Sunset and the moon

Quote from: jroa on February 22, 2015, 04:04:29 PM

Neil, you are really doing a good job at getting yourself on the ban list.  Is there a goal you are aiming for, like getting banned within 2 days or something?  Let me know what your goal is and I will try to help you achive it.

The hypocrisy is strong in this one.

I think we should seriously take to heart disregarding any image posted by jroa.

I think we should seriously consider the merit of any photo jroa posts individually. His familiarity with when fish eye lenses are used points to a vast - nay, I would even say mega-vast - level of familiarity with image manipulation, a subject in which there can be no doubt he is an expert. You only have to look at his ability to distinguish a matte painting of Tatooine from a photograph to see that. Therefore, it makes it highly likely that any picture he posts could have been manipulated to his own flattist agenda.

Quote from: dephelis on February 22, 2015, 05:00:03 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 22, 2015, 11:53:04 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 22, 2015, 10:41:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2015, 09:34:42 PM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 21, 2015, 09:31:28 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2015, 09:27:42 PM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 21, 2015, 09:23:07 PM

So how fast does light go from visible to not visible because of the air?

That would depend on the conditions of the air, would it not?

So you are saying conditions in the air can vary so wildly as to make you unable to give an answer to how quickly a star would go from visible and not visible?

Yes.  Some days, there is a lot of pollen or dust in the air.  Some days, there are profound temperature differences.  Some days, there is very little moisture in the air.  Is all of this new to you?

If the Sun was not visable at night because of distance then why is it always the exact same aperent size and why does it apear to go behind the horizon?  Also, FET suggests that the Sun would rise in the north-east and set in the north-west.  Just think about where the Sun would be during those times.

Atmoplanic lensing.  And, what makes you claim that the sun should rise and set in the north east and west in FET?  I don't understand how you came up with that.

If 'atmoplanic lensing' is responsible for the Sun's angular size remaining the same between the zenith of it's arc and low on the horizon, how come the Moon's angular diameter gets smaller?

Why does one thing have to equal something else? What is with this obsetion that some of you people have about everything having to equal everything else?

Because that's how things work. Or do you think atmoplanic lensing is self aware and can pick and choose what it effects?

Atmoplanic lensing. 

Can you please clarify this term jroa?  And explain exactly how it works in practice?

I searched the Flat earth Wiki, but it doesn't mention "atmoplanic" or "lensing".  The closest term it references is "atmoplane" which it simply describes as being the equivalent of the round earth atmosphere. [sic]

To have lensing take place—and alter the apparent size or location of a celestial body such as the sun—one needs a massive, intervening gravitational field in order to deflect the paths of the photons irradiated from the body in question; in our case the sun.  Firstly, the FET doesn't allow that gravity—as defined by RET—actually exists.  Secondly, there is no body with sufficient mass, and presumably accompanying gravitational force, anywhere near the earth or the sun to cause lensing.

So, on the flat earth model, what causes this alleged lensing?

Quote from: jroa on February 22, 2015, 11:53:04 AM

Atmoplanic lensing. 

Can you please clarify this term jroa?  And explain exactly how it works in practice?

I searched the Flat earth Wiki, but it doesn't mention "atmoplanic" or "lensing".  The closest term it references is "atmoplane" which it simply describes as being the equivalent of the round earth atmosphere. [sic]

To have lensing take place—and alter the apparent size or location of a celestial body such as the sun—one needs a massive, intervening gravitational field in order to deflect the paths of the photons irradiated from the body in question; in our case the sun.  Firstly, the FET doesn't allow that gravity—as defined by RET—actually exists.  Secondly, there is no body with sufficient mass, and presumably accompanying gravitational force, anywhere near the earth or the sun to cause lensing.

So, on the flat earth model, what causes this alleged lensing?

And while you're explaining it, explain why it doesn't affect your dearly beloved hazed-out mountain ranges, which remain the expected size no matter how much "atmoplane" they're viewed through.

So many questions, so few answers...

I almost feel sorry for the self-confessed worst moderator ever. Almost...

What is the FE argument on night and day? How can it be night in one place, and day in another place if the Earth is flat?

Since we don't have easy, unrestricted access to the upper atmosphere, there is no definitive answer.  The best solution I have seen thus far is, the sun has a limited range of projection and/or there is another object which block its light from half the plane.  Call it dark matter...since we have just as much proof for its existence as anyone else does.

Quote from: General Patton on February 20, 2015, 08:19:05 PM

What is the FE argument on night and day? How can it be night in one place, and day in another place if the Earth is flat?

Since we don't have easy, unrestricted access to the upper atmosphere, there is no definitive answer.  The best solution I have seen thus far is, the sun has a limited range of projection and/or there is another object which block its light from half the plane.  Call it dark matter...since we have just as much proof for its existence as anyone else does.

Amazing the hoops you FE proponents have to jump through just to get a single thing to work in your model. In this case, it's sunset/sunrise.

Sadly for them though, once they get that single thing to work, it inevitably breaks something else in the model which then usually requires a terrifically convoluted explanation (shadow object to explain the spotlight sun not being visible at all times) and lots of backtracking on things they supposedly had nailed down (distance to the sun and moon etc). This continues on in an infinite regression for reasons that are obvious.

To address what you're saying, the spotlight hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked and dismissed for various reasons. In fact, I haven't even seen the phrase spotlight sun mentioned for a while in the general/debate forums.

Secondly, there was a thread about the mysterious 'shadow object' that, despite going on for many pages, went precisely nowhere. You may as well invoke a sky god or sky fairies for all the predictive power it has ie. it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis thus it may as well be meaningless drivel.

You know what is a much more elegant, simple and succinct explanation? The Earth is an oblate spheroid which spins on its axis and revolves around the sun. There. Done and dusted; sunsets, sunrises (and everything else) explained. Noticed how I needn't invoke unexplainable and unobservable shadow objects or involve magic and/or the supernatural?

In case jroa may have missed my earlier question directed towards him re "lensing", I'll repost it here, and hope that he can address it.....

Can you please clarify this term?  And explain exactly how it works in practice?

I searched the Flat earth Wiki, but it doesn't mention "atmoplanic" or "lensing".  The closest term it references is "atmoplane" which it simply describes as being the equivalent of the round earth atmosphere. [sic]

To have lensing take place—and alter the apparent size or location of a celestial body such as the sun—one needs a massive, intervening gravitational field in order to deflect the paths of the photons irradiated from the body in question; in our case the sun.  Firstly, the FET doesn't allow that gravity—as defined by RET—actually exists.  Secondly, there is no body with sufficient mass, and presumably accompanying gravitational force, anywhere near the earth or the sun to cause lensing.

So, on the flat earth model, what causes this alleged lensing?

Add to that, how can it possibly affect both the moon and sun in different ways.