Why doesn't the Sun get smaller during a flat earth sunset?

After 2 days it would appear that not one of the flat earthers that has seen this question can come up with a response. Please do enlighten us with an explanation for this phenomenon.

Atmoplanic lensing causes the Sun to keep its apparent size throughout the day.

Atmoplanic lensing causes the Sun to keep its apparent size throughout the day.

Atmoplanic lensing causes the Sun to keep its apparent size throughout the day.

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2015, 05:21:19 PM

Atmoplanic lensing causes the Sun to keep its apparent size throughout the day.

I don't understand the term "atmoplanic lensing" jroa, despite carrying out a detailed on-line search.

Could you please perhaps provide us with a simple sketch (or cite an FE reference source) that explains this optical effect?  I just can't comprehend how a massive object the size of the sun could possibly diminish in apparent size as it moves away from us, until it's a mere pinpoint of light, and then simply disappear entirely.  Also, what effect would it have on this apparent diminishment if viewed through a powerful telescope?  When observed thusly at the pinpoint of light stage, would the sun still appear as a pinpoint of light, or a somewhat larger size?

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 10, 2015, 06:08:48 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2015, 05:21:19 PM

Atmoplanic lensing causes the Sun to keep its apparent size throughout the day.

I don't understand the term "atmoplanic lensing" jroa, despite carrying out a detailed on-line search.

Could you please perhaps provide us with a simple sketch (or cite an FE reference source) that explains this optical effect?  I just can't comprehend how a massive object the size of the sun could possibly diminish in apparent size as it moves away from us, until it's a mere pinpoint of light, and then simply disappear entirely.  Also, what effect would it have on this apparent diminishment if viewed through a powerful telescope?  When observed thusly at the pinpoint of light stage, would the sun still appear as a pinpoint of light, or a somewhat larger size?

One should never look at the sun through a telescope. It will burn your eye out.

We all know that objects appear to get smaller as they get further from the observer.  If you watch an airplane or a car or a person move away from you, the object or person appears to continuously get smaller until you can longer see it at all.  When it disappears from your naked eye view, you can immediately see it again if you use binoculars.  As it continues to move away from you, it will again get continuously smaller, and at some point even the binoculars won't allow you to see it.  You could continue this process indefinitely as long as you use increasingly powerful binoculars and telescopes, assuming that the object is still in your line of sight.

This doesn't happen with the Sun.  At all times of the day, the Sun has the same apparent size.  Yet flat earthers tell us that the Sun disappears at the end of the day only because it gets too far away for us to see it.  If this is the case, why doesn't the Sun get progressively smaller until it's just a tiny speck before becoming so tiny we can't see it?  And when it does disappear, why can't we see it again by using binoculars or a telescope?

Magnification of the Sun at Sunset

Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?

A. The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere.

From Chapter 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe we read:

    "IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
    medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
    it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
    medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
    foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
    few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
    on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
    will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
    greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
    vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
    the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
    at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
    holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
    which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
    magnified, as well as modified in colour."
   
    - Samuel Birley Rowbotham

The next time you observe the sunset notice how the sun is much hazier, diluted, and less intense than when it is overhead at noonday. This is a telltale sign that its rays are passing through a thick horizontal atmosphere, much like the light rays from a distant street lamp. The sun's intensity is so diluted when it is low in the sky that it is possible to look directly at it without squinting.

If you've ever seen a city at night you would know that distant light sources appear magnified from afar because they are shining though an atmospheric medium. The farther you move away from the source, the more medium you put between you, the more magnified the lights appears. As you move towards the source the magnified lights shrink in appearance. As you move away the lights grows in diameter again.

An average bustling city at night.

Consider the picture above. You will immediately notice upon looking at the image that the distant lights in the scene appear magnified and intense, particularly the bright white ones in the upper left of the image. You should note that many of the the lights in the background are about as big as the lights in the foreground. This is entirely contradictory to what one would expect. The background lights are much farther away and the distant bulbs are all smaller than a single pixel of the screen. The lights maintaining their size in the background is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmosphere balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective.

As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light. If we walk backwards and recede away from the wall the spot of light grows in diameter. When we walk towards the wall the spot of light becomes smaller again. The same effect happens with the distant sun at sunset. Instead of a solid surface like a wall, however, the rays of light are shining upon the semi-transparent fog of the atmosphere between the observer and the sun. The natural shrinking of the sun due to perspective is counteracted by the enlarging effect of its light upon the horizontal strata of the atmosphere between you and the light source. This is how the sun's diameter is maintained throughout the day.

Headlight Example

The light from these incoming headlights are a constant size down the highway as far as the eye could see.



Notice how it is only the intense headlights of the cars on the incoming lane which are magnified. The headlights on the lane coming towards us are all the same size. The intense light from the headlights have caught onto the atmosphere between the source and camera to create a magnification of the light. This magnification increases with distance, allowing the headlights to appear the same size down the entirety of the lane.

In contradiction, the red tail lights of the cars driving away from the camera are not intense enough to catch onto the atmosphere and are appropriately shrinking into the distance.

Distinctness of the Sun

Q. Shouldn't the sun get blurrier if it is being magnified?

A. The sun actually does get a bit fuzzier when it is at the horizon compared to overhead at noonday.

Q. But shouldn't the sun get 4x blurrier if it is increasing its diameter by 4x, for example?

A. No. You are assuming that the sun is being magnified in a similar method as a magnifying glass, where blurriness occurs as a ratio with distance. This is incorrect. The magnification of the sun occurs through a projection. A projection of light is occurring upon the atmosphere between the sun and observer.

No matter how many times that is posted, it's still blatantly wrong.

From Chapter 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe we read:

    "IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
    medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
    it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
    medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
    foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
    few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
    on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
    will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
    greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
    vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
    the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
    at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
    holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
    which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
    magnified, as well as modified in colour."
   
    - Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 09:54:01 AM

From Chapter 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe we read:

    "IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
    medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
    it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
    medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
    foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
    few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
    on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
    will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
    greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
    vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
    the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
    at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
    holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
    which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
    magnified, as well as modified in colour."
   
    - Samuel Birley Rowbotham

This pseudo-scientific drivel  was written 150 years ago as a 16-pge pamphlet by a lay preacher who possessed no scientific qualifications and was therefore ill-equipped to publish anything of a scientific nature.  Various of Rowbotham's claims in this piece are at best erroneous, and at worst laughable.  The very first sentence is demonstrably false for starters.  Nor have I noticed a "flame" in any of the streetlights in my neighbourhood.  Maybe electricity was another of the things Mr Rowbotham knew nothing about amongst the many?

I really think the flat earthers need to move on from quoting Rowbotham as some sort of scientific authority, and start quoting something written this century.  Things have changed just a little [sic] in the ensuing century and a half.

Quote from: sokarul on January 11, 2015, 10:09:33 AM

No matter how many times that is posted, it's still blatantly wrong.

Demonstrate that it is.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2015, 10:20:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 09:54:01 AM

From Chapter 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe we read:

    "IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
    medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
    it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
    medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
    foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
    few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
    on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
    will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
    greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
    vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
    the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
    at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
    holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
    which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
    magnified, as well as modified in colour."
   
    - Samuel Birley Rowbotham

This pseudo-scientific drivel  was written 150 years ago as a 16-pge pamphlet by a lay preacher who possessed no scientific qualifications and was therefore ill-equipped to publish anything of a scientific nature.  Various of Rowbotham's claims in this piece are at best erroneous, and at worst laughable.  The very first sentence is demonstrably false for starters.  Nor have I noticed a "flame" in any of the streetlights in my neighbourhood.  Maybe electricity was another of the things Mr Rowbotham knew nothing about amongst the many?

I really think the flat earthers need to move on from quoting Rowbotham as some sort of scientific authority, and start quoting something written this century.  Things have changed just a little [sic] in the ensuing century and a half.

Truth does not have an expiration date.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2015, 10:20:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 09:54:01 AM

From Chapter 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe we read:

    "IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense
    medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when
    it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the
    medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or
    foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a
    few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame;
    on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere
    will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a
    greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and
    vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset,
    the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than
    at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and
    holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through
    which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or
    magnified, as well as modified in colour."
   
    - Samuel Birley Rowbotham

This pseudo-scientific drivel  was written 150 years ago as a 16-pge pamphlet by a lay preacher who possessed no scientific qualifications and was therefore ill-equipped to publish anything of a scientific nature.  Various of Rowbotham's claims in this piece are at best erroneous, and at worst laughable.  The very first sentence is demonstrably false for starters.  Nor have I noticed a "flame" in any of the streetlights in my neighbourhood.  Maybe electricity was another of the things Mr Rowbotham knew nothing about amongst the many?

I really think the flat earthers need to move on from quoting Rowbotham as some sort of scientific authority, and start quoting something written this century.  Things have changed just a little [sic] in the ensuing century and a half.

Truth does not have an expiration date.

Truth does not have an expiration date.

Your own car picture does that for me. The tail lights don't show the effect. The intensity argument is wrong. If it was because of intensity then the sun at sunrise and sunset would appear smaller. The intensity is much less so much less you can look at the sun. Since light follows the inverse square law, light is always going to be less intense the further it is away. This leads to light further away "lensing" less.

Aye, tis true tis true.  The truth of the above quoted statement has the same truth today and it did then.  It was wrong then and it is wrong now.  What has changed is that the body of knowledge based on RET has swelled to fill volumes of books in Universities and Libraries, providing insight and predictions that have advanced science and engineering.  FET, has not grown beyond that Quote above.  There is not a single mathematical equation one could use to calculate the shape and position of the sun given the location of time of the viewer.  And this of course ignores the fact that the above quotation can be shown to be utterly and completely false.

Quote from: sokarul on January 11, 2015, 10:09:33 AM

No matter how many times that is posted, it's still blatantly wrong.

Demonstrate that it is.

Actually the page suggests that only light of a certain intensity can catch onto the atmosphere. It does not state that the more intense a light is, the bigger it will appear. That is of your own imagination.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 10:17:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 11, 2015, 10:09:33 AM

No matter how many times that is posted, it's still blatantly wrong.

Demonstrate that it is.

Your own car picture does that for me. The tail lights don't show the effect. The intensity argument is wrong. If it was because of intensity then the sun at sunrise and sunset would appear smaller. The intensity is much less so much less you can look at the sun. Since light follows the inverse square law, light is always going to be less intense the further it is away. This leads to light further away "lensing" less.

Quote

Your own car picture does that for me. The tail lights don't show the effect. The intensity argument is wrong. If it was because of intensity then the sun at sunrise and sunset would appear smaller. The intensity is much less so much less you can look at the sun. Since light follows the inverse square law, light is always going to be less intense the further it is away. This leads to light further away "lensing" less.

Actually the page suggests that only light of a certain intensity can catch onto the atmosphere. It does not state that the more intense a light is, the bigger it will appear. That is of your own imagination.

Quote from: gpssjim on January 11, 2015, 10:54:32 AM

Aye, tis true tis true.  The truth of the above quoted statement has the same truth today and it did then.  It was wrong then and it is wrong now.  What has changed is that the body of knowledge based on RET has swelled to fill volumes of books in Universities and Libraries, providing insight and predictions that have advanced science and engineering.  FET, has not grown beyond that Quote above.  There is not a single mathematical equation one could use to calculate the shape and position of the sun given the location of time of the viewer.  And this of course ignores the fact that the above quotation can be shown to be utterly and completely false.

The explanation has not yet been shown to be wrong, or false.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 10:17:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 11, 2015, 10:09:33 AM

No matter how many times that is posted, it's still blatantly wrong.

Demonstrate that it is.

If your theory were correct it would mean that the magnification effect would have to exactly compensate for the apparent diminishing size due to the increasing distance.  That would be an amazing coincidence.  Is that what you are claiming?  If so, please provide the formula that you are using to calculate this magnification effect.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 10:17:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 11, 2015, 10:09:33 AM

No matter how many times that is posted, it's still blatantly wrong.

Demonstrate that it is.

If your theory were correct it would mean that the magnification effect would have to exactly compensate for the apparent diminishing size due to the increasing distance.  That would be an amazing coincidence.  Is that what you are claiming?  If so, please provide the formula that you are using to calculate this magnification effect.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on January 11, 2015, 10:59:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 10:17:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 11, 2015, 10:09:33 AM

No matter how many times that is posted, it's still blatantly wrong.

Demonstrate that it is.

If your theory were correct it would mean that the magnification effect would have to exactly compensate for the apparent diminishing size due to the increasing distance.  That would be an amazing coincidence.  Is that what you are claiming?  If so, please provide the formula that you are using to calculate this magnification effect.

I don't see how it is a stretch. Both the diminishing effect and magnification effect are occurring through the same mechanism: perspective. As an intense light source recedes from you it is naturally shrinking in size, but due to the properties of the atmosphere it is also projecting an image of itself upon the atmosphere, causing it to enlarge as it recedes. The result is a cancellation of effects due to the same mechanism operating in reverse.

Here is another highway example. The headlights on the left are all about the same size down the highway as they approach the observer. They do not start out as tiny dots:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 10:57:39 AM

Actually the page suggests that only light of a certain intensity can catch onto the atmosphere. It does not state that the more intense a light is, the bigger it will appear. That is of your own imagination.

I didn't make that claim, try and keep up. Why don't you try again.

Quote from: sokarul on January 11, 2015, 10:49:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 10:17:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 11, 2015, 10:09:33 AM

No matter how many times that is posted, it's still blatantly wrong.

Demonstrate that it is.

Your own car picture does that for me. The tail lights don't show the effect. The intensity argument is wrong. If it was because of intensity then the sun at sunrise and sunset would appear smaller. The intensity is much less so much less you can look at the sun. Since light follows the inverse square law, light is always going to be less intense the further it is away. This leads to light further away "lensing" less.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 10:57:39 AM

Quote

Your own car picture does that for me. The tail lights don't show the effect. The intensity argument is wrong. If it was because of intensity then the sun at sunrise and sunset would appear smaller. The intensity is much less so much less you can look at the sun. Since light follows the inverse square law, light is always going to be less intense the further it is away. This leads to light further away "lensing" less.

Actually the page suggests that only light of a certain intensity can catch onto the atmosphere. It does not state that the more intense a light is, the bigger it will appear. That is of your own imagination.

Quote from: gpssjim on January 11, 2015, 10:54:32 AM

Aye, tis true tis true.  The truth of the above quoted statement has the same truth today and it did then.  It was wrong then and it is wrong now.  What has changed is that the body of knowledge based on RET has swelled to fill volumes of books in Universities and Libraries, providing insight and predictions that have advanced science and engineering.  FET, has not grown beyond that Quote above.  There is not a single mathematical equation one could use to calculate the shape and position of the sun given the location of time of the viewer.  And this of course ignores the fact that the above quotation can be shown to be utterly and completely false.

The explanation has not yet been shown to be wrong, or false.

Oh, but it has.  I would be happy to explain why, but I'm afraid it requites a level of intellectual prowess that you do not poses.  Feel free to prove me wrong about that.  You can do that by sending me some equations I can use to estimate the size and shape of the sun.  I'd even settle for some way to predict the time of sunset.  I am willing to look at any evidence you wish to put forward.  The foundation of logic and reason is that if A leads to B and B leads to C and C leads to D, then A leads to D.  All FET arguments I have seen boil down to A leads to B, C leads to D so A leads to D.  If there is no proven connection between B and C, there simply is no argument, even if A leads to B is true and C leads to D is true.  It is known as a 'disconnect'.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 11:31:14 AM

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on January 11, 2015, 10:59:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 10:17:00 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 11, 2015, 10:09:33 AM

No matter how many times that is posted, it's still blatantly wrong.

Demonstrate that it is.

If your theory were correct it would mean that the magnification effect would have to exactly compensate for the apparent diminishing size due to the increasing distance.  That would be an amazing coincidence.  Is that what you are claiming?  If so, please provide the formula that you are using to calculate this magnification effect.

I don't see how it is a stretch. Both the diminishing effect and magnification effect are occurring through the same mechanism: perspective. As an intense light source recedes from you it is naturally shrinking in size, but due to the properties of the atmosphere it is also projecting an image of itself upon the atmosphere, causing it to enlarge as it recedes. The result is a cancellation of effects due to the same mechanism operating in reverse.

Here is another highway example. The headlights on the left are all about the same size down the highway as they approach the observer. They do not start out as tiny dots:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Let me show you something about optics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution
When headlights are far enough away, you cannot disgusting the headlights from each other. as a result, the intensity will be greater since it's two lights into one. It can also make them appear bigger. All your pictures have the same thing in common. A bunch of lights, show a picture of just one light and see what happens.

That's some weak shit, Tom.