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

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.

Bigger hole would be why don't the stars at the horizon at night grow in size?

Bumped for answer.

1. Why doesn't the other headlight show it? Nor do the streetlights.
2. Many lights in your still have halos.
3. If a light that close can show lensing, the sun must be half the size it appears.
4. If lensing is intensity depended, the sun should stop lensing as it gets further away. Also it would change color since the sun peaks in the green. Some colors would stop lensing before others.

1. The other headlight might be angled away a little bit so as the beam is not directly head on.
2. Yes
3. Perhaps. The estimation of the sun's size is really how it appears to us in accordance with its distance from the earth. No adjustment to our estimation is made for this magnification effect.

4. The sun is still brighter than a headlight when it is further away, which means its light would still catch on to the atmosphere, the crude unit of measurement in what little we know of this effect being "brighter than a headlight". If it is brighter than a headlight then it will catch onto the atmosphere. The sun at setting is brighter than a headlight. Therefore it will catch onto the atmosphere. Also, since this is an effect which happens midway between the observer and the object, the absolute intensity of the object (as if it were in a vacuum) should matter more than simply how it appears to the observer through the atmosphere. This would account for a few things such as why distant fog lights in fog can appear faded, yet large. The unit of measurement, therefore is refined and changed to "an object (as measured in a vacuum) as bright as, or brighter than a headlight will catch onto the atmosphere"

For a more scientific measurement, we would need to get an average number of lumens per headlight. From what I have read car headlights have an average of 700 lumens. Therefore our unit of measurement can be adjusted as "an object (as measured in a vacuum) as bright as, or brighter than 700 lumens will catch onto the atmosphere".

For the second part of your comment in #4, as Samuel Birley Rowbotham states in Earth Not a Globe, the sun actually does change color when it is setting.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 11, 2015, 12:53:12 PM

That's some weak shit, Tom.

Tom has tried this tack before and got totally pasted. All the people with photography skills came out of the woodwork and made him look like the village idiot. I almost felt a bit sorry for him.

When I stop posting it merely means that I have gotten tired of the discussion and have moved on in life. If you have any questions you would like to see answered, you should post them now. I have dozens of people across six forums asking me questions.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on January 11, 2015, 11:35:47 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.

Bigger hole would be why don't the stars at the horizon at night grow in size?

Bumped for answer.

The stars actually fade out from sight before hitting the horizon.

Towards the very horizon, yes. However the sun does not change size at all as it supposedly flies off away from you on a flat earth meaning the dilation would take place almost immediately once it leaves local noon in order for it to not get smaller and smaller. 

The stars stay the same size from one horizon to the other during the night.

So your explanation doesn't explain observed phenomenon. 

Towards the very horizon, yes. However the sun does not change size at all as it supposedly flies off away from you on a flat earth meaning the dilation would take place almost immediately once it leaves local noon in order for it to not get smaller and smaller. 

The stars stay the same size from one horizon to the other during the night.

So your explanation doesn't explain observed phenomenon.

But the explanation is not that that things get apparently bigger as they recede. This effect is describing how the sun stays the same size throughout the day. The shrinking of perspective is counteracted by the enlargement by perspective (due to the enlarging projection on the atmosphere), effects of the same mechanism canceling out, making the sun appear to be about the same size through the day.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on January 11, 2015, 02:02:58 PM

Towards the very horizon, yes. However the sun does not change size at all as it supposedly flies off away from you on a flat earth meaning the dilation would take place almost immediately once it leaves local noon in order for it to not get smaller and smaller. 

The stars stay the same size from one horizon to the other during the night.

So your explanation doesn't explain observed phenomenon.

But the explanation is not that that things get apparently bigger as they recede. This effect is describing how the sun stays the same size throughout the day. The shrinking of perspective is counteracted by the enlargement by perspective (due to the enlarging projection on the atmosphere), effects of the same mechanism canceling out, making the sun appear to be about the same size through the day.

Ok, but still unless you say the sun has a magical property that means it is effected by this phenomenon alone, then the stars would also change perspectives as they are projected on the atmosphere or however you put it.

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.

I think quoting Rowbotham is just another cause for ridiculing Flat Earth.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2015, 01:10:17 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 11, 2015, 12:53:12 PM

That's some weak shit, Tom.

Tom has tried this tack before and got totally pasted. All the people with photography skills came out of the woodwork and made him look like the village idiot. I almost felt a bit sorry for him.

When I stop posting it merely means that I have gotten tired of the discussion and have moved on in life. If you have any questions you would like to see answered, you should post them now. I have dozens of people across six forums asking me questions.

You didn't stop posting though Tom. It was like watching a slow motion car crash as you kept exposing your feeble understanding of photographic effects and people kept sticking knives in. I remember it clearly, I might go see if I can find the thread. But thank you for your complete non-answer of a response to my post there.

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.

Look out your window.  Do things appear magnified?

1. The other headlight might be angled away a little bit so as the beam is not directly head on.
2. Yes

Or the headlight could be artificially bigger from a halo.

3. Perhaps. The estimation of the sun's size is really how it appears to us in accordance with its distance from the earth. No adjustment to our estimation is made for this magnification effect.

Guess you better start as you are trying to disprove him now.

4. The sun is still brighter than a headlight when it is further away, which means its light would still catch on to the atmosphere, the crude unit of measurement in what little we know of this effect being "brighter than a headlight". If it is brighter than a headlight then it will catch onto the atmosphere. The sun at setting is brighter than a headlight.

How coincidental that it relates to headlights. Some headlights you can't look into. I don't see the sun being brighter then a headlight all the time.

Therefore it will catch onto the atmosphere. Also, since this is an effect which happens midway between the observer and the object, the absolute intensity of the object (as if it were in a vacuum) should matter more than simply how it appears to the observer through the atmosphere. This would account for a few things such as why distant fog lights in fog can appear faded, yet large. The unit of measurement, therefore is refined and changed to "an object (as measured in a vacuum) as bright as, or brighter than a headlight will catch onto the atmosphere"

It should happen everywhere not just midway.  And what is this “catch onto the atmoshere”? How can an optical property go so long without being discovered yet you have knowledge of it? Especially one as strong as binoculars and such.  How does it work?

For a more scientific measurement, we would need to get an average number of lumens per headlight. From what I have read car headlights have an average of 700 lumens. Therefore our unit of measurement can be adjusted as "an object (as measured in a vacuum) as bright as, or brighter than 700 lumens will catch onto the atmosphere".

The real problem is the unit lumen isn't the unit you want.  Lumen isn't a unit of intensity. You might want candela or W/m2. Or maybe just the energy of each wavelength.  I would look into it and rewrite your “theory”.

For the second part of your comment in #4, as Samuel Birley Rowbotham states in Earth Not a Globe, the sun actually does change color when it is setting.

Yeah, the lowest energy longest wavelength color gets through the atmosphere better.


Also, markjo makes a good point.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on January 11, 2015, 02:02:58 PM

Towards the very horizon, yes. However the sun does not change size at all as it supposedly flies off away from you on a flat earth meaning the dilation would take place almost immediately once it leaves local noon in order for it to not get smaller and smaller. 

The stars stay the same size from one horizon to the other during the night.

So your explanation doesn't explain observed phenomenon.

But the explanation is not that that things get apparently bigger as they recede. This effect is describing how the sun stays the same size throughout the day. The shrinking of perspective is counteracted by the enlargement by perspective (due to the enlarging projection on the atmosphere), effects of the same mechanism canceling out, making the sun appear to be about the same size through the day.

The shrinking of perspective is counteracted by the enlargement by perspective (due to the enlarging projection on the atmosphere), effects of the same mechanism canceling out, making the sun appear to be about the same size through the day.


That bit of wisdom sounds like septic. Scary!.

Any introductory optics textbook will give you equations for diffraction, intensity, refraction and so forth, as well as explain those phenomenon. Also, you can easily test all of the theories yourself. I enjoy doing some of these basic experiments with the kids I teach history of science to on weekends as they can be pretty interesting as was as easy to perform and inexpensive.

Tom's attempted optical analogy of the sun and car headlights is of course fatally flawed due to the massive inconsistencies of scale.

The (tiny, in terms of watts) amount of light emitted from the headlight of any car is dependent primarily upon, and is "tuned" by its reflector;  parabolic, free form, ellipsoidal, or beam cutoff projectors.  All have varying light dispersion properties.  Obviously (!) the sun's light source has none of these propagation variations.  Even the light sources are different;  either HID Xenon or Halogen (or on older vehicles incandescent).

Therefore it's immaterial how many images he posts of cars travelling along freeways at night, or how they're photographed, or what he thinks he's seeing.

@TomBishop
The more distant headlights appear brighter because they are at a more direct angle to the camera. The closer headlights are nearly past the camera, and the distant ones are nearly directly in front of it, so more lights is hitting the camera.

Not sure if you got an answer. But here's my theory. The sun is 3000 miles or so above the ground at all times. And its 32 miles wide. When it's directly above you it's 3000 miles straight up. When it sets it's apparent distance to the horizon is only 3 miles. It's still 3000 miles up but only 3 miles away from you're sight, so a 32 mile wide object wouldnt have much of a shrinking effect, if any. Up in an airplane at 35k ft I'm sure it would look smaller as you can see it set from further away. Much like the moon seen from the United States that was over Australia in the YouTube video titled "rocket hitting the dome". Look it up if you aren't familiar with it. You can clearly see the moon much smaller in that video because its so far away but it's seen from 20 miles up.

Did you heard a what about? "What about" 

When using proper equipment. There is a reason no one in the entire history of people have noticed the sun shrink to less than 1/4 it's size. Run along now.

Did you heard a what about? "What about" 
<< videos didn't work >>

Yes, but what about this?

So there are claims that the sun changes in size! I really do not think so!

These photos are part of a Flat Earth video, taken on Malaga Spain 9/Mar/2016: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

He did an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!


Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!



On the Flat Earth with the sun at around 5,000 km altitude, the distance to the sun varies a huge amount from when it is overhead to when it sets. The old Wiki and the Wiki on the "other place" explain this as

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.

But these photos were taken through a filter to remove the glare, and most are quite sharp. In any case for "magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere" to keep the size so close if very hard to accept.

I must express my thanks again to Matrix Decode for his excellent work!

Some smart person (like jroa) can come in now and guess that the completely baseless "atmoplane lensing" cause this.
Or someone might look up "the Wiki" now sort of "Q&A" and see:

What about Day/Night and Sunrise/Sunset?
The sun simply illuminates only a portion of the earth at a time. This also explains timezones as we can then see the path of the Sun, a circle above the flat earth.

<< removed İntikam's non-existent videos >>

Looks like the first video was removed. Not suprusing at all.

Even if the Sun doesn't get smaller, the Moon should. It is not that intense, especially when it's almost new moon. How is that on a flat earth?

Did you heard a what about? "What about" 

WELL DONE GENIUS, YOU'VE JUST MADE IT ONTO YOUR OWN IGNORE LIST!!

*quoting*

what a numpty

Even if the Sun doesn't get smaller, the Moon should. It is not that intense, especially when it's almost new moon. How is that on a flat earth?

I do have a set of photos (mine this time) showing that the moon stays almost the same size, but I won't overload the thread now.
While the size of moon does not change much from moon rise to moon set it does vary significantly over its cycle.

Quote from: kido.resuri on July 28, 2016, 03:35:49 PM

Even if the Sun doesn't get smaller, the Moon should. It is not that intense, especially when it's almost new moon. How is that on a flat earth?

I do have a set of photos (mine this time) showing that the moon stays almost the same size, but I won't overload the thread now.
While the size of moon does not change much from moon rise to moon set it does vary significantly over its cycle.

Because it's MUCH closer to us than the sun.. (for those who didn't understand Rab's obviousness)

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?

Please understand we can only test what we can see and understand with observations. I can only say this is a good discussion for I had asked myself this great question. I'm not saying to believe anything anyone says all I'm saying is ask questions with an open mind and test for yourself. Look at this video for an observation test

After this video ask yourself if you like why the sun does not move across the sky in a stright line. Keep asking we are all in this together both sides must be open minded in testing all questions.

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

Atmoplanic lensing ? And this magic marvel does not do the same for airplanes as they transcend the heavens ?

Explain please  

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on January 07, 2015, 11:54:40 AM

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?

Please understand we can only test what we can see and understand with observations. I can only say this is a good discussion for I had asked myself this great question. I'm not saying to believe anything anyone says all I'm saying is ask questions with an open mind and test for yourself. Look at this video for an observation test

After this video ask yourself if you like why the sun does not move across the sky in a stright line. Keep asking we are all in this together both sides must be open minded in testing all questions.

The sun in spherical earth models does not move in a straight line but always in an arc. In this video the camera is located slightly BELOW the table which is why the coin vanishes. You, on the other hand, stand ABOVE the earth. Do the same with the camera on the table, see if the coin vanishes.

BTW: This thread smells of someone who has been dead for over a year and now got dug up. I don't know why..

Occam's Razor, a favourite among Flat Earth Theorists, dictates that if you need to add complex explanations for something that has a far simpler explanation, then the new line of reasoning is misguided.

Atmospheric lensing, perspective distortion and slow light are attempts to grasp at straws and add addenda to flawed theories. Take one link out of these chains and the whole ting falls apart. Not only does the sun not shrink at sunset, it disappears from view below the horizon. These things are incompatible with the Flat Earth theory with the sun circling above the earth unless it changes size depending on where you stand or has shutters like a stage light. And even then, we would always be able to see the beam over the earth where it casts light because of atmospheric scattering.

Occam's Razor, a favourite among Flat Earth Theorists, dictates that if you need to add complex explanations for something that has a far simpler explanation, then the new line of reasoning is misguided.

Atmospheric lensing, perspective distortion and slow light are attempts to grasp at straws and add addenda to flawed theories. Take one link out of these chains and the whole ting falls apart. Not only does the sun not shrink at sunset, it disappears from view below the horizon. These things are incompatible with the Flat Earth theory with the sun circling above the earth unless it changes size depending on where you stand or has shutters like a stage light. And even then, we would always be able to see the beam over the earth where it casts light because of atmospheric scattering.

it disappears from view below the horizon..... Yes light bends and the sun appears to be below the horizon, good get out of jail for FE  


  The problem is light needs to BEND around something for light to BEND ? I thought the whole point in FE is its 100% flat not BENT ?   lol its this illogical endless loop of wrongs each FE argument creates I find most amusing.

Well, if the sun further away rather than setting, it would gradually turn into more and more of an ellipse. This is because we would be looking at a flat disc from edge-on.

But the relative distance between the sun and the moon is a much bigger problem.

Well, if the sun further away rather than setting, it would gradually turn into more and more of an ellipse. This is because we would be looking at a flat disc from edge-on.

But the relative distance between the sun and the moon is a much bigger problem.

That crushes FE with disc sun and moon only, would not happen on FE with ball sun/moon.