Questions about the sun

Hm, after reading my post, I shall concede that I was perhaps a bit harsh. It's my luck you probably live in Japan, or some other equally developed Asian state with no Jews. So I shall retract my accusation of your living in a cave. As for qualifications, I don't know yours, nor you mine. So on that point we're even. I expect you probably have more than a BA, as I do. As for Hebrew, yes, enlightening yourself wouldn't hurt. Learning Scripture is always a good idea. And you were close. Adolf Hipster is what he calls himself. I'm unsure whether to be amused or offended by that. Overall, perhaps I did go off a little bit. My apologies, not for defending myself, but for being rather undiplomatic about it.

Looks like personal things are getting wrapped up and getting back to the OP in the near future will work out nicely.

Fair enough, Gotham.

the setting of the sun in the FAQ is described as just like a flock of seagulls flying away, the sun slowly disappears,

Ever watch an airplane fly away from you? It gets smaller and smaller until you no longer see it.........but it stays high in the sky.

Wouldn't the sun do the same thing in this theory?

To be honest, I don't have an answer to that question, although it is a good one. Can anyone else help with that?

Quote

the setting of the sun in the FAQ is described as just like a flock of seagulls flying away, the sun slowly disappears,

Ever watch an airplane fly away from you? It gets smaller and smaller until you no longer see it.........but it stays high in the sky.

Wouldn't the sun do the same thing in this theory?

It is simply a combination of perspective, refraction, and atmospheric lensing.  Together, these give the illusion of the Sun sinking behind the horizon. 

It is simply a combination of perspective, refraction, and atmospheric lensing.  Together, these give the illusion of the Sun sinking behind the horizon. 

Great.

So why doesn't the same thing happen to an airplane when I watch it?

Quote

It is simply a combination of perspective, refraction, and atmospheric lensing.  Together, these give the illusion of the Sun sinking behind the horizon. 

Great.

So why doesn't the same thing happen to an airplane when I watch it?

If an airplane was as bright, large, and high as the Sun, then it would take on the same visual characteristics as the Sun.

If an airplane was as bright, large, and high as the Sun, then it would take on the same visual characteristics as the Sun.

So the sun appears to set on the horizon because of it's size and brightness?

Doesn't compute.

Quote from: Umurweird on October 03, 2013, 09:40:02 AM

Quote

It is simply a combination of perspective, refraction, and atmospheric lensing.  Together, these give the illusion of the Sun sinking behind the horizon. 

Great.

So why doesn't the same thing happen to an airplane when I watch it?

If an airplane was as bright, large, and high as the Sun, then it would take on the same visual characteristics as the Sun.

This makes no sense. As a plane gets further away, the entire planes shrinks before it disappears. For this hypothesis to be true then it wouldn't be simply dropping below the horizon while still strongly showing half of an enormous spherical object above it. The moment the sun begins to vanish the whole things should begin to disappear, not just half of it.

Quote

If an airplane was as bright, large, and high as the Sun, then it would take on the same visual characteristics as the Sun.

So the sun appears to set on the horizon because of it's size and brightness?

Doesn't compute.

Bigger and brighter things should be able to be seen at a farther distance than dimmer and smaller things.  Can we agree on this?

Quote from: Umurweird on October 03, 2013, 10:05:21 AM

Quote

If an airplane was as bright, large, and high as the Sun, then it would take on the same visual characteristics as the Sun.

So the sun appears to set on the horizon because of it's size and brightness?

Doesn't compute.

Bigger and brighter things should be able to be seen at a farther distance than dimmer and smaller things.  Can we agree on this?

Yes, but there is a sufficiently good reason why the common FE distance to the sun is 3000 miles. From that we can determine the sun's diameter. With those in mind we can also determine just how much smaller the sun should appear when it reaches the horizon and find that this idea is just plain wrong.

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 09:44:44 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on October 03, 2013, 09:40:02 AM

Quote

It is simply a combination of perspective, refraction, and atmospheric lensing.  Together, these give the illusion of the Sun sinking behind the horizon. 

Great.

So why doesn't the same thing happen to an airplane when I watch it?

If an airplane was as bright, large, and high as the Sun, then it would take on the same visual characteristics as the Sun.

This makes no sense. As a plane gets further away, the entire planes shrinks before it disappears. For this hypothesis to be true then it wouldn't be simply dropping below the horizon while still strongly showing half of an enormous spherical object above it. The moment the sun begins to vanish the whole things should begin to disappear, not just half of it.

This would be true, if it were not for the lensing affect of the atmoplane.  This effect causes celestial objects to change apparent size as the light passes through the curved layers of the atmoplane.  In addition, refraction causes the objects to appear in places where they are not, due to the density of the layers of the atmoplane.  When we combine this with perspective, it all gives the effect of the Sun crashing into the Earth and disappearing.  This illusion has been bewildering scientists for centuries and has caused many to make false claims of roundness. 

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 10:12:57 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on October 03, 2013, 10:05:21 AM

Quote

If an airplane was as bright, large, and high as the Sun, then it would take on the same visual characteristics as the Sun.

So the sun appears to set on the horizon because of it's size and brightness?

Doesn't compute.

Bigger and brighter things should be able to be seen at a farther distance than dimmer and smaller things.  Can we agree on this?

Yes, but there is a sufficiently good reason why the common FE distance to the sun is 3000 miles. From that we can determine the sun's diameter. With those in mind we can also determine just how much smaller the sun should appear when it reaches the horizon and find that this idea is just plain wrong.

You are correct.  However, you have failed to take into account the light distortions that I have mentioned.  Even RE'ers will tell you that light plays tricks on your mind.  You can't believe everything you see. 

The common FE distance may not be as correct as many believe it is, due to the same effects; however, let's leave that for another thread.

Bigger and brighter things should be able to be seen at a farther distance than dimmer and smaller things.  Can we agree on this?

Indeed.

My question is about perspective.

Boats disappear over the horizon. Airplanes do sometimes as well. But often times you see an airplane blink out of existence in the sky because you can no longer see it with your eyes.

If the Earth is flat and the sun is as close you is to be believed in this theory............I see nothing that should explain why the sun, a supposed spotlight, doesn't do as the airplane does when I observe it.

Even RE'ers will tell you that light plays tricks on your mind.  You can't believe everything you see.

Yet a common theme on this forum seems to be the Earth "appears" flat so it must be?

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 10:08:28 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 09:44:44 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on October 03, 2013, 09:40:02 AM

Quote

It is simply a combination of perspective, refraction, and atmospheric lensing.  Together, these give the illusion of the Sun sinking behind the horizon. 

Great.

So why doesn't the same thing happen to an airplane when I watch it?

If an airplane was as bright, large, and high as the Sun, then it would take on the same visual characteristics as the Sun.

This makes no sense. As a plane gets further away, the entire planes shrinks before it disappears. For this hypothesis to be true then it wouldn't be simply dropping below the horizon while still strongly showing half of an enormous spherical object above it. The moment the sun begins to vanish the whole things should begin to disappear, not just half of it.

This would be true, if it were not for the lensing affect of the atmoplane.  This effect causes celestial objects to change apparent size as the light passes through the curved layers of the atmoplane.  In addition, refraction causes the objects to appear in places where they are not, due to the density of the layers of the atmoplane.  When we combine this with perspective, it all gives the effect of the Sun crashing into the Earth and disappearing.  This illusion has been bewildering scientists for centuries and has caused many to make false claims of roundness.

1. Atmospheric lensing, which I can only assume that you actually mean atmospheric difraction, depends on clouds being in the atmosphere. Which they are not always.

2. Atmospheric Refraction causes objects to appear higher in the sky than they really are, not lower.

Both of these phenomena occur at times, but not all the time while the sun always disappears bottom first no matter the condition of the atmosphere. These excuses are not only incorrect but you're not even using them correctly to make up for the apparent problem.

Quote

Bigger and brighter things should be able to be seen at a farther distance than dimmer and smaller things.  Can we agree on this?

Indeed.

My question is about perspective.

Boats disappear over the horizon. Airplanes do sometimes as well. But often times you see an airplane blink out of existence in the sky because you can no longer see it with your eyes.

If the Earth is flat and the sun is as close you is to be believed in this theory............I see nothing that should explain why the sun, a supposed spotlight, doesn't do as the airplane does when I observe it.

The Sun is not a  spot light.  It only acts like a spot light due to the way light travels through our atmoplane.

Quote

Even RE'ers will tell you that light plays tricks on your mind.  You can't believe everything you see.

Yet a common theme on this forum seems to be the Earth "appears" flat so it must be?

That is Tom's thing, not a common theme on the fora.

Quote from: Umurweird on October 03, 2013, 10:23:42 AM

Quote

Bigger and brighter things should be able to be seen at a farther distance than dimmer and smaller things.  Can we agree on this?

Indeed.

My question is about perspective.

Boats disappear over the horizon. Airplanes do sometimes as well. But often times you see an airplane blink out of existence in the sky because you can no longer see it with your eyes.

If the Earth is flat and the sun is as close you is to be believed in this theory............I see nothing that should explain why the sun, a supposed spotlight, doesn't do as the airplane does when I observe it.

The Sun is not a  spot light.  It only acts like a spot light due to the way light travels through our atmoplane.

Once again, your concept of refraction is wrong. The concept you have right now.... turn it upside down.

The Sun is not a  spot light.  It only acts like a spot light due to the way light travels through our atmoplane.

This just doesn't fly in the face of someone with at least a basic understanding of light, reflections, refractions, and everything else.

When you have to bend science to make your theory fit..........get a new theory.

That is Tom's thing, not a common theme on the fora.

It's in your FAQ. It's also mentioned in Earth Not a Globe more than once. And I've seen others besides Tom say it.

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 10:20:11 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 10:08:28 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 09:44:44 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on October 03, 2013, 09:40:02 AM

Quote

It is simply a combination of perspective, refraction, and atmospheric lensing.  Together, these give the illusion of the Sun sinking behind the horizon. 

Great.

So why doesn't the same thing happen to an airplane when I watch it?

If an airplane was as bright, large, and high as the Sun, then it would take on the same visual characteristics as the Sun.

This makes no sense. As a plane gets further away, the entire planes shrinks before it disappears. For this hypothesis to be true then it wouldn't be simply dropping below the horizon while still strongly showing half of an enormous spherical object above it. The moment the sun begins to vanish the whole things should begin to disappear, not just half of it.

This would be true, if it were not for the lensing affect of the atmoplane.  This effect causes celestial objects to change apparent size as the light passes through the curved layers of the atmoplane.  In addition, refraction causes the objects to appear in places where they are not, due to the density of the layers of the atmoplane.  When we combine this with perspective, it all gives the effect of the Sun crashing into the Earth and disappearing.  This illusion has been bewildering scientists for centuries and has caused many to make false claims of roundness.

1. Atmospheric lensing, which I can only assume that you actually mean atmospheric difraction, depends on clouds being in the atmosphere. Which they are not always.

2. Atmospheric Refraction causes objects to appear higher in the sky than they really are, not lower.

Both of these phenomena occur at times, but not all the time while the sun always disappears bottom first no matter the condition of the atmosphere. These excuses are not only incorrect but you're not even using them correctly to make up for the apparent problem.

As far as refraction goes, it is a little understood phenomena that we can only study on a small scale.  It is theorized that on a large scale, it does not work the same way it does with a glass and a straw.

By atmospheric lensing, I am referring to a proposed effect that happens when light travels through a curved surface, such as the atmoplane.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 10:25:47 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 10:20:11 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 10:08:28 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 09:44:44 AM

Quote from: Umurweird on October 03, 2013, 09:40:02 AM

Quote

It is simply a combination of perspective, refraction, and atmospheric lensing.  Together, these give the illusion of the Sun sinking behind the horizon. 

Great.

So why doesn't the same thing happen to an airplane when I watch it?

If an airplane was as bright, large, and high as the Sun, then it would take on the same visual characteristics as the Sun.

This makes no sense. As a plane gets further away, the entire planes shrinks before it disappears. For this hypothesis to be true then it wouldn't be simply dropping below the horizon while still strongly showing half of an enormous spherical object above it. The moment the sun begins to vanish the whole things should begin to disappear, not just half of it.

This would be true, if it were not for the lensing affect of the atmoplane.  This effect causes celestial objects to change apparent size as the light passes through the curved layers of the atmoplane.  In addition, refraction causes the objects to appear in places where they are not, due to the density of the layers of the atmoplane.  When we combine this with perspective, it all gives the effect of the Sun crashing into the Earth and disappearing.  This illusion has been bewildering scientists for centuries and has caused many to make false claims of roundness.

1. Atmospheric lensing, which I can only assume that you actually mean atmospheric difraction, depends on clouds being in the atmosphere. Which they are not always.

2. Atmospheric Refraction causes objects to appear higher in the sky than they really are, not lower.

Both of these phenomena occur at times, but not all the time while the sun always disappears bottom first no matter the condition of the atmosphere. These excuses are not only incorrect but you're not even using them correctly to make up for the apparent problem.

As far as refraction goes, it is a little understood phenomena that we can only study on a small scale.  It is theorized that on a large scale, it does not work the same way it does with a glass and a straw.

By atmospheric lensing, I am referring to a proposed effect that happens when light travels through a curved surface, such as the atmoplane.

1. Stop using the word refraction then. Go make up another word and stop using the established scientific word incorrectly.

2. Oh blessed Freud, look at the bolded word. Also, light doesn't travel through a non-transparent surface. That statement makes no sense. Reflection.

There is no sense in FE'rs using words incorrectly. Keep FET theory where it belongs. Deep in the trenches of a massive conspiracy and held high on the shoulders of made-up physics. Keep it away from real science.

Quote

The Sun is not a  spot light.  It only acts like a spot light due to the way light travels through our atmoplane.

This just doesn't fly in the face of someone with at least a basic understanding of light, reflections, refractions, and everything else.

When you have to bend science to make your theory fit..........get a new theory.

Quote

That is Tom's thing, not a common theme on the fora.

It's in your FAQ. It's also mentioned in Earth Not a Globe more than once. And I've seen others besides Tom say it.

Bend science?  Is that not what RE'ers do all the time?  You invent Dark Matter because the galaxies would fly apart without it.  Then, you invent Dark Energy to counter act this pull so the galaxies do not collapse.  What will you invent next, pink elephants pushing the celestial objects around? 

Seriously, you are one to talk. 

Bend science?  Is that not what RE'ers do all the time?  You invent Dark Matter because the galaxies would fly apart without it.  Then, you invent Dark Energy to counter act this pull so the galaxies do not collapse.  What will you invent next, pink elephants pushing the celestial objects around? 

Seriously, you are one to talk. 

Dark matter is a hypothesis..........not an invention.

Black holes were once a hypothesis........and then they were found to actually exist.

Higgs Boson was originally theorised in 1964.........and was just confirmed to exist last year.

That is what science does. Hypothesize, theorize, and prove. Theories stay theories until proven.

Well, then, since you know so much about science and are making claims, why don't you explain to me exactly what a Higgs Bosom is and how it changes the science that I have been taught?

Well, then, since you know so much about science and are making claims, why don't you explain to me exactly what a Higgs Bosom is and how it changes the science that I have been taught?

I have a very amateur understanding of science. I am not a scientist and haven't claimed to be. I took take a great interest in the field of physics as I've always been intrigued by the way the world works.

Higgs boson is a particle. Higgs field was theorized in the 1960s to explain many inconsistencies in physics at the time. The search for Higgs Boson was the leading motivator to building the LHC.

HB has no spin and no color change. It decays into other particles.

It helps validate the standard model of physics. It also helps to find out how particles acquire mass and I believe scientist are now using it to study cosmic inflation.