Why does the Sun reach the horizon?

Why does the Sun reach the horizon? If the sun set is a perspective effect and we can't see the sun at night because of it being to far away, then it wouldn't reach the horizon. using the accepted FE sun height of 4800 kilometres, then even at 40000 the sun would still be 7 degrees above the horizon.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/341/i-dunno-lol_1_.jpg

Please refrain from low content posts in the upper fora.  Consider this a warning.

Why does the Sun reach the horizon? If the sun set is a perspective effect and we can't see the sun at night because of it being to far away, then it wouldn't reach the horizon. using the accepted FE sun height of 4800 kilometres, then even at 40000 the sun would still be 7 degrees above the horizon.

This question has been asked many times, and never satisfactorily answered. And it's not only the vertical position of the sun which is inconsistent with FET, but the lateral position as well, with the sun consistently setting further north or south than it should on a FE.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 02, 2013, 10:17:16 PM

Why does the Sun reach the horizon? If the sun set is a perspective effect and we can't see the sun at night because of it being to far away, then it wouldn't reach the horizon. using the accepted FE sun height of 4800 kilometres, then even at 40000 the sun would still be 7 degrees above the horizon.

This question has been asked many times, and never satisfactorily answered. And it's not only the vertical position of the sun which is inconsistent with FET, but the lateral position as well, with the sun consistently setting further north or south than it should on a FE.

 

I think a scale model of a flat earth showing the elevation of the sun above the flat earth at a certain constant level and the orbit of the sun above the flat earth might clear up some confusion about this point of FE Theory ? It would seem that if the sun remained always at a certain height in its orbit about a flat earth it would never go below the horizon, which is quite obvious to the most casual observer ? Do we have a case of "bendy light" involved in accordance with FE Theory as to ths ?

Maybe someone can come up with something of this nature ?

Quote from: Scintific Method on November 04, 2013, 04:30:54 PM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on November 02, 2013, 10:17:16 PM

Why does the Sun reach the horizon? If the sun set is a perspective effect and we can't see the sun at night because of it being to far away, then it wouldn't reach the horizon. using the accepted FE sun height of 4800 kilometres, then even at 40000 the sun would still be 7 degrees above the horizon.

This question has been asked many times, and never satisfactorily answered. And it's not only the vertical position of the sun which is inconsistent with FET, but the lateral position as well, with the sun consistently setting further north or south than it should on a FE.

 

I think a scale model of a flat earth showing the elevation of the sun above the flat earth at a certain constant level and the orbit of the sun above the flat earth might clear up some confusion about this point of FE Theory ? It would seem that if the sun remained always at a certain height in its orbit about a flat earth it would never go below the horizon, which is quite obvious to the most casual observer ? Do we have a case of "bendy light" involved in accordance with FE Theory as to ths ?

Maybe someone can come up with something of this nature ?

Yes I have tried,  but so far am unsuccessful in explaining sunsets/rises in FET. Bendy light appears necessary, but brings with it obvious difficulties.

Obvious difficulties, such as if light had that propensity to bend you would never be able to focus on things like the moon as the light traveling from your eye to different areas of the moon would bend differently.

And that the stars are always in the same place no matter where they are in the sky relative to one another.  There is a little light bendy-ness as that is why stars "twinkle" but it is not on the order of degrees.

Obvious difficulties, such as if light had that propensity to bend you would never be able to focus on things like the moon as the light traveling from your eye to different areas of the moon would bend differently.

And that the stars are always in the same place no matter where they are in the sky relative to one another.  There is a little light bendy-ness as that is why stars "twinkle" but it is not on the order of degrees.

Well, twinkling stars is not really light bending, it is caused by density perturbations in the atmosphere alternately focusing and de-focusing starlight along your line of sight, and is greater an effect near the horizon. But this agreeably is too small an effect to change the Sun's apparent position.

That is also the limitations on "bendy light"  You do not get the 23 degrees that it would take to make the sun "only appear to reach the horizon"

23 degrees in this case is one one example.

That is also the limitations on "bendy light"  You do not get the 23 degrees that it would take to make the sun "only appear to reach the horizon"

23 degrees in this case is one one example.

Yes, you do not get the needed deflection using Snell's Law.

not sure what causes the illusion of the sun seeming to fall behind a false horizon, but i know for sure, its not due to the FAQ's flock of seagull perspective theory. We must come up with something more plausible.

not sure what causes the illusion of the sun seeming to fall behind a false horizon, but i know for sure, its not due to the FAQ's flock of seagull perspective theory. We must come up with something more plausible.

I most emphatically agree. I've never understood how this seagull analogy can work at all. We should abandon first attempts that do not work, and develop something better which does.

So are the FE'ers going to try and answer this or are they just going to pretend the thread doesn't exist.
This argument alone is pretty convincing to me.

Current perspective theory states that two receding parallel lines will never intersect and will approach, but never touch each other, infinitely in the distance. However, it seems that no one has observed this for a fact before printing this in the geometry texts and artists handbooks which have been mindlessly taught to students as fact over the ages.

Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.

See these observations in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Current perspective theory states that two receding parallel lines will never intersect and will approach, but never touch each other, infinitely in the distance. However, it seems that no one has observed this for a fact before printing this in geometry texts and artists handbooks.

Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.

See these observations in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Actually parallel lines meeting CAN be observed in curved geometry. The mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect applies only in Cartesian space. The reality of nature that tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance only supports a RE point of view, and serves only to disenfranchise FET, not support it.

Current perspective theory states that two receding parallel lines will never intersect and will approach, but never touch each other, infinitely in the distance. However, it seems that no one has observed this for a fact before printing this in the geometry texts and artists handbooks which have been mindlessly taught to students as fact over the ages.

Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.

See these observations in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

There is a distinct difference between intersecting and disappearing Tom. Truly parallel lines will never intersect, but the separation between them will become indiscernible to an observer after a certain distance. For a person with average eyesight, this would be a distance about 3,500 times greater than the distance between the two lines. To put that another way, a 1m diameter object would become indiscernible to the naked eye at a distance of about 3.5km.

Also, the chapter you cite has been gone over in this thread: Rowbotham's Perspective.

Current perspective theory states that two receding parallel lines will never intersect and will approach, but never touch each other, infinitely in the distance. However, it seems that no one has observed this for a fact before printing this in the geometry texts and artists handbooks which have been mindlessly taught to students as fact over the ages.

Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.

See these observations in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

That does not explain why it gets to the horizon. It shouldn't even get near to the horizon. It should remain well above the horizon

Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.

This is a false premise. You are assuming that the failure is with the mathematics and not with our own perception. A simple pair of binoculars provides the first proof that the limits of perception can be incorrect in this case. Knowing that as we magnify an image we can see that parallel lines previously thought to have merged in fact, do not intersect, how can you defend the position that the math is wrong?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2013, 03:47:03 PM

Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.

This is a false premise. You are assuming that the failure is with the mathematics and not with our own perception. A simple pair of binoculars provides the first proof that the limits of perception can be incorrect in this case. Knowing that as we magnify an image we can see that parallel lines previously thought to have merged in fact, do not intersect, how can you defend the position that the math is wrong?

There are experiments which suggest just that. In the Sinking Ship phenomenon a telescope has been applied to half-sunken ships and they have been restored to view. This suggests that the ships are not really hiding behind a 'hill of water' as Round Earth Theory suggests.

See the chapter Experiments on Lake Michigan on page 165 of Cellular Cosmogony by Cyrus Teed

Also see the chapter Disappearance of Ships on page 24 of Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship

Samuel Birley Rowbotham reports similar restorative effects in the chapter Perspective at Sea of Earth Not a Globe.

While restorative effect does not happen when the experiment is tried on the sun, this may be because the effect happens over a much greater distance by orders of magnitude, and so would need a telescope with orders more magnitude of resolution. It may also be that as the effect is on a greater scale, slight imperfections in the earth's surface may work to obscure the sun from restoration. Rowbotham suggests as much when unable to restore ships on choppy water.

There are experiments which suggest just that. In the Sinking Ship phenomenon a telescope has been applied to half-sunken ships and they have been restored to view. This suggests that the ships are not really hiding behind a 'hill of water' as Round Earth Theory suggests.

Are there any actual photos of an object 'sinking' on the horizon, using magnification to 'restore' that which was most likely too small to see anyway, and then using increased magnification to bring the object into complete view?

If this were the case, zooming in would cause an object, or ship, to visually rise out of the water the further one increased the magnification. 

Everytime I've looked at (or seen pictures of) distant 'sinking' objects, magnification only allowed me to see what was too small to see with the unaided eye.  Increased magnification didn't reveal anything actually blocked from view, nor did it change the perspective or shape, meaning it was still 'sunk'.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 17, 2013, 06:47:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2013, 03:47:03 PM

Since we know that things disappear after a distance, the mathematical geometry which makes it impossible for two parallel lines to intersect must therefore be incorrect. The reality of nature tells us that two parallel lines do, indeed, seem to intersect at a distance.

This is a false premise. You are assuming that the failure is with the mathematics and not with our own perception. A simple pair of binoculars provides the first proof that the limits of perception can be incorrect in this case. Knowing that as we magnify an image we can see that parallel lines previously thought to have merged in fact, do not intersect, how can you defend the position that the math is wrong?

There are experiments which suggest just that. In the Sinking Ship phenomenon a telescope has been applied to half-sunken ships and they have been restored to view. This suggests that the ships are not really hiding behind a 'hill of water' as Round Earth Theory suggests.

See the chapter Experiments on Lake Michigan on page 165 of Cellular Cosmogony by Cyrus Teed

Also see the chapter Disappearance of Ships on page 24 of Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship

Samuel Birley Rowbotham reports similar restorative effects in the chapter Perspective at Sea of Earth Not a Globe.

While restorative effect does not happen when the experiment is tried on the sun, this may be because the effect happens over a much greater distance by orders of magnitude, and so would need a telescope with orders more magnitude of resolution. It may also be that the effect is on a greater scale, imperfections in the earth's surface may work to obscure the sun from restoration. Rowbotham says as much when unable to restore ships on choppy water.

I don't care about all those experiments right now. I was just stating that your premise was false.

Also Rowbotham's ideas on perspective do not explain the Sun even getting near to the Horizon. In FET from any location the Sun's horizontal distance is never more then a few times it's vertical distance. It should always be WELL above the horizon, not at the horizon or even near the horizon. Going by the equator circumference of 40075 and the FE sun height of 3000 miles (4800 kilometres) then at the equator at equinox at midnight the sun's horizontal distance would be 12756 kilometres, giving an angle above the horizon of 22.1 degrees.

Also Rowbotham's ideas on perspective do not explain the Sun even getting near to the Horizon. In FET from any location the Sun's horizontal distance is never more then a few times it's vertical distance. It should always be WELL above the horizon, not at the horizon or even near the horizon. Going by the equator circumference of 40075 and the FE sun height of 3000 miles (4800 kilometres) then at the equator at equinox at midnight the sun's horizontal distance would be 12756 kilometres, giving an angle above the horizon of 22.1 degrees.

Which, if I may add to your point, is ~44 times the sun's apparent visual diameter (~0.5°). Makes those photos which show the sun partially obscured by the horizon a bit hard to explain, doesn't it?!

So it seems that the fe'ers cannot answer this question. This is something that cannot be answered by FE and never has been.

Please watch any number of videos on YT that show the sun from a helium balloon.  Visualize your tiny self on that HUGE Earth opposite of where the sun is.  The sun is a specific altitude above the Earth.  That altitude and your distance from the sun creates the triangulation angle that puts the sun on the horizon from any particular location.

In FET the sun is always a significant angle above the horizon. It would always look like it's above the horizon. At the equator at equinox the sun would be 22 degrees above the horizon.

Bumping this it's good discussion and Fe's haven't supplied any answer for this yet.

4 things come into play here.

1. The sun according to FET at least should remain 22.1 deg above the horizon and never sink below it during sunset at the equator.

2. It should drastically decelerate its decent during sunset if it was indeed travelling according to the preposed FET.

3. A clear noticeable difference in it's size should be seen from spectators where it should be at it's biggest midday and a tiny spec getting smaller and smaller as it apparently travels into the distance.

4. It should create a horizontal arc in the sky not setting 180 deg from where it rose. In fact it shouldn't set or rise at all due to point 1.

Well I guess this debate isn't interesting or something?

Well I guess this debate isn't interesting or something?

It's not that, the FE'ers just don't have a FE answer that'll stand up to scrutiny, so they've run away. Happens all the time...

Bumping this it's good discussion and Fe's haven't supplied any answer for this yet.

4 things come into play here.

1. The sun according to FET at least should remain 22.1 deg above the horizon and never sink below it during sunset at the equator.

2. It should drastically decelerate its decent during sunset if it was indeed travelling according to the preposed FET.

3. A clear noticeable difference in it's size should be seen from spectators where it should be at it's biggest midday and a tiny spec getting smaller and smaller as it apparently travels into the distance.

4. It should create a horizontal arc in the sky not setting 180 deg from where it rose. In fact it shouldn't set or rise at all due to point 1.

Well, I can comment on numbers 1- The sun sinks below the horizon at the Equator because our tiny human perspective is limited so we can only see so far before the Earth meets the sky and 3 - Unless you have measured the sun disk through your telescope, then how do you know it's size doesn't change?

Well, I can comment on numbers 1- The sun sinks below the horizon at the Equator because our tiny human perspective is limited so we can only see so far before the Earth meets the sky

Perhaps you could provide a simple 2D diagram of how something could be 22 degrees above the horizon, and yet appear to sink below the horizon (due to us being small) while remaining the same size as it moves away.

and 3 - Unless you have measured the sun disk through your telescope, then how do you know it's size doesn't change?

I have.  Posted the pictures here too (several times).