FE'rs, Refraction Is Not Your Friend

Some words are inappropriately thrown around on these forums by FE'rs and I want to put the improper use of these terms to rest.

These terms are:

atmospheric lensing
bendy light
refraction

It has become a huge problem simply because FE'rs do not seem to be able to grasp the explanation about why refraction does not help their arguments. It is often used as a vague argument to describe why we have sunsets on a FE or why we have the sinking ship effect and so on.

The simple explanation is that when refractions occurs, it causes object to appear higher than they actually are and not lower.

---

In this image we are seeing what happens when a ray of light is refracted from lighter medium into a denser medium, such as air to water:

• The ray of light which travels through the incident, or first, medium and strikes the boundary, or interface, is called the incident ray.
• The ray of light which travels into the refracted, or second, medium and leaves the interface is called the reflected ray.
• A line perpendicular to the surface is imagined at the point of refraction. This line is called a normal. In this context the word normal means perpendicular. In the above diagram the normal is colored blue.
• The angle between the incident ray and the normal is called the angle of incidence, or the incident angle.
• The angle between the refracted ray and the normal is called the angle of refraction, or the refracted angle.
• Here light bends toward the normal.

---

In this image we are seeing what happens when a ray of light is refracted from denser medium into a lighter medium, such as water to air:

• Here light bends away from the normal. The red arrow is meant to show what we mean by the phrase 'bending away from the normal.

---

In all cases, a ray of light coming toward the earth from the sun will be traveling from a lighter medium into a denser medium. Remember, in this case a refracted ray bends toward the normal (the normal is the line perpendicular to the line between the two mediums).

Here is a diagram depicting how air is more dense near the surface of earth and less dense with greater altitude:

---

In light of these basic rules about refraction and how it works, I have put together two diagrams. One of the sun on a FE and the other on a RE.



On this FE diagram:

• Notice that as the ray of light passes from the lighter medium of air into the denser medium of air, it refracts downward. In other words, the apparent position of the sun is higher than it actually is.
• As this sun would appear to get closer to the horizon as it gets further away, it's actual position is lower and lower. By the time sunset occurs (an event after which the sun has been completely removed from the observers view), the sun would actually be lower than what appears.
• Since it appears to be at the horizon at this time, then if a FE'r invokes refraction, then this means that the sun should actually be lower than it appears, not higher, as it would need be for all FE models.

---

On this RE diagram:

• Notice that as the ray of light passes from the lighter medium of air into the denser medium of air, it refracts downward.
• All of the same rules for refraction apply here as they do in FE diagram but in this diagram we actually can observe a sunset.
• We can see how the sun can actually be below the horizon, while also appearing to be on the horizon to give us a sunset.
• Even though refraction is in play, the apparent position of the sun is higher than it actually is and it's apparent position CAN be at the horizon.

So please, stop using refraction as an excuse.

Another good explanation of refraction:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Not to be confused with atmospheric DIFFRACTION:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_diffraction

Another good explanation of refraction:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Sure.

So again,

lighter to denser = light refracts toward the normal
denser to lighter = light refracts away from normal

FE needs it to refract away from the normal

Light goes from lighter (higher altitude) to denser (lower altitude) mediums on both RE and FE.

FE'rs are using the term incorrectly.

So there is no reason for you to ever invoke refraction. If a sunset is happening, then it is either actually at the horizon or, if refraction occurs, it is below. Never above.

QED... Sunsets on a FE are impossible.

Sometimes this is what is meant instead...a simple magnification effect:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

And yet it occurs in precisely the same way in bone-dry air.

Weird.

Sometimes this is what is meant instead...a simple magnification effect:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

This is very irrelevant. We are talking about apparent position right now, not apparent size.

In any case I'll address this,

While I don't disagree that magnification can occur, it would not be able to compensate for how much smaller the sun would actually be from that great a distance.

Suppose a 32 mile wide sun is 3000 miles above earth and the sun is 10,000 miles away at sunset.

This sun subtends at an angle of 5° when it is overhead. It also subtends at approximately the same value while at sunset. So this means that this magnification effect would have to compensate for however much smaller the sun should appear to get after it has traveled away 10,000 miles.

The pictures in the wiki are not convincing.



For them to be consistent with the argument Rowbotham is proposing, then the headlights would need to appear to be the same size no matter how far away they get from the observer, much like the sun. Instead the picture shows the headlights gradually getting bigger about halfway back and then getting smaller again further away.

Why on earth would the wiki show an example that is nothing like what they are suggesting?

Also, this example (although erroneous), only seems to apply to object that are radiating light. The principles of refraction apply not just to the sun. I simply chose the sun as the subject here. All of this also applies to any object that disappears below the horizon (IE. all objects).

Was waiting for this thread.

Fe'ers, Refraction is not some excuse for not being able to describe apparent positions and real positions for objects in the sky. It is a calculable occurrence of wave like movements entering and exiting different densities that fe'ers use as the unknown or some kind of magic. It in fact does the exact opposite of what you want it to do in order to describe your magical world without any explanation.

To make matters even more interesting refraction of different wave lengths is what enables us to see what things are made of in the sky via spectroscopy. This is how we unlock certain secrets of the universe showing that there is no ice dome around the earth, the universe is expanding, the most common element out there is hydrogen and so forth

So stop using turtle science of ad hominem arguments and false interpretations of how reality actually works to try and describe a flat earth. This is not evidence nor is it even a hypothasis. It's just nonsense.

One person's sunset is another's sunrise.

   How about we give the girl a promotion from space cadet to full blown wing commander.

This one is nicer ,,,

Goth, besides this picture being irrelevant, wtf is wrong with your keyboard? Quit wasting commas and leave some for the people who would like to punctuate a sentence properly.

Goth, besides this picture being irrelevant, wtf is wrong with your keyboard? Quit wasting commas and leave some for the people who would like to punctuate a sentence properly.

The picture is pretty relevant, as in both cases we can see "smears" coming from the pics being taken a bit out of focus and with a rather long exposition time to compensate for the dark conditions. The second one is just a more extreme case. Moreover you can clearly see that the camera for the first picture was shaking when it was taken - everything(including stuff like the lamps, especially in the top right corner, and cars - especially the three leftmost ones coming towards the camera) seems distorted a bit to the top right corner.

And how is that relevant to refraction?

Maybe it is slightly off topic, but still related to the optical effects you claim cause the Sun to appear bigger at sunset. I just wanted to point out that the so-called "magnification" presented at the wiki is "backed up" by photos of a completely unrelated phenomenon, in this case it is the fact that none of the two wiki pictures are focused on the distant lights(supposedly "magnified"). It is not possible for the entirety of such a photo to be in focus. The pictures are focused on the foreground, therefore everything else gets more and more out of focus the further back it is situated.

It is pretty obvious that if you take any source of light out of focus, it gets blurry. You can try this even with nothing but your own eyes and a street lamp or even a candle. Look directly at it, then distort your focus even a little bit. You will clearly see the light getting a bit dimmer and more spread out. Exactly as on these photos. The effect is more pronounced for stuff emitting light like lamps and flames because your eyes can easier determine what is and what isn't the object you're looking at, compared to things of similar brightness but different colours.

But this also means there is a way to readjust the optics so the lights appear sharp again. Which cannot be done while taking a picture of setting sun.

It is pretty obvious that if you take any source of light out of focus, it gets blurry.

It's not just obvious - it's the definition.

I'm not sure what the point of the rest of your post is?

Maybe it is slightly off topic, but still related to the optical effects you claim cause the Sun to appear bigger at sunset.

The picture is pretty much irrelevant because it shows nothing of the 'sun magnification effect'.  It's a low resolution traffic webcam, and the distant car's headlights are pointed more directly at the camera.  As the cars get closer, the headlights are no longer pointed at the camera, thus the background headlights appear 'magnified' compared to the foreground headlights.

One person's sunset is another's sunrise.

If you were to post this on a forum populated mostly by educated people this would be obvious, since they would know the earth is pretty much a sphere. But when you post it on a forum filled with like 90% retards (flat earthers) and 10% people that aren't retarded (know the earth is nearly spherical), it'll cause quite a disturbance.