Flat Earth Sunsets

Hello Everyone,

Been lurking here for a few days and find the debate quite interesting.  I am open to many ideas and philosophies and Flat Earth is definitely intriguing.  In making a full disclaimer, I am firmly in the Round Earth camp.  I have been looking at the FE explanations for sunset and cannot reconcile them with what I can observationally know to be true.  If the sun is a 32km sphere 3000km in the sky, no matter the gyrations you make, it will not come to intersect the horizon.  The Laws of Perspective that I see quoted on here make no observational sense in this regard either.  I have made the video linked here that shows how one should expect the sun to behave on a flat earth.  I am interested to hear what you all RE and FE alike believe about this video.

The criteria are simple, I am not worrying about the specific path of the sun, but merely if the sun moves across the sky a given distance, will it intersect the horizon on a flat earth.  Some specs about the video, the ground plane is a 400,000km square.  There are 2 suns, a disc sun of 32km diameter, and a sphere sun of 32km diameter.  Both suns are 3000km above the ground plane.  The camera is 2meters off of the surface of the plane and will track the suns to a distance of 300,000km.  I am very interested in your comments and refutation of what I show.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

I am fully of the opinion that the "sinking" at the horizon is a perspective effect, but also agree that the setting of celestial bodies cannot be attributed to the same.

I am fully of the opinion that the "sinking" at the horizon is a perspective effect, but also agree that the setting of celestial bodies cannot be attributed to the same.

Do you have an explanation that does account for them? I'd be interested to hear it.

Something the guy in the video neglected is that in flat Earth theory the Sun goes around in a circle above the Earth, so at the time of sunrise the Sun would be north-east of you and at sunset it would be north-west of you.  This doesn't mean that they would ever set, it's just another flaw in flat Earth theory.  Another big one is the southern stars.  The south celestial pole is only viable south of the equator and it's always south of the observer.  Imagine that on a flat Earth map.

That video has inspired me to make some more animations proving round Earth.  I have made a few short ones in the past, and I know how to use Blender very well.  I could also provide the .blend file to anyone who doubted that my animation is not deceiving or anything.

Something the guy in the video neglected is that in flat Earth theory the Sun goes around in a circle above the Earth, so at the time of sunrise the Sun would be north-east of you and at sunset it would be north-west of you. 

I intentionally neglected the sun's described motion in flat earth theory with the intention of showing a very exaggerated distance of solar travel through the sky.  The sun in this video travels from directly overhead to a point 300,000km distant.  No model I have seen shows such distances traveled by the sun, and at this distance, the sun still has not met the horizon.  I am planning a model that accurately depicts what an observer should see in the full model of flat earth theory. 

That is the biggest weakness that I have not ever seen addressed.  All videos of solar motion for flat earth theory show how the light moves across the earth but the never attempt to show what an individual would see from the surface.  I think it is because they know that their model doesn't match what we observe!

This doesn't mean that they would ever set, it's just another flaw in flat Earth theory.  Another big one is the southern stars.  The south celestial pole is only viable south of the equator and it's always south of the observer.  Imagine that on a flat Earth map.

That video has inspired me to make some more animations proving round Earth.  I have made a few short ones in the past, and I know how to use Blender very well.  I could also provide the .blend file to anyone who doubted that my animation is not deceiving or anything.

I would love to see what you come up with for your models.  Additionally, my model is available for any that would like to review it as well.

Something the guy in the video neglected is that in flat Earth theory the Sun goes around in a circle above the Earth, so at the time of sunrise the Sun would be north-east of you and at sunset it would be north-west of you.  This doesn't mean that they would ever set, it's just another flaw in flat Earth theory.  Another big one is the southern stars.  The south celestial pole is only viable south of the equator and it's always south of the observer.  Imagine that on a flat Earth map.

That video has inspired me to make some more animations proving round Earth.  I have made a few short ones in the past, and I know how to use Blender very well.  I could also provide the .blend file to anyone who doubted that my animation is not deceiving or anything.

the sinking ships, buildings and sun is the same illusion.

the sinking ships, buildings and sun is the same illusion.

That doesn't change the fact that the Sun doesn't shrink near sunset, even if the laws of geometry were as drunk as flat Earth theory suggests.

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 11:40:17 AM

the sinking ships, buildings and sun is the same illusion.

That doesn't change the fact that the Sun doesn't shrink near sunset, even if the laws of geometry were as drunk as flat Earth theory suggests.

the law of geometry can kiss my ass, try to explain it by flat earth method why the sun is not shrinking or f*ck off from flat earth community.

So math is part of the conspiracy too?  Why is it if something doesn't agree with what you imagine you get upset about it and say its fake?
Also if you do not wish to deal with people offering opposing positions to you beliefs then you should not lurk in the debate forums, for that matter, I hear that Eric Dubay has a forum where noone is allowed unless they are 100% on board with his viewpoints, you can go there, no one there that understands science to question your assumptions, but be careful and make sure you take your turn with the golden kneepads that Eric demands you wear when he wants your special "services".

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 27, 2015, 12:03:53 PM

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 11:40:17 AM

the sinking ships, buildings and sun is the same illusion.

That doesn't change the fact that the Sun doesn't shrink near sunset, even if the laws of geometry were as drunk as flat Earth theory suggests.

the law of geometry can kiss my ass, try to explain it by flat earth method why the sun is not shrinking or f*ck off from flat earth community.

Modestman, did you even watch the video that was posted?  That was a pure attempt to show what would happen were the earth flat.  I allowed both models of the sun to proceed to 300,000km and neither of them exhibited any behavior that would replicate what we see on earth.  If you have a better explanation of the video and why it doesn't show what we actually see, I would love to hear it.

So math is part of the conspiracy too?  Why is it if something doesn't agree with what you imagine you get upset about it and say its fake?
Also if you do not wish to deal with people offering opposing positions to you beliefs then you should not lurk in the debate forums, for that matter, I hear that Eric Dubay has a forum where noone is allowed unless they are 100% on board with his viewpoints, you can go there, no one there that understands science to question your assumptions, but be careful and make sure you take your turn with the golden kneepads that Eric demands you wear when he wants your special "services".

I am not debating with you, spam - robot I am debating with people visiting the site and come to really seek for the real answer unlike you, therefore I make the effort to reply every bullshit you post.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 27, 2015, 12:03:53 PM

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 11:40:17 AM

the sinking ships, buildings and sun is the same illusion.

That doesn't change the fact that the Sun doesn't shrink near sunset, even if the laws of geometry were as drunk as flat Earth theory suggests.

the law of geometry can kiss my ass, try to explain it by flat earth method why the sun is not shrinking or f*ck off from flat earth community.

So the same laws of geometry used to design and build your computer are false?

I am fully of the opinion that the "sinking" at the horizon is a perspective effect, but also agree that the setting of celestial bodies cannot be attributed to the same.

Jroa claims that sunsets are caused by air blocking the light of the sun. He would dispute your theory. Please show how your theory is superior to his.

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 27, 2015, 12:39:25 PM

So math is part of the conspiracy too?  Why is it if something doesn't agree with what you imagine you get upset about it and say its fake?
Also if you do not wish to deal with people offering opposing positions to you beliefs then you should not lurk in the debate forums, for that matter, I hear that Eric Dubay has a forum where noone is allowed unless they are 100% on board with his viewpoints, you can go there, no one there that understands science to question your assumptions, but be careful and make sure you take your turn with the golden kneepads that Eric demands you wear when he wants your special "services".

I am not debating with you, spam - robot I am debating with people visiting the site and come to really seek for the real answer unlike you, therefore I make the effort to reply every bullshit you post.

You are not debating at all, you are trolling.  A debate is two opposing viewpoints discussing the differences and why each viewpoint falsifies the others.  Or something to that order.
You just want to spew bullcrap and are seeking attention.

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 12:25:54 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 27, 2015, 12:03:53 PM

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 11:40:17 AM

the sinking ships, buildings and sun is the same illusion.

That doesn't change the fact that the Sun doesn't shrink near sunset, even if the laws of geometry were as drunk as flat Earth theory suggests.

the law of geometry can kiss my ass, try to explain it by flat earth method why the sun is not shrinking or f*ck off from flat earth community.

So the same laws of geometry used to design and build your computer are false?

prove me the people who created the computer didn't think about porn when they created the computer ?

prove me the people who created the computer didn't think about porn when they created the computer ?

Because if they weren't considering geometry and making the computer actually work then your computer wouldn't work.

They created the computer to do math.  Computers only add.

Quote from: Ski on June 26, 2015, 08:15:32 PM

I am fully of the opinion that the "sinking" at the horizon is a perspective effect, but also agree that the setting of celestial bodies cannot be attributed to the same.

Do you have an explanation that does account for them? I'd be interested to hear it.

Refraction of celestial light

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 26, 2015, 09:45:25 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 26, 2015, 08:15:32 PM

I am fully of the opinion that the "sinking" at the horizon is a perspective effect, but also agree that the setting of celestial bodies cannot be attributed to the same.

Do you have an explanation that does account for them? I'd be interested to hear it.

Refraction of celestial light

What causes this to happen? Does this affect only light from celestial objects, or is light from terrestrial objects also affected? Your description suggests the former, but how rigorous is that description? What about things in the atmosphere, like clouds and aircraft? Is light from these objects also affected similarly?

Do you have a mathematical model that allows the change in angles to be calculated, or at least estimated, for a given geometry?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 26, 2015, 09:45:25 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 26, 2015, 08:15:32 PM

I am fully of the opinion that the "sinking" at the horizon is a perspective effect, but also agree that the setting of celestial bodies cannot be attributed to the same.

Do you have an explanation that does account for them? I'd be interested to hear it.

Refraction of celestial light

Inane one liners do not count as explanations.

Quote from: Ski on June 27, 2015, 04:25:42 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on June 26, 2015, 09:45:25 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 26, 2015, 08:15:32 PM

I am fully of the opinion that the "sinking" at the horizon is a perspective effect, but also agree that the setting of celestial bodies cannot be attributed to the same.

Do you have an explanation that does account for them? I'd be interested to hear it.

Refraction of celestial light

Inane one liners do not count as explanations.

He may be trying to bring "bendy light" back from the dead, but sadly that theory rotted beyond hope some years ago.

"Bendy light" or "Electromagnetic Acceleration" or whatever Steve was presenting seems ridiculous to me.

"Bendy light" or "Electromagnetic Acceleration" or whatever Steve was presenting seems ridiculous to me.

So that's your answer to the question what is  "refraction of celestial light"?   

Another inane one-liner.    Seems obvious that when there is no adequate flat earth explanation,  obfustication and prevarication come to the fore.

I thought surely you knew what refraction is. I'm sorry I assumed.

The problem lies in the fact that you just stated "celestial refraction".  I think the question is for more detail on refraction by what medium, how much, etc.  It looked to me to be a call for clarification on your statement.
So what causes this refraction, and how much is done by whatever it is. 
A one liner is not an explanation of an effect.  Also a snide comment questioning the intelligence of the person asking for clarification is not helpful either.  But it is what we have come to expect from many flat Earthers, and that attitude and response set that you just used is what we have come to expect from moderators.  The reason is that this is what we inevitably get, unless it is the religious angle or the complete nonsense of misused half-assed pseudo-science from some of the more wordy individuals.

Since the atmosphere gets thinner as you get higher up, the only effect refraction will have is making the Sun, Moon, and stars appear higher then they really are.

I thought surely you knew what refraction is. I'm sorry I assumed.

More prevarication,  rather than logical argument.   Not unexpected, but it is a reply of some value,  since I now know for sure you have no clue.

 

"Bendy light" or "Electromagnetic Acceleration" or whatever Steve was presenting seems ridiculous to me.

Well, that's something we're all in agreement on at least.

Here we go, something visual for the discussions about how the sun sets.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Time lapse sunset

just in case the embedded thing breaks again  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Okay. Case closed. Flat earth disproved. Now we can go on with our lives.