Refraction of the Sunlight

  • 28 Replies
  • 2751 Views
*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Refraction of the Sunlight
« on: August 29, 2016, 03:21:39 AM »
Simple question.

When I demonstrated that the Sun would become smaller and smaller if it moved away from us on a flat surface, the 'explanation' from Flat Earthers was: 'refraction of the light'.

So:

Why don't stars seem to become bigger when they reach the horizon?
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2016, 03:24:28 AM »
Stars don't rotate?  Are you stupid?  Serious question. 

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2016, 03:26:51 AM »
Stars don't rotate?  Are you stupid?  Serious question.

Stars don't rotate? Wait, what are you saying? We see stars move across the sky and sink below the horizon just like the sun, don't we?
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2016, 03:52:04 AM »
Stars don't rotate?  Are you stupid?  Serious question.

Does the Sun rotate, under your model?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2016, 09:49:35 AM »
Rotating and revolving are different words.  Funny how they mean different things. 

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2016, 09:54:48 AM »
How about we focus this thread on the question I asked?
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2016, 09:57:58 AM »
Rotating and revolving are different words.  Funny how they mean different things.

Google time!

define: rotate

Quote
move or cause to move in a circle round an axis or centre.
"the wheel continued to rotate"
synonyms:   revolve,

define: revolve

Quote
move in a circle on a central axis.
"overhead, the fan revolved slowly"
synonyms:   go round, turn round, rotate,

But regardless, let's make this easy. I only need six letters from you, nothing else. Y for yes, N for no. In order, please:

  • Does the Sun rotate?
  • Do the stars rotate?
  • Does the Sun revolve?
  • Do the stars revolve?
  • Does refraction cause the Sun to appear larger than it ought to be as it gets further away?
  • Does refraction cause the stars to appear larger than they ought to be as they get further away?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2016, 10:14:19 AM »
Lol.  Jane would have been the last person I would have ever guessed to not know how dictionaries work.  This is as sad as it is entertaining.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2016, 04:48:16 PM »
Rotating and revolving are different words.  Funny how they mean different things.

Yes, "Rotating and revolving are different words." what a wonderful observation!
Quote from: Wikipedia
It is important to understand the difference between rotations and revolutions. When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation. When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.

But you are the only one that brought up "Rotating and revolving", so I could ask " Are you stupid?  Serious question."



*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2016, 04:51:01 PM »
Yes, "Rotating and revolving are different words." what a wonderful observation!
Quote from: Wikipedia
It is important to understand the difference between rotations and revolutions. When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation. When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.

But you are the only one that brought up "Rotating and revolving", so I could ask " Are you stupid?  Serious question."
Worth pointing out the two are pretty much the same under FET because FE models seem to rely on celestial gears, so the revolution of objects like stars and the Sun are ultimately just rotations of the gear. So jroa's point is mildly more meaningless than usual.

Kinda impressive actually. Congrats jroa!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2016, 05:25:17 PM »
Lol.  Jane would have been the last person I would have ever guessed to not know how dictionaries work.  This is as sad as it is entertaining.
Is it really worth making such a fool of yourself, just to derail a thread about a topic that you make such a fool of yourself in every time you try to respond?

I guess it is when you are trying to cover up your belief that "refration" "accouts" for sunset!
Your limited experiment can not take into accout refration.
Even if you did mean refraction there is no possible way that light from the sun (in near enough to a vacuum) can curve in such a way as to make the sun appear some 20 below where it actually is. Not only appear lower but most certainly appear to disappear behind the horizon.

PS    Maybe drag out you trusty dictionary and see what "refration" and "accout" mean. To save you the trouble I looked them up.
for "refration" the Cambridge Dictionary asks if you mean: "reflation", "refraction", "reformation".
The nearest to "refration" seemed to be "reflation"
Quote
Reflation is the act of stimulating the economy by increasing the money supply or by reducing taxes, seeking to bring the economy (specifically price level) back up to the long-term trend, following a dip in the business cycle.
::) But I can't see how that fits it.  ::)

When it comes to "accout" all I can find are things like
Quote
student accout - Bankwest Forum - 1637
. So I have no idea what it means.  Maybe you can help?

Now stop these idiotic attempts at derailing threads with stupid trivia!  ;D I do more than enough of that for us all!  ;D

E&OE Errors & Omissions Expected!

*

SpJunk

  • 577
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2016, 09:16:34 PM »
Ok, let's ask the question again:

Why don't stars seem to become bigger when they reach the horizon?

And I add one more question:

If "refraction" magnifies Sun as it moves away, why it doesn't magnify the gap below that same Sun?
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

"Your lack of simplicity is main reason why not many people would bother to try to understand you." - S.M.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8303
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2016, 01:27:38 AM »
Ok, let's ask the question again:

Why don't stars seem to become bigger when they reach the horizon?

And I add one more question:

If "refraction" magnifies Sun as it moves away, why it doesn't magnify the gap below that same Sun?

Oh man, I can see the flatties running  :o
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2016, 11:04:09 PM »
Why would the stars get bigger at the horizon? 

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2016, 02:12:53 AM »
Why would the stars get bigger at the horizon?

Why would they not? If the Sun is magnified by the atmosphere's refraction, all light traveling through that atmosphere would be refracted in the exact same way. That means that objects further away (including buildings, ships and indeed stars) would be magnified in the same way.

Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2016, 02:17:15 AM »
So, by getting bigger, you mean staying the same size?

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2016, 02:24:11 AM »
So, by getting bigger, you mean staying the same size?

I know you are trolling, but in case you have one or two neurons firing:

As we know, an object moving away from us appears to get smaller. This is called 'perspective'.

FE argues the Sun does not set, but moves away from us and gets smaller, only giving the illusion of setting. FE argues that refraction of the light through the atmosphere somehow prevents us from seeing this happening. We in fact never see the Sun change size in the way FE wants it to. But according to FE, the refraction magnifies the sun so it appears to stay the same size during sunset.

But if FE is correct, and the Sun is in fact moving away from us but magnified during sunset, why would other far away objects not be equally magnified if their light travels through the same magnifying atmosphere?

And hey, jroa, I bet will not answer this seriously. You will deflect, make a stupid remark and pick on one little detail that you take out of context. You know, what you usually do.

Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2016, 02:26:58 AM »
Ever heard of atmoplanic lensing?

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2016, 02:29:57 AM »
Ever heard of atmoplanic lensing?


A Google search for "amoplanic lensing" turns up only one link, and it's to the Flat Earth forum.  Even the term "atmospheric lensing" doesn't seem to have any references that would apply to the apparent size of the Sun.  So please elaborate on how atmoplanic lensing makes the Sun maintain the same apparent size all day long.

Kindly explain (including the part where only the sun is affected by this effect)?
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2016, 02:34:53 AM »
I am sorry, but am I to believe that refraction is not real?

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2016, 02:39:26 AM »
I am sorry, but am I to believe that refraction is not real?

I just won the bet. Deflecting.

Are you saying the Sun rotates above the Earth and gets further away from the observer in the evening? And that it should in fact look smaller if that where the case?

Are you saying refraction accounts for the apparent constant size of the Sun throughout the day?

Are you saying that some magical force (the Goddess perhaps) actually prevents other objects (moon, stars, buildings, cars, boats, planes) being effected by said refraction?

Are you saying that?
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8303
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2016, 02:41:12 AM »
Why would the stars get bigger at the horizon?

Why wouldn't the sun get smaller at the horizon?

Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2016, 03:10:19 AM »
I am sorry, but am I to believe that refraction is not real?
No, refraction is quite real, but there is no evidence to suggest that refraction of sunlight is anywhere like sufficient to make the sun at around 5,000 km above the earth appear to sink behind the horizon.

Astronomers make careful measurements of refraction because it can greatly affect the accuracy of their measurements.
From their figures the typical refraction at the horizon is about 35' of arc, just over half a degree, and it usually makes the object (sun, planet or star) appear higher than it really is. The angle does vary, depending on the temperature gradient in the atmosphere, but never anything like enough to help you out.

So, yes it's real, but no help to you, unless you have more magic up your sleeve.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2016, 08:24:17 AM »
That is likely what the satanists at NASA want you to believe. 

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #24 on: August 31, 2016, 09:16:05 AM »
That is likely what the satanists at NASA want you to believe.

You are a very lazy troll.
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2016, 02:53:14 PM »
The problem goes far deeper than just magnification of the sun when it is far away.  As we all know, the FE sun is claimed to move around the geographic north pole in an essentially flat path, never actually going below the horizon.  We are told that perspective and / or atmospheric effects cause it to APPEAR to go below the horizon at a distance, and also APPEAR to remain the same size in the sky.  We are given this information in a manner suggesting that it is enough to explain the apparent movement of the sun, while they seem to utterly ignore the fact that the apparent elevation angle and size of the sun are not the only problems with this model: there is also an apparent left-to-right shift happening.

I calculated the actual position of the nearby sun above the flat earth from the viewpoint of an observer located at 45 North latitude on the day of the September Solstice.  I did this using simple trigonometry, as illustrated below, calculating the distance and direction to the sub-solar point on the earth's surface and then the elevation angle up to the sun knowing the distance and height.  I did this ignoring any atmospheric or perspective effects, which matches how Rowbotham and other FE calculate the sun's height.  (Notice in the wiki, for example, that during the section on calculating the height of the sun, no allowance is made for the sun appearing to be at 45 elevation angle while actually being somewhere else.  No, it is assumed to actually be where it appears to be, at 45 elevation)  I did ten minute increments all night and day, midnight to midnight.

I then pulled information from the US Naval Observatory web site listing the projected direction and elevation angles for the same geographic location and also in ten minute increments.  I then calculated the difference between observation and calculation, and graphed the result.  This number is the magnitude of the FE proposed perspective and atmospheric effects.  The X axis is the difference between the direction the sun is observed, and the direction it is supposed to be at that time of day.  The Y axis the difference in how high above the horizon the sun should be, absent the proposed perspective and atmospheric effects.  This curve and the one that follows are both slightly asymmetrical due to my local apparent solar noon not lining up exactly with clock noon, so the USNO numbers are coming in slightly ahead of my calculated numbers.


One more simple equation allows us to combine the left/right offset effect with up/down offset effect to calculate a total offset.  When the sun rises/sets the absolute effect is at its maximum, and the result is a vector effectively moving the sun's apparent position a total of 45 from its calculated position.  That is 1/4 of the way across the sky!  I suspect the typical FE who has not done the math would expect the atmospheric effects to be at a minimum at noon and maximum at sunrise/sunset, and he or she would be correct.  I also suspect the typical FE would imagine these effects changing in a pattern that makes intuitive sense, maybe a straight line or a sine wave; in this he or she would be incorrect.  Observe the total effect curve:


The point of all this: those of you proposing optical effects to explain the difference between observed sun and moon locations and where those bodies should be above your flat earth?  THIS is what your optical effect must achieve.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2016, 07:10:50 PM by Sam Hill »

Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2016, 06:43:28 PM »
Why don't stars seem to become bigger when they reach the horizon?
There is no reason why stars should seem to become bigger when they reach the horizon.   

You shills are making a mountain out of a mole hill again to distract sane/honest folks from seeing the simplicity of the world. 

*

N30

  • 591
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2016, 07:26:03 PM »
Ever heard of atmoplanic lensing?


A Google search for "amoplanic lensing" turns up only one link, and it's to the Flat Earth forum.  Even the term "atmospheric lensing" doesn't seem to have any references that would apply to the apparent size of the Sun.  So please elaborate on how atmoplanic lensing makes the Sun maintain the same apparent size all day long.

Kindly explain (including the part where only the sun is affected by this effect)?

Were you using NASA servers to search google? Atmospheric Lensing is also temperature relative.

"Therefore, in addition to affecting significantly our view (image deformation, multiplication, etc.) of distant resolved Earth-sources, atmospheric lensing is also often responsible for the light amplification of distant unresolved objects located along straight and long roads or across flat countrysides."

Quoted from - https://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/extragal/gravlens/bibdat/engl/DE/didac1.html

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Refraction of the Sunlight
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2016, 11:16:32 PM »
Ever heard of atmoplanic lensing?

A Google search for "amoplanic lensing" turns up only one link, and it's to the Flat Earth forum.  Even the term "atmospheric lensing" doesn't seem to have any references that would apply to the apparent size of the Sun.  So please elaborate on how atmoplanic lensing makes the Sun maintain the same apparent size all day long.

Kindly explain (including the part where only the sun is affected by this effect)?

Were you using NASA servers to search google? Atmospheric Lensing is also temperature relative.

"Therefore, in addition to affecting significantly our view (image deformation, multiplication, etc.) of distant resolved Earth-sources, atmospheric lensing is also often responsible for the light amplification of distant unresolved objects located along straight and long roads or across flat countrysides."

Quoted from - https://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/extragal/gravlens/bibdat/engl/DE/didac1.html
Omega was looking up "amoplanic lensing" as jroa claimed.

;D NASA servers to search google ;D

Your reference looks fine, but where does it give any indication that this "atmospheric lensing" can cause a magnification of 3 times.

Also the "atmospheric lensing" in your reference is, as you say temperature dependent, and as such not very common.

In case you hadn't noticed we get sunrises and sunsets every day (sometimes clouds hide them).

And, the sun stays exactly the same size throughout the day, every day - apart from sometimes some distortion near the horizon, due to, guess what, "atmospheric lensing".

I reiterate that  jroa spoke not of "atmoplanic lensing" not "atmospheric lensing" and there is a significant difference!