Why a sunset (as we see it) is not possible on a FE!

Quote from: Rama Set on June 11, 2014, 01:15:24 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on June 11, 2014, 01:07:37 PM

Solar Noon spans 2 hours...between 11-1.

Lets assume the sun has an altitude of 62kms and is directly overhead at noon.  If you travel 62kms from the sun being directly overhead, suddenly you will find the sun has moved 45 degrees in the sky, or halfway to the horizon.  This is simple, irrefutable trigonometry and utterly disproves that the sun is at that low an altitude.  You would be able to drive for 30 minutes and watch the sun set as you did.

Incorrect.  Who said the sun isn't directly overhead at two locations 62 miles apart?  Prove this please.

Use the trigonometry calculator and you will see it is a mathematical impossibility. The basic math of it is that a right-angled triangle with two legs of the same length will subtended two angles of 45 degrees.

Your other option is to posit Ad Hoc hypotheses like, "the sun can be in two places at once" or "It just appears that they are both overhead, when in reality they are not"

Use the trigonometry calculator and you will see it is a mathematical impossibility. The basic math of it is that a right-angled triangle with two legs of the same length will subtended two angles of 45 degrees.

Ha funny.  I don't understand that calculator.  Anyway as I stated in my post earlier, 62 miles for height of the sun, 4000 miles for the distance to horizon.

Quote from: Rama Set on June 11, 2014, 04:26:48 PM

Use the trigonometry calculator and you will see it is a mathematical impossibility. The basic math of it is that a right-angled triangle with two legs of the same length will subtended two angles of 45 degrees.

Ha funny.  I don't understand that calculator.  Anyway as I stated in my post earlier, 62 miles for height of the sun, 4000 miles for the distance to horizon.

Regardless, you only have to travel 62 miles to have the position of the sun shift by 45 degrees on your view. That already violates all observation, so the only logical course is to disregard the 62 mile altitude of the sun.

It's troubling that you are willing to disregard simple observations to coincide with numbers that don't even produce a sunset anyway.

You are making errors on several levels.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on June 11, 2014, 05:10:55 PM

Anyway as I stated in my post earlier, 62 miles for height of the sun, 4000 miles for the distance to horizon.

Regardless, you only have to travel 62 miles to have the position of the sun shift by 45 degrees on your view. That already violates all observation, so the only logical course is to disregard the 62 mile altitude of the sun.

Light doesn't move the same way an object that reflects it does.  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: Rama Set on June 11, 2014, 05:15:24 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on June 11, 2014, 05:10:55 PM

Anyway as I stated in my post earlier, 62 miles for height of the sun, 4000 miles for the distance to horizon.

Regardless, you only have to travel 62 miles to have the position of the sun shift by 45 degrees on your view. That already violates all observation, so the only logical course is to disregard the 62 mile altitude of the sun.

Light doesn't move the same way an object that reflects it does.  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I sure hope you meant refraction, and not reflection. Since those are not the same thing.

If you'd like we can test just how much refraction occurs. I just happen to deal with refraction in my job every single day and I'm at work right now.

Turns out that there is a refractive trapping layer over san diego today from the surface up to about 30 ft.

This is a typical refractive layer. It's not gonna make the sun appear in a TOTALLY different part of the sky.

It's fun watching your grasp every straw you possibly can though.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on June 12, 2014, 11:38:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 11, 2014, 05:15:24 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on June 11, 2014, 05:10:55 PM

Anyway as I stated in my post earlier, 62 miles for height of the sun, 4000 miles for the distance to horizon.

Regardless, you only have to travel 62 miles to have the position of the sun shift by 45 degrees on your view. That already violates all observation, so the only logical course is to disregard the 62 mile altitude of the sun.

Light doesn't move the same way an object that reflects it does.  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I sure hope you meant refraction, and not reflection. Since those are not the same thing.

Uh, the video is specifically about REFRACTION. 

Quote from: rottingroom on June 12, 2014, 11:44:56 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on June 12, 2014, 11:38:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 11, 2014, 05:15:24 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on June 11, 2014, 05:10:55 PM

Anyway as I stated in my post earlier, 62 miles for height of the sun, 4000 miles for the distance to horizon.

Regardless, you only have to travel 62 miles to have the position of the sun shift by 45 degrees on your view. That already violates all observation, so the only logical course is to disregard the 62 mile altitude of the sun.

Light doesn't move the same way an object that reflects it does.  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I sure hope you meant refraction, and not reflection. Since those are not the same thing.

Uh, the video is specifically about REFRACTION. 

Then why the actual fuck are you talking about reflection?

In any case, back on point.... Refraction is not why a sun 62 miles over San Diego does not appear to be 45° from the horizon when viewed from 62 miles away. Not even close.

Poor girl.

Then why the actual fuck are you talking about reflection?
In any case, back on point.... Refraction is not why a sun 62 miles over San Diego does not appear to be 45° from 62 miles away. Not even close.

You are such an ass.  PLEASE stop replying when it's not directed to you.  CLEARLY my post was about REFRACTION.  I used the word reflect ONLY to distinguish between an OBJECT that is visible due to light reflecting off it and a light source itself.
And yet, BECAUSE of refraction, the sun appears somewhere other than where your eyes see it:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61663.0#.U5n_F_ldWuI

Refraction is not the cause of an object appearing in a different part of the sky at noon. Refraction only can only do this at the surface. Not to mention that it would only move the appearance of an object by centimeters. Not 45°.


Also you said, "light doesn't move the same way that an object that reflects it does." Indicating that you consider whether or not reflection is occurring is a condition that dictates refraction. Which is also wrong.


If you'd just been humble and accepted all of this as undeniable evidence that the world is indeed round then you wouldn't have spent 4 pages making yourself look like you have no clue.


Now, instead of just being wrong you're also being blatantly ignorant, even in the face of proof. You're basically trying to say that 2 + 2 = 5.

Want to take a guess as to why no other FE'rs have touched this topic?

Refraction is not the cause of an object appearing in a different part of the sky at noon. Refraction only can only do this at the surface. Not to mention that it would only move the appearance of an object by centimeters. Not 45°.

No, as stated in that video of the sunset mirage, it's the apparent size of the sun.

Also you said, "light doesn't move the same way that an object that reflects it does." Indicating that you consider whether or not reflection is occurring is a condition that dictates refraction. Which is also wrong.

This makes no sense.

Quote from: rottingroom on June 12, 2014, 12:32:02 PM

Refraction is not the cause of an object appearing in a different part of the sky at noon. Refraction only can only do this at the surface. Not to mention that it would only move the appearance of an object by centimeters. Not 45°.

No, as stated in that video of the sunset mirage, it's the apparent size of the sun.

Holy shit girl. We are talking about the apparent location of the sun.

Quote from: rottingroom on June 12, 2014, 12:32:02 PM

Also you said, "light doesn't move the same way that an object that reflects it does." Indicating that you consider whether or not reflection is occurring is a condition that dictates refraction. Which is also wrong.

This makes no sense.

Derp.

YOU THINK...

void thingsThatWorkTogether() {

   boolean reflection;
   boolean refraction;

   if ( reflection == true ) {
      run.refraction;
   }
   else {
      terminate;
   }
}

HOWEVER IN REALITY...

void thisIsAnArgument() {
   boolean reflection;
}

void thisIsATotallyDifferentArgument() {
   boolean refraction;
}

   

I went ahead and created 3D simulations of both the RE Sun and FE Sun. 

In the RE sun, I have set the camera on the Round Earth and have it spin with the earth facing the sun, we can see the sun rise, follow the sun and then watch the sun set.  The camera then pulls out off the surface of the earth to show how the sunlight effects the surface of the earth.  As you can see the sun rise and set (other then all the prettyness) is what we would expect and see.

Here is the video - " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


I then create the FE model, with the Cylindrical Earth and put the sun 3,000 miles above the earth with a radius of 32 miles.  I have it orbiting around the equator every 10 frames being 1 hour worth of movement.  I set the camera on the surface of North America and you can see in the video the sun grows and shrinks and never sets nor gets near the horizon of earth.  3,000 miles up is quite high, and the angle of the sun from North America's perspective seems to hover in that 10 am - 3 pm-ish ranges.  I then pull the camera out, and you can see how small the sun is in perspective to the earth, and how it partially illuminates all of the earth, along with the hotspot of the sun as it passes over the equator.  (The sun is the only source of light in this simulation.)

Here is the video - " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

sandmanMike. You'll probably get the following response: "It's an issue of perspective."

sandmanMike, you forgot to take perspective and atmospheric lensing into consideration.  The atmosphere does some interesting, yet weird, things to light. 

sandmanMike. You'll probably get the following response: "It's an issue of perspective."

sandmanMike, you forgot to take perspective and atmospheric lensing into consideration.  The atmosphere does some interesting, yet weird, things to light.

Jesus! You can not be f***en serious!

OK. Show me a diagram of how exactly the atmosphere bend the light given the realistic and obvious simulated representation of how the sun can't set in FET by sandmanMike.

Edit: Oh yeah, why the hell am I replying to you anyways you're just a troll that forgot to clear his forum history:

Are you saying definitively that the atmosphere does not bend light? 

Are you saying definitively that the atmosphere does not bend light?

Durrr troll. Off course it does but if you payed attention in physics you'll maybe realize that if the rays hit the surface of the atmosphere at an angle the bend would be steeper thus the illusion your trying to use as your defense (even though it's trolling) will in fact cause the sun to seem even higher in the sky. Not vanishing below the horizon.

After studying and reviewing the evidence, I found that the Earth is indeed flat.  I started off as an RE'er like you.  The evidence is just overwhelming if you just open up your mind. 

sandmanMike, you forgot to take perspective and atmospheric lensing into consideration.  The atmosphere does some interesting, yet weird, things to light.

Do we have any formula's to work from for this perspective and atomospheric lensing?  I have asked before and never received an answer.  In the simulations provided nothing hinky was required to recreate the Sun Set on a round earth, where as I'll have to do some very funky things to try to recreate the sunset on a flat earth. 

Please provide the parameters of these effects and I can create another simulation.

After studying and reviewing the evidence, I found that the Earth is indeed flat.  I started off as an RE'er like you.  The evidence is just overwhelming if you just open up your mind.

In fact ,flat earthers have presented almost no evidence that the earth is flat.  They spend all their time attempting to poke holes in RE theory, but rarely providing any evidence for a flat earth.  Flat earthers rarely complete this sentence:  "We know the earth is flat because..." 

Quote from: jroa on June 16, 2014, 02:54:59 AM

sandmanMike, you forgot to take perspective and atmospheric lensing into consideration.  The atmosphere does some interesting, yet weird, things to light.

Do we have any formula's to work from for this perspective and atomospheric lensing?  I have asked before and never received an answer.  In the simulations provided nothing hinky was required to recreate the Sun Set on a round earth, where as I'll have to do some very funky things to try to recreate the sunset on a flat earth. 

Please provide the parameters of these effects and I can create another simulation.

Obviously, the atmosphere is not the same everyday.  I can't calculate atmospheric lensing without knowing the exact conditions.  In fact, I am not capable of calculating the atmospheric lensing at all.  However, just because I can't calculate it does not mean that it does not exist. 

Quote from: jroa on June 16, 2014, 03:50:31 AM

After studying and reviewing the evidence, I found that the Earth is indeed flat.  I started off as an RE'er like you.  The evidence is just overwhelming if you just open up your mind.

In fact ,flat earthers have presented almost no evidence that the earth is flat.  They spend all their time attempting to poke holes in RE theory, but rarely providing any evidence for a flat earth.  Flat earthers rarely complete this sentence:  "We know the earth is flat because..." 

We know the Earth is flat because of the overwhelming amount of evidence. 

Please provide details of experiments carried out in the last 5 years to prove a flat earth.

Please provide details of experiments carried out in the last 5 years to prove a flat earth.

Are you claiming that atmospheric lensing does not exist? 

Of course it does, it just doesn't do what you say it does. Here are some relevant equations and observations, for like the third time:

http://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/extragal/gravlens/bibdat/engl/DE/didac1.html

Quote from: inquisitive on June 16, 2014, 11:19:48 PM

Please provide details of experiments carried out in the last 5 years to prove a flat earth.

Are you claiming that atmospheric lensing does not exist?

The usual twisting.  Experiments in last 5 years please.

In fact ,flat earthers have presented almost no evidence that the earth is flat.

Correction.

In fact ,flat earthers have presented absolutely no evidence that the earth is flat.

The reason for the 0 evidence is simple but the irony revolves around exceptional lack of physics education and simple observation. It get's worse when people like this try to do science to prove their point with a complete lack of the fundamentals behind it. Some of them believe they are thinking outside of the box for some reason and makes them feel special in a way. Unfortunately the the sure size of the landscape around us results in all people living out their in day to day lives on a flat earth. The earth's shape doesn't effect our lives directly so no one constantly thinks about it but when asked and replying with the earth is flat is special. Not in a good way though...

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on June 16, 2014, 09:35:08 AM

In fact ,flat earthers have presented almost no evidence that the earth is flat.

Correction.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on June 16, 2014, 09:35:08 AM

In fact ,flat earthers have presented absolutely no evidence that the earth is flat.

The reason for the 0 evidence is simple but the irony revolves around exceptional lack of physics education and simple observation. It get's worse when people like this try to do science to prove their point with a complete lack of the fundamentals behind it. Some of them believe they are thinking outside of the box for some reason and makes them feel special in a way. Unfortunately the the sure size of the landscape around us results in all people living out their in day to day lives on a flat earth. The earth's shape doesn't effect our lives directly so no one constantly thinks about it but when asked and replying with the earth is flat is special. Not in a good way though...

OR no one actually thinks the earth is flat, and this forum is full of trolls.

Some trolls, some true believers. Sadly -but almost by definition- the true believers are the ones not equipped to actually discuss the matter.

Entertaining, nonetheless.