Magnification of the Sun

How much is the Sun magnified during the set and during the noon?

Why is the magnification always ignored when calculating a proper size of the Sun (assuming 3000 miles is correct (which is not...))?

The magnification of the sun occurs through a projection. A projection of light is occurring upon the atmosphere between the sun and observer.

What does it actually mean? Do we see a projection of the Sun onto the atmosphere like here?

(in this picture the atmosphere magnifies the Sun as you wanted).

As the sun shrinks with perspective, it is magnified by the atmosphere. Both the magnification and shirking are regulated by an inverse-square law, which is why they equal out into the appearance of a constant diameter throughout the day.

See our encyclopedia entry on the topic: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Is your evidence based on Greek philosopher Aristotle?

I thought this was debunked like in the 1800s...

This is purely an illusion, civil engineers using a theodolite can prove this.

Our evidence is based on empiricism and common sense.

Why are the sun, moon, and stars the only things to magnify, a how do the stars maintain their spacing?  Even if they are magnified, their apparent distance from eachother would shrink as they moved further away.

Why are the sun, moon, and stars the only things to magnify, a how do the stars maintain their spacing?  Even if they are magnified, their apparent distance from eachother would shrink as they moved further away.

There is another page on that very topic here:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?

A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

Illustration: http://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f6/Perspective_speed.png

The higher the angle, the more constant the body's descent will be to the observer.
The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.

Our evidence is based on empiricism and common sense.

In the flat earth model, how far away is the sun (mean) from earth?

Is this still under debate?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 05:13:51 PM

Our evidence is based on empiricism and common sense.

In the flat earth model, how far away is the sun (mean) from earth?

Is this still under debate?

The distance to the sun under a Flat Earth has varied over the ages, but the current modern estimate is at about 3000 miles. It's debatable. If we accept Eratosthenes's shadow experiment measurements as accurate the sun would be computed to be somewhere around 2000 miles.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on January 02, 2016, 05:23:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 05:13:51 PM

Our evidence is based on empiricism and common sense.

In the flat earth model, how far away is the sun (mean) from earth?

Is this still under debate?

The distance to the sun under a Flat Earth has varied over the ages, but the current modern estimate is at about 3000 miles. It's debatable. If we accept Eratosthenes's shadow experiment measurements as accurate the sun would be computed to be somewhere around 2000 miles.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

I find it absolutely incomprehensible that a rough estimate made almost 2000 years ago without even surveying instruments has not been improved on!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 05:40:57 PM

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on January 02, 2016, 05:23:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 05:13:51 PM

Our evidence is based on empiricism and common sense.

In the flat earth model, how far away is the sun (mean) from earth?

Is this still under debate?

The distance to the sun under a Flat Earth has varied over the ages, but the current modern estimate is at about 3000 miles. It's debatable. If we accept Eratosthenes's shadow experiment measurements as accurate the sun would be computed to be somewhere around 2000 miles.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

I find it absolutely incomprehensible that a rough estimate made almost 2000 years ago without even surveying instruments has not been improved on!

Who said that measurements have not been made in modern times? 

As the sun shrinks with perspective, it is magnified by the atmosphere. Both the magnification and shirking are regulated by an inverse-square law, which is why they equal out into the appearance of a constant diameter throughout the day.

See our encyclopedia entry on the topic: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I read the article before posting my questions.

You did not answer ANY of my questions.

You just made me to answer another:
If there is an inverse square law, how can this possibly work in favour when the Sun goes further from the observer by the "cosine rule", i.e. when the Sun moves, its distance to the observer can be determined (with small approximation) by the function with cosine term?

The distance to the sun under a Flat Earth has varied over the ages, but the current modern estimate is at about 3000 miles. It's debatable. If we accept Eratosthenes's shadow experiment measurements as accurate the sun would be computed to be somewhere around 2000 miles.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

This argument has been proved to be flawed, see
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64777.msg1729606#msg1729606

You are just picking 45^o for the convinience but completely ignoring the geometry of any other case of angle size. But well, this is not the discussion section, just Q&A.

So I am still waiting for answers to OP's questions.

If you have proper sources (other than wiki page that I have already read), you can post them too.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 04:34:57 PM

As the sun shrinks with perspective, it is magnified by the atmosphere. Both the magnification and shirking are regulated by an inverse-square law, which is why they equal out into the appearance of a constant diameter throughout the day.

See our encyclopedia entry on the topic: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I read the article before posting my questions.

You did not answer ANY of my questions.

You just made me to answer another:
If there is an inverse square law, how can this possibly work in favour when the Sun goes further from the observer by the "cosine rule", i.e. when the Sun moves, its distance to the observer can be determined (with small approximation) by the function with cosine term?

Actually, I was answering your first question. You asked "How much is the Sun magnified during the set and during the noon?" The answer to that is that there is also a shrinking effect due to perspective, resulting in a consistently sized sun.

I don't know what you are getting at with the cosine rule as the diameter of the sun does not visibly change.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 05:40:57 PM

The distance to the sun under a Flat Earth has varied over the ages, but the current modern estimate is at about 3000 miles. It's debatable. If we accept Eratosthenes's shadow experiment measurements as accurate the sun would be computed to be somewhere around 2000 miles.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

This argument has been proved to be flawed, see
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64777.msg1729606#msg1729606

You are just picking 45^o for the convinience but completely ignoring the geometry of any other case of angle size. But well, this is not the discussion section, just Q&A.

So I am still waiting for answers to OP's questions.

If you have proper sources (other than wiki page that I have already read), you can post them too.

Are you denying that a plane at 500 feet would fly over faster and reach the horizon sooner than a plane at 45,000 feet?

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on January 02, 2016, 05:23:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 05:13:51 PM

Our evidence is based on empiricism and common sense.

In the flat earth model, how far away is the sun (mean) from earth?

Is this still under debate?

The distance to the sun under a Flat Earth has varied over the ages, but the current modern estimate is at about 3000 miles. It's debatable. If we accept Eratosthenes's shadow experiment measurements as accurate the sun would be computed to be somewhere around 2000 miles.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Completely wrong as you know.  Measure from several locations 5000 miles apart at the same time.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 05:40:57 PM

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on January 02, 2016, 05:23:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 05:13:51 PM

Our evidence is based on empiricism and common sense.

In the flat earth model, how far away is the sun (mean) from earth?

Is this still under debate?

The distance to the sun under a Flat Earth has varied over the ages, but the current modern estimate is at about 3000 miles. It's debatable. If we accept Eratosthenes's shadow experiment measurements as accurate the sun would be computed to be somewhere around 2000 miles.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Completely wrong as you know.  Measure from several locations 5000 miles apart at the same time.

Be our guest.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 03, 2016, 01:18:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 05:40:57 PM

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on January 02, 2016, 05:23:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 05:13:51 PM

Our evidence is based on empiricism and common sense.

In the flat earth model, how far away is the sun (mean) from earth?

Is this still under debate?

The distance to the sun under a Flat Earth has varied over the ages, but the current modern estimate is at about 3000 miles. It's debatable. If we accept Eratosthenes's shadow experiment measurements as accurate the sun would be computed to be somewhere around 2000 miles.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Completely wrong as you know.  Measure from several locations 5000 miles apart at the same time.

Be our guest.

Size and shape of the earth and distance to the sun been proven.  Earth is not flat, as you know.

Actually, I was answering your first question. You asked "How much is the Sun magnified during the set and during the noon?" The answer to that is that there is also a shrinking effect due to perspective, resulting in a consistently sized sun.
I don't know what you are getting at with the cosine rule as the diameter of the sun does not visibly change.

I asked about the numbers, not formulas that were not even presented in a proper from.

I have no idea what "shrinking effect due to perspective" are you referring to and how does it results in "consistently sized sun". Can you expand that and provide details?

I don't know what you are getting at with the cosine rule as the diameter of the sun does not visibly change.

Have you ever tried finding a formula for the distance from a point on the sufrace to the Sun? For simplicity it can be done for a point on the equator during the equinox.

Apologizes for small error - it should be formula based on sine, not cosine.

Are you denying that a plane at 500 feet would fly over faster and reach the horizon sooner than a plane at 45,000 feet?

No. How is that even related?

Once we are done with question 1, there are 2 more to answer.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2016, 11:17:02 PM

Actually, I was answering your first question. You asked "How much is the Sun magnified during the set and during the noon?" The answer to that is that there is also a shrinking effect due to perspective, resulting in a consistently sized sun.
I don't know what you are getting at with the cosine rule as the diameter of the sun does not visibly change.

I asked about the numbers, not formulas that were not even presented in a proper from.

I have no idea what "shrinking effect due to perspective" are you referring to and how does it results in "consistently sized sun". Can you expand that and provide details?

Sure.

1. When things get "far away" they appear to "shrink". This is the shrinking effect due to perspective.

2. The sun's size is consistent throughout the day.

3. The magnification effect described in the Wiki counters the natural shrinking effect from 1., causing the sun to appear to be consistently sized.

Have you ever tried finding a formula for the distance from a point on the sufrace to the Sun? For simplicity it can be done for a point on the equator during the equinox.
Apologizes for small error - it should be formula based on sine, not cosine.

I haven't bothered.

1. When things get "far away" they appear to "shrink". This is the shrinking effect due to perspective.
2. The sun's size is consistent throughout the day.

Ok.

3. The magnification effect described in the Wiki counters the natural shrinking effect from 1., causing the sun to appear to be consistently sized.

But you still have not explained or answered to any of my questions regarding the magnification.

Quote

Have you ever tried finding a formula for the distance from a point on the sufrace to the Sun? For simplicity it can be done for a point on the equator during the equinox.
Apologizes for small error - it should be formula based on sine, not cosine.

I haven't bothered.

Well you should try. The time-dependant formula for the distance is a function including square root and the sine function. The magnification itself should be inversly proportional to the distance, so inversly proportional to the sine formula. I cannot see the inverse square rule here, but that can be a result of not having an answer to question 3.

After following the thread once more I found this:

Both the magnification and shirking are regulated by an inverse-square law, which is why they equal out into the appearance of a constant diameter throughout the day.

I find this explaination laughable after the following:

Quote

Have you ever tried finding a formula for the distance from a point on the sufrace to the Sun? For simplicity it can be done for a point on the equator during the equinox.
Apologizes for small error - it should be formula based on sine, not cosine.

I haven't bothered.

It appears that you are just guessing the formula, but have never done ANY calculation regarding the magnification - checking by what factor the Sun should be magnified.

OP's questions would like to be answered.

All questions were answered from the OP, except for the last one about the picture being an illustration of the effect, the answer to which is: No.

Your answer makes no sense. The air is like a magnifying glass that makes everything the same size? Ok?
Ill only accept it once you mathmaticly show that it's size will stay the same.

All questions were answered from the OP, except for the last one about the picture being an illustration of the effect, the answer to which is: No.

Only the last question is answered. Claiming that the rest is answered is simple ignorance.

I still do not know by what factor the Sun is magnified at noon and near set/rise. You mentioned some formula, but you have never explained or presented it. Also, it seems like you have never tested or derived it.

I still do not know why do wiki/other FEers claim the Sun is 32 miles in size even though there are possible maginification factors. The Sun being 3000 miles from the Earth should be ~32 miles without magnification.

And since the answer to 3rd question is negative, how does this process of magnification works? What do we exactly see on the sky?

And since the answer to 3rd question is negative, how does this process of magnification works? What do we exactly see on the sky?

 It would also be interesting to know at what height this magnification process starts affecting how we see things down here.