sun behind the horizon

hi everybody.
i am new here and new to the whole flat earth theory and have found it very interesting.
at the moment i am very skeptical about the whole concept, but im not ruling it out until i have collected enough information.

there are a lot of things that dont make sense to me and i would like to understand the theory, but i think i should keep each topic to a separate thread, so i will start with the most confusing point (for me, currently).

with a flat earth, how does the sun disappear behind the horizon?

i have searched and all i can find is people saying it is a result of perspective/vanishing point. this is clearly not the reason because the sun moves behind the horizon rather than just gets smaller until you can no longer see it. so i can definitely discard that idea with no possible argument for it being correct.

i also saw one video on youtube where a guy shows a coin going behind the edge of a table as he moves it back, but the camera was slightly lower than the surface of the table, which would be the equivalent of us being under ground. so again, this is clearly wrong.

so can anybody give me a better explanation as to why this would happen with a flat earth model?

thanks

Hi tun, welcome. I'm a newcomer as well. I wouldn't hold out any hope for a real answer, the reason would be because the earth is not flat. But you should receive lots of really funny answers.

Hi tun, welcome. I'm a newcomer as well. I wouldn't hold out any hope for a real answer, the reason would be because the earth is not flat. But you should receive lots of really funny answers.

saying "the earth is not flat" means about as much as saying "the earth is flat".
ive had a little look around and it does seem that i wont get a clear answer. there are a lot of people avoiding questions and a lot of bickering from both FEs and REs.

i really hope this thread will turn out to be on topic and concise

Understood, I'll leave you to it then. Best of luck.

Perspective and refraction.  Have you read the wiki or the FAQ?

And Orthodoxy kicks in.

Perspective and refraction.  Have you read the wiki or the FAQ?

it is not perspective. the sun "setting" does not fit in with anything we know about perspective.
wouldnt refraction make it appear higher?
i have not read the WIKI, but i will go find it and check it out. thanks

Perspective and refraction.  Have you read the wiki or the FAQ?

I think we've seen all that numerous times.
But,
Perspective makes things appear smaller. The sun's angular size does not change, see The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun.

Refraction in the atmosphere generally makes object appear higher, not lower and in any case it is quite impossible for the atmosphere to refract light the 20° or so needed to make the sun at a claimed 3,000 mile height reach the horizon.

And, the OP asked "how does the sun disappear behind the horizon?" That observation has never been explained.

Any more ideas?

the wiki page doesnt really seem to explain it. it talks about perspective, which i can already definitely discredit even with my own experiments, but it doesnt talk about refraction, which is the only argument i have seen so far that has an element of potential.

the wiki page doesnt really seem to explain it. it talks about perspective, which i can already definitely discredit even with my own experiments, but it doesnt talk about refraction, which is the only argument i have seen so far that has an element of potential.

Since you are new here:

Refraction works in what ever way needed for any observation made to give evidence for flat Earth. Light is really really bendy in most FE models.

Forget all you know and have observed about perspective.  It only works on a small scale when you get to something about 3,000 miles above your head or a ship going over the horizon things change.  Like the bottom of something disappearing first in some situations and not others even if nothing is obstructing the view of the bottom of the object.

Quote from: tun on September 06, 2016, 02:37:27 PM

the wiki page doesnt really seem to explain it. it talks about perspective, which i can already definitely discredit even with my own experiments, but it doesnt talk about refraction, which is the only argument i have seen so far that has an element of potential.

Since you are new here:

Refraction works in what ever way needed for any observation made to give evidence for flat Earth. Light is really really bendy in most FE models.

Forget all you know and have observed about perspective.  It only works on a small scale when you get to something about 3,000 miles above your head or a ship going over the horizon things change.  Like the bottom of something disappearing first in some situations and not others even if nothing is obstructing the view of the bottom of the object.

yea im starting to feel that way ive been trying to find something that will blow my mind for the last few days, but so far nothing has.
i have seen quite a few ideas that would work with a flat earth, but they also work with a round earth, so they do not count as evidence on either side. there are a couple of things that dont seem to work with a flat earth though, but im hoping that i have just missed something and can gather more evidence.

atm im going with round earth, but i REALLY want to be wrong.

perhaps the FE model could allow for a dome shape?

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2016, 02:11:01 PM

Perspective and refraction.  Have you read the wiki or the FAQ?

I think we've seen all that numerous times.
But,
Perspective makes things appear smaller. The sun's angular size does not change, see The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun.

Refraction in the atmosphere generally makes object appear higher, not lower and in any case it is quite impossible for the atmosphere to refract light the 20° or so needed to make the sun at a claimed 3,000 mile height reach the horizon.

And, the OP asked "how does the sun disappear behind the horizon?" That observation has never been explained.

Any more ideas?

You really are a one dog trick, are you not?  Do you think I want to argue with you in one hundred threads about the same thing?  Perhaps someone besides you might have an idea that makes sense, seeing as we have had at least a dozen discussions about the same thing and have never changed each other's minds?  What makes you think that someone wants to discuss the exact same thing with you in multiple threads at the same time?  Are you going to post your list next that everyone ignores in every thread that you post in? 

Quote from: rabinoz on September 06, 2016, 02:28:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2016, 02:11:01 PM

Perspective and refraction.  Have you read the wiki or the FAQ?

I think we've seen all that numerous times.
But,
Perspective makes things appear smaller. The sun's angular size does not change, see The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun.

Refraction in the atmosphere generally makes object appear higher, not lower and in any case it is quite impossible for the atmosphere to refract light the 20° or so needed to make the sun at a claimed 3,000 mile height reach the horizon.

And, the OP asked "how does the sun disappear behind the horizon?" That observation has never been explained.

Any more ideas?

You really are a one dog trick, are you not?  Do you think I want to argue with you in one hundred threads about the same thing?  Perhaps someone besides you might have an idea that makes sense, seeing as we have had at least a dozen discussions about the same thing and have never changed each other's minds?  What makes you think that someone wants to discuss the exact same thing with you in multiple threads at the same time?  Are you going to post your list next that everyone ignores in every thread that you post in?

You ask: "Do you think I want to argue with you in one hundred threads  about the same thing?"
Didn't your mother ever say to you "I've told you a million time not to exaggerate!"

The problem is that you won't discuss it on one thread simply because so far you seem to have no answer.

If you would answer the simple question I asked about "atmoplanic lensing" I just might, but as long as you have no answer I guess I have to keep asking.

I looked through all of you posts containing "atmoplanic lensing" and found no answer.
You ask if we know what lenses do, of course, we know what lenses do!

But do you know that lenses have curved surfaces and your term "atmoplanic lensing" certainly seems to say that YOU are claiming that plane surfaces can form a lens.

"And, the OP asked "how does the sun disappear behind the horizon?"

The atmoplane could not have a curve to it? 

The atmoplane could not have a curve to it?

No! The whole point about your "atmoplane" is that it is a "plane".

plane
noun

• a flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie.
  "the horizontal plane"
  synonyms:   flat surface, level surface

Have you lost your dictionary?

Sometimes "atmospheric lensing" can cause the sun to apparently a little higher or lower when near the horizon, but only by somewhere under a degree, never the 20° that would commonly be needed to explain your sun getting lose to the horizon.

But the whole point is that the atmosphere is curved around the globe.

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2016, 04:55:39 PM

The atmoplane could not have a curve to it?

No! The whole point about your "atmoplane" is that it is a "plane".

Quote

plane
noun

• a flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie.
  "the horizontal plane"
  synonyms:   flat surface, level surface

Have you lost your dictionary?

I laughed so hard, thanks Rabinoz.

The sun goes UNDER the horizon. There is simply no other explanation is you choose simple observation and ignore all the other evidence. If it goes below the horizon then then must infer that either we are on a flat disc with a sun that rotates around us or it rotates around a spherical earth. These are the only two explanations that fit the observation. The nonsense about perspective and vanishing point is just that - nonsense. But if it were a flat earth then we would all have basically the same time zone world-wide and so that eliminates that possibility. Ergo, the round earth is proven.

Now wait for the onslaught of silly ideas that require magic or an overturning of the entire body of physics to even be considered - and still fail.

 Maybe some of these types who claim here that they go by eyes and what they see is truth can explain how the thing we see (sun going below horizon) is not true?

Maybe some of these types who claim here that they go by eyes and what they see is truth can explain how the thing we see (sun going below horizon) is not true?

Their paranoid schizophrenia allows them to see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear (plus a whole lot of other voices) and makes them incapable of learning or logic.

The sun goes UNDER the horizon. There is simply no other explanation is you choose simple observation and ignore all the other evidence. If it goes below the horizon then then must infer that either we are on a flat disc with a sun that rotates around us or it rotates around a spherical earth.

We can test both of these theories easily.

1. It goes below the horizon then then must infer that we are on a flat disc:

People in the UK witness the sun disappear below the horizon.  We can contact people in America who can still see the sun in the sky.  This doesn't make sense as they should have witnessed the sun set, too.

2. or it rotates around a spherical earth:

People in the UK witness the sun disappear below the horizon.  We can contact people in America who can still see the sun in the sky.  This suggests that the Earth is round, without the need to trust NASA, any government, or anyone other than the friend you have abroad.

In short, you and I agree

The atmoplane could not have a curve to it?

The curve would have to be different for each and every observer, meaning that there would have to co-exist few billions of different curve patters of the entire sky, switching to match every single observer and knowing how to match every single observer's perspective.

Another nonsense ad-hoc argument failed.

so ive been looking into the refraction thing and it turns out it can in fact make the sun appear lower, so there is potential there, however it is not often that it happens this way, so the sun consistently doing this every day is very unlikely.

that is, assuming what ive read is correct

so ive been looking into the refraction thing and it turns out it can in fact make the sun appear lower, so there is potential there, however it is not often that it happens this way, so the sun consistently doing this every day is very unlikely.

that is, assuming what ive read is correct

The sinking Jorge only works for objects the same altitude or lower as the viewer. The atmosphere gets thinner as it goes up, which means that light from space always gets refracted upwards.

I don't know what a "sinking Jorge" is, but it would be a great name for a band!

Their paranoid schizophrenia makes them incapable of learning or logic.

You make me so very angry.

I hope you fall in a hole with your entire family and all your friends around, and none of them care enough  to get you out of the hole.

Quote from: fliggs on September 07, 2016, 12:52:27 AM

Their paranoid schizophrenia makes them incapable of learning or logic.

You make me so very angry.

I hope you fall in a hole with your entire family and all your friends around, and none of them care enough  to get you out of the hole.

If this guy is actually a practicing psychologist, I have lost faith in the entire mental health system.

Edit this is a Q and A sub forum not the debate or gaslighting section.

Gtfo of fes.

I don't know what a "sinking Jorge" is, but it would be a great name for a band!

Sinking mirage*

Typing from phone, and auto-correct messes it up.

If this guy is actually a practicing psychologist, I have lost faith in the entire mental health system

He's just using pathological psychology terms as a form of insult. I'm sure he isn't a practicing psychologist, but you still shouldn't have any faith in the mental health system.

Also, of note, if you ever read any evidence of a globe earth, that's just the light (which is on the conspiracy payroll) bending in such a way as to make the words seem like evidence of a globe earth.

Quote from: disputeone on September 08, 2016, 12:17:40 AM

If this guy is actually a practicing psychologist, I have lost faith in the entire mental health system

He's just using pathological psychology terms as a form of insult. I'm sure he isn't a practicing psychologist, but you still shouldn't have any faith in the mental health system.

Wise words indeed.