Big problem with the sun again.

Why is the sun green in the picture?

What scintific method said.

Sony digital video camera with a 30x zoom through a welding lens.  I've also used a low-end digital camera through compact binoculars with the welding lens taped to the binos.

The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.

Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.

Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.

Think of a magnifying glass and trying to burn that paper.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 20, 2013, 10:20:51 PM

The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.

Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.

Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.

You are saying the size of the sun is relative to the observer.  Otherwise, Chileans should see a different sized sun than Canadians on the same day, at the same time.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 09:17:27 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 20, 2013, 10:20:51 PM

The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.

Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.

Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.

You are saying the size of the sun is relative to the observer.  Otherwise, Chileans should see a different sized sun than Canadians on the same day, at the same time.

This is only if you assume the periodic fluctuation in size experiences a phase shift relative to the periodic fluctuation in distance. If they are commensurate, or almost so, you would not see any change...or a very small one. A small phase shift is probable, otherwise I suspect the seasonal change we experience would be rather erratic instead of periodic. This is of course, if you assume a FE point of view, which we are for this discussion.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 20, 2013, 10:20:51 PM

The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.

Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.

Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.

So if it the sun goes west and travels farther away from Europe causing sunset, are you saying that it actually grows bigger to maintain its size from the eye of the European people? How would the American people where the sun is currently overhead them observe the sun at that time, do they also see the sun grows? And if the sun goes even farther west does it also keep growing?

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 09:17:27 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 20, 2013, 10:20:51 PM

The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.

Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.

Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.

So if it the sun goes west and travels farther away from Europe causing sunset, are you saying that it actually grows bigger to maintain its size from the eye of the European people? How would the American people where the sun is currently overhead them observe the sun at that time, do they also see the sun grows? And if the sun goes even farther west does it also keep growing?

Well, during sunset, the apparent change in the Sun's size is believed (by RE scientists) to be cause by atmospheric effects, so that it appears bigger. So this is not an actual change in the size.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2013, 09:20:24 AM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 09:17:27 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 20, 2013, 10:20:51 PM

The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.

Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.

Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.

You are saying the size of the sun is relative to the observer.  Otherwise, Chileans should see a different sized sun than Canadians on the same day, at the same time.

This is only if you assume the periodic fluctuation in size experiences a phase shift relative to the periodic fluctuation in distance. If they are commensurate, or almost so, you would not see any change...or a very small one. A small phase shift is probable, otherwise I suspect the seasonal change we experience would be rather erratic instead of periodic. This is of course, if you assume a FE point of view, which we are for this discussion.

So you need to actually show a phase shift to show you might be correct.  So not check mate but rather a potential test for your hypothesis.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 09:40:13 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2013, 09:20:24 AM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on September 27, 2013, 09:17:27 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 20, 2013, 10:20:51 PM

The sun should appear the get smaller the farther away it travels. Some people have suggested the atmosphere magnifies it. There is 1 problem though.
1. If you go up very high, like in a plane, you'll be above most of the mass of the atmosphere. The Sun should then appear much smaller then normal, it doesn't, hypothesis failed.
Checkmate. So Flat Earther's, how do you answer this one.

Very easily, the sun fluctuates in size as well as its distance from the Earth. This is obvious, since we have seasons. This size fluctuation is also supported by stellar models which show that the radius of the Sun must change in correspondence to changes in temperature and energy output.

Discovered check....and subsequently...mate.

You are saying the size of the sun is relative to the observer.  Otherwise, Chileans should see a different sized sun than Canadians on the same day, at the same time.

This is only if you assume the periodic fluctuation in size experiences a phase shift relative to the periodic fluctuation in distance. If they are commensurate, or almost so, you would not see any change...or a very small one. A small phase shift is probable, otherwise I suspect the seasonal change we experience would be rather erratic instead of periodic. This is of course, if you assume a FE point of view, which we are for this discussion.

So you need to actually show a phase shift to show you might be correct.  So not check mate but rather a potential test for your hypothesis.

Yeah, this is true. This is really backwards modeling -- or "bootstrap" modeling. You know what the observations are so this helps in forming correct hypotheses. Of course, all FE theory is like this: it does not start with self-consistent theories and then see if they agree with observations, it starts with observations and uses THEM to limit the theory. Is this worse, or better? Is not reality measured (defined even) by observations more intrinsically than theory. 

BTW, I'm not ignoring your request for a rotating disk model, but these things take time 

No worries, I have no problem with either method, but a theory cannot be accepted until it passes experimental rigor.

No worries, I have no problem with either method, but a theory cannot be accepted until it passes experimental rigor.

Precisely! Otherwise we can claim anything we want: I am really a potato, now disprove me (bet we could make a website  )

Quote from: Rushy on September 21, 2013, 01:23:19 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on September 21, 2013, 01:10:45 AM

I'm going to need more than you're word.

Try taking a look outside then, I suppose.

Quote from: LockRay on September 21, 2013, 01:17:54 AM

The problem here is that the sun shouldn't just appear "a bit smaller". If we are to trust the classical FE sun movement the size difference should be huge (like a car driving past you and into the distance) but that's not all. If the sun was flat (if you claim it's round you will need to explain why there is nighttime) it should appear elliptical near the horizon. It should also appear to be moving alot slower... And then there is the part where it dips below the horizon. I've heard claims that the air blocks the rays of the sun, but in that case the sun would fade away, not hide below the horizon...

A true sphere never appears elliptical, no matter what angle you look at it from. Also, the Sun does fade away, however it fades as it is being blocked. This causes reddish sunrises/sunsets. Red is the lowest visible spectrum, so you don't see a continuous fade beyond the reddening.

Yes red is the lowest energy of the visible spectrum. So it makes sense that red makes it all the way through the atmoshpere. But of course you say the visible spectrum loses energy and only red is left. But that would mean none of the ultraviolet spectrum loses energy and drops down into the visible spectrum.
When you make up stuff, you tend to not account for everything.

The light, upon scattering, does not lose energy and hence change color. It is just that more higher energy photons are scattered away from the line of sight during sunset/sunrise, LEAVING the redder light...the total energy from the Sun that goes through the atmosphere (and makes it to the ground) during these times decreases, not the energy from individual photons.