're truly out of your depth with trying to prove the earth as flat.
As an experiment, I shall take a well-exposed picture of the Christmas lights in my living room, and in the background I shall include the ones in the garden across the street. If your wiki page is correct, they should appear the same size on the photo. If physics as we know it is correct, they won't. Let's see what happens.
While you wait for these results Tom, perhaps you can read up on the inverse square law and its applications to light.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 11:00:37 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 18, 2012, 11:35:16 AM

Is this related to how they claim sunsets are caused by the sun dwindling to a dot? Can people clarify that?

Actually, that's more related to how you have an inability to read the book we keep telling you guys to read.

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

This is astonishing. Not in its ground breaking rethinking of the laws of physics, but in what a total joke it is. If you are suckered by this as an explanation, then you're truly out of your depth with trying to prove the earth as flat.
As an experiment, I shall take a well-exposed picture of the Christmas lights in my living room, and in the background I shall include the ones in the garden across the street. If your wiki page is correct, they should appear the same size on the photo. If physics as we know it is correct, they won't. Let's see what happens.
While you wait for these results Tom, perhaps you can read up on the inverse square law and its applications to light.

You're assuming that Christmas lights are bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 20, 2012, 05:14:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 11:00:37 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 18, 2012, 11:35:16 AM

Is this related to how they claim sunsets are caused by the sun dwindling to a dot? Can people clarify that?

Actually, that's more related to how you have an inability to read the book we keep telling you guys to read.

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

This is astonishing. Not in its ground breaking rethinking of the laws of physics, but in what a total joke it is. If you are suckered by this as an explanation, then you're truly out of your depth with trying to prove the earth as flat.
As an experiment, I shall take a well-exposed picture of the Christmas lights in my living room, and in the background I shall include the ones in the garden across the street. If your wiki page is correct, they should appear the same size on the photo. If physics as we know it is correct, they won't. Let's see what happens.
While you wait for these results Tom, perhaps you can read up on the inverse square law and its applications to light.

You're assuming that Christmas lights are bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere.

What the heck are you talking about? They don't have to "catch onto the atmosphere" (whatever that means) for him to clearly see them as appearing smaller at a distance.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 06:00:04 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 20, 2012, 05:14:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 11:00:37 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 18, 2012, 11:35:16 AM

Is this related to how they claim sunsets are caused by the sun dwindling to a dot? Can people clarify that?

Actually, that's more related to how you have an inability to read the book we keep telling you guys to read.

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

This is astonishing. Not in its ground breaking rethinking of the laws of physics, but in what a total joke it is. If you are suckered by this as an explanation, then you're truly out of your depth with trying to prove the earth as flat.
As an experiment, I shall take a well-exposed picture of the Christmas lights in my living room, and in the background I shall include the ones in the garden across the street. If your wiki page is correct, they should appear the same size on the photo. If physics as we know it is correct, they won't. Let's see what happens.
While you wait for these results Tom, perhaps you can read up on the inverse square law and its applications to light.

You're assuming that Christmas lights are bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere.

What the heck are you talking about? They don't have to "catch onto the atmosphere" (whatever that means) for him to clearly see them as appearing smaller at a distance.

Perhaps you should read our wiki article again. The effect only happens to lights of certain intensity, clearly not all light in the distance is enlarged, else every distant sign, tree, and house would look huge.

Quote from: Berstram Jones on December 20, 2012, 06:05:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 06:00:04 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 20, 2012, 05:14:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2012, 11:00:37 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 18, 2012, 11:35:16 AM

Is this related to how they claim sunsets are caused by the sun dwindling to a dot? Can people clarify that?

Actually, that's more related to how you have an inability to read the book we keep telling you guys to read.

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

This is astonishing. Not in its ground breaking rethinking of the laws of physics, but in what a total joke it is. If you are suckered by this as an explanation, then you're truly out of your depth with trying to prove the earth as flat.
As an experiment, I shall take a well-exposed picture of the Christmas lights in my living room, and in the background I shall include the ones in the garden across the street. If your wiki page is correct, they should appear the same size on the photo. If physics as we know it is correct, they won't. Let's see what happens.
While you wait for these results Tom, perhaps you can read up on the inverse square law and its applications to light.

You're assuming that Christmas lights are bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere.

What the heck are you talking about? They don't have to "catch onto the atmosphere" (whatever that means) for him to clearly see them as appearing smaller at a distance.

Perhaps you should read our wiki article again. The effect only happens to lights of certain intensity, clearly not all light in the distance is enlarged, else every distant sign, tree, and house would look huge.

I have many times. It's completely devoid of any evidence or confirmation. It just states things without backing it up.

I have many times. It's completely devoid of any evidence or confirmation. It just states things without backing it up.

Actually the article provided two pieces of photographic evidence. You were simply too trapped in denial to accept it.

Here's a video of a freeway. You will notice that the cars in the distance on the oncoming lane seem to have magnified headlights. The size is relatively constant as they approach us. The red tail lights of the cars in the lane going away from us do seem to shrink in the distance, however, as they are not intense enough to catch onto the atmosphere.

Seriously? Goodness, Tom. Please tell me you didn't just say that!

About the question...

I would like my question answered.

With regards to the "magnification" of more intense light sources, I have just taken a photograph twice with different exposures. I don't have my tripod with me, so I'm limited to the length of exposure of the second. The photo is of a black background with a single white pixel. Notice in the second how the pixel appears to be magnified (I used the same focus for both and I did not change my monitor settings).



Exposure settings:
f/5.6 for both
1/200 s for the first, 1/5 s for the second
ISO3200 for both

Both of these are 100% crop 100 x 180.

If you're wondering about motion blur, don't. I have something to lean on and my lens is a VR lens, and I didn't use a long focal length. Also, the pixel is symmetrical in both.

I would like my question answered.

You are awfully demanding, aren't you?

The photo is of a black background with a single white pixel.

That looks like much more than a single white pixel.

jroa - you have the IQ of a fish.

Go learn a little about photography. How do you think brighter point sources of light are depicted on a screen / monitor when only a certain amount of light is available and you're already using the maximum dynamic range of your projector / monitor (or film)?

I'm lucky enough to have a camera with quite a wide dynamic range, so this effect is difficult to capture. Use a webcam (if you can adjust the exposure with it) and you'll see the effect better.

So, does that mean it is more than a single pixel?

Good grief. It's one pixel on my monitor. It's a number of pixels on my camera because my camera has a much higher resolution. Point is that it's a point source of light, and regardless of the amount of pixels the photo is of, it's still a photo of the same light source and demonstrates how and why more intense light sources appear to be magnified when compared to less intense light sources on the same film (or CCD / CMOS sensor).

Good grief. It's one pixel on my monitor.

What is the resolution of your monitor for that to be a single pixel? 

That's one pixel on my monitor taken with the same camera... 100% crop.

Stop being a troll.

Anyway, no FEer has been able to answer my original question. Sad.

That single pixel does not look anything like the single pixel in your previous pictures.  Are you sure it was a single pixel back then?

I think so... I'm starting to doubt what a pixel is. Goodness. What if it was 5? Oh no. My camera was developed by the conspirators and it deceives me! My photos aren't real! Oh no! The horror!!

Wait... Maybe I'm right. This is Chewbacca:


........................................

That single pixel does not look anything like the single pixel in your previous pictures.  Are you sure it was a single pixel back then?

Because it's closer in. I can even see the colors on the previous pictures.

Ok. Let's stop with the sarcasm and laughs. lol.

Please FEers, what's the answer to my original question?

I've been waiting for this answer myself. 

Quote from: Berstram Jones on December 20, 2012, 06:12:12 PM

I have many times. It's completely devoid of any evidence or confirmation. It just states things without backing it up.

Actually the article provided two pieces of photographic evidence. You were simply too trapped in denial to accept it.

Here's a video of a freeway. You will notice that the cars in the distance on the oncoming lane seem to have magnified headlights. The size is relatively constant as they approach us. The red tail lights of the cars in the lane going away from us do seem to shrink in the distance, however, as they are not intense enough to catch onto the atmosphere.

Tom, what you're describing is one of the effects of photographic overexposure. It's not a property of brighter light over dimmer light. An individual photon doesn't somehow know if its part of a bright beam of light or a dim one. Every photon will obey the same laws of physics regarding atmospheric diffusion. There isn't one rule for photons accompanied by lots of others and another for photons accompanied by fewer.