ISS is not in space

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 30, 2013, 09:38:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2013, 09:31:20 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 29, 2013, 06:10:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2013, 05:53:09 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 29, 2013, 02:25:59 PM

Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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

That explains the light, but not the object itself.  Lol posted a filtered video showing the Sun, without the solar glare caused by the light it emits.  That link even specifies the luminous aura of the light is larger, especially when the air is moist.

The effect would still occur through a camera filter. It's an effect on the atmosphere, not an effect of the eye/lense.

It is an effect of the atmosphere magnifying the luminous aura.   The filter removes this and allows you to see the Sun without the glow.   So it would remove this from the equation and we are back to a major issue of the Sun not decreasing in size by the time it reaches the horizon.   If you carefully read what you linked,  you would have seen it was related only to the glow.

Lens filters only removes glare and glow which manifests on the lens. A lens filter wouldn't remove remove a physical projection upon the atmosphere. The atoms and molecules are all lit up, projecting the image of the sun to the observer. A lens filter couldn't turn that off, only dim the scene equally.

Nor would a lens filter used in a movie theater remove the projected image of a movie on the screen. Lens filters are only used to mitigate local lens flares on the lens.

Solar filters block a majority of the light that reaches them, they also block the em spectrum above and below the visible light spectrum.   So yes,  they would reduce the atmospheric glow, and they do seeing as how you can see the Sun in the video lol posted with hardly any glow.

The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.

Scepti, care to explain why the sun doesn't get smaller as it approaches the horizon?

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 09:59:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 09:34:24 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 09:06:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:27:26 AM

The model has been set out to match what people see.

So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? 

Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.

I'm not sure that you understand what "critical look" really means.  Regardless of whether I believe that the earth is rotating or not, I can see the sun move behind and below the horizon.  If I assume that the earth is not rotating, then this still tells me that the earth is smaller than the orbit of the sun.

The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.

Tell that to the people who live in Australia.

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 11:03:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 10:04:16 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 09:59:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 09:34:24 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 09:06:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:27:26 AM

The model has been set out to match what people see.

So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? 

Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.

I'm not sure that you understand what "critical look" really means.  Regardless of whether I believe that the earth is rotating or not, I can see the sun move behind and below the horizon.  If I assume that the earth is not rotating, then this still tells me that the earth is smaller than the orbit of the sun.

The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.

Tell that to the people who live in Australia.

Why? what will they tell me?

That they live beyond the circular path of the sun.

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 11:09:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 11:06:48 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 11:03:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 10:04:16 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 09:59:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 09:34:24 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 09:06:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:27:26 AM

The model has been set out to match what people see.

So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? 

Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.

I'm not sure that you understand what "critical look" really means.  Regardless of whether I believe that the earth is rotating or not, I can see the sun move behind and below the horizon.  If I assume that the earth is not rotating, then this still tells me that the earth is smaller than the orbit of the sun.

The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.

Tell that to the people who live in Australia.

Why? what will they tell me?

That they live beyond the circular path of the sun.

Now why would they say that?

Because the circular path of the sun ranges from 23.5 degrees north latitude to 23.5 degrees south latitude.  Most people in Australia live outside of this range.

The Sun below 23.5 degrees v would always rise north of east.  Where as above that mark the Sun could be north or south of east depending on the time of year.

The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.

So no supposed sun rise over the waters of Tasmania then?

According to you, there should be no Tasmania in the first place.  Perhaps this is conclusive proof of the long held FE assertion that Australia doesn't exist.

Tom as little as I'd like to converse with you, you need to be corrected. It was stated in this thread that the sun gets bigger during the day.

Isn't your stance that it DOES stay the same size but due to atmospheric magnification the sun appears the same size?

The sun gets bigger due the magnification of the atmosphere as it recedes, but it's also getting smaller to perspective as it recedes, balancing itself out. This was explained in the article.

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 12:42:51 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 10:04:16 AM

The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 12:17:02 PM

So no supposed sun rise over the waters of Tasmania then?

According to you, there should be no Tasmania in the first place.  Perhaps this is conclusive proof of the long held FE assertion that Australia doesn't exist.

That's not the answer I was looking for.

That's your problem, not mine.

Quote from: squevil on May 30, 2013, 10:01:13 AM

Tom as little as I'd like to converse with you, you need to be corrected. It was stated in this thread that the sun gets bigger during the day.

Isn't your stance that it DOES stay the same size but due to atmospheric magnification the sun appears the same size?

The sun gets bigger due the magnification of the atmosphere as it recedes, but it's also getting smaller to perspective as it recedes, balancing itself out. This was explained in the article.

If by explained you mean stated, like a bumper sticker then sure, it's a long bumper sticker. There is no real explanation or support thereof though. Just some assertion akin to "Zeus is the cause of thunder."

Quote from: squevil on May 30, 2013, 10:01:13 AM

Tom as little as I'd like to converse with you, you need to be corrected. It was stated in this thread that the sun gets bigger during the day.

Isn't your stance that it DOES stay the same size but due to atmospheric magnification the sun appears the same size?

The sun gets bigger due the magnification of the atmosphere as it recedes, but it's also getting smaller to perspective as it recedes, balancing itself out. This was explained in the article.

So the suns motions perfectly mimic what you would expect to see on a round earth due to the atmosphere? Any evidence for this other than your say so and circular reasoning?

Quote from: squevil on May 30, 2013, 10:01:13 AM

Tom as little as I'd like to converse with you, you need to be corrected. It was stated in this thread that the sun gets bigger during the day.

Isn't your stance that it DOES stay the same size but due to atmospheric magnification the sun appears the same size?

The sun gets bigger due the magnification of the atmosphere as it recedes, but it's also getting smaller to perspective as it recedes, balancing itself out. This was explained in the article.

Yeah that's what I said septic didn't state that though. He said it gets bigger during the day. You said it stays the same. That was the point.

Yes it is.

Quote from: Puttah on May 30, 2013, 10:27:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 10:04:16 AM

The circular part of the earth we live on, is smaller than the circular path of the sun, I agree.

Scepti, care to explain why the sun doesn't get smaller as it approaches the horizon?

Probably due to a magnification type effect. It's like being at the opticians and him constantly making you view each lens , saying, "better or worse, better or worse"...see what I'm saying?

And you say RET makes up a lot of stuff so observation can fit the model? Heh...

Now explain why the sun moves throughout the sky with a constant angular speed. This is something that couldn't happen if the sun was moving at a constant speed and constant height in the sky.

So the suns motions perfectly mimic what you would expect to see on a round earth due to the atmosphere? Any evidence for this other than your say so and circular reasoning?

Yeah. While original FET models had the Sun going above and below the Earth (at least it fit the observation of sunsets as the Sun goes below the horizon), the current FET model of the Sun's dynamics is based on making it look exactly as it would on the round earth. It was derived from the actual Earth map and globe to try an make it work as a more modern theory.

Of course, it's still very clunky at explaining the Sun and daily cycles.

Who said it had to be a constant height in the sky?

It doesn't have to be, but always needs to be above ground. Anyway, this is dodging my question. How does the sun move through the sky at a constant angular speed? Watch an aeroplane zoom passed above your head, but then your eyes barely need to move to keep locked onto the plane at a distance. Why doesn't the sun do this? It's basically "zooming" passed your head at the same rate as it's "zooming" into the ground.

Who said it had to be a constant height in the sky?

I almost has to be at a constant height in the sky over a flat disk, otherwise a person in Russia would see a Sun one size, lets say 5 cm, and someone in London would see the Sun a different size, lets say 3 cm if it is getting further away over London, and someone else in Canada would see the Sun with a third size, lets say 7 cm if it is getting closer.  The Sun's size does not change significantly no matter which side of the world you are at the same latitude or during the course of the day, two highly conflicting ideas