Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality

  • 122 Replies
  • 7278 Views
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2016, 06:59:24 PM »
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Can you give another example of that?  I've never seen a thing that would magnify the apparent size of something the farther it got away from you.  How exactly does that work?  I also don't see how it then dips below the horizon.  Also how then does the light strike the top of a mountain at sunrise and leave it last at sunset.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2016, 07:03:21 PM »
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Can you give another example of that?  I've never seen a thing that would magnify the apparent size of something the farther it got away from you.  How exactly does that work?  I also don't see how it then dips below the horizon.  Also how then does the light strike the top of a mountain at sunrise and leave it last at sunset.

yeah, basically the light from the sun is focused at a > 0 degree angle, as it refracts through the humidity in our atmosphere it creates this optical illusion as well as rainbows. This effect is described in much more detail from Tom Bishop. You'll need to use the search tool to find additional reading. Fascinating stuff really.

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2016, 07:08:46 PM »
Are you a troll? Seriously. This is Flat Earth Scientist territory you're treading. Next you'll say the moon is dirty mirror, right?

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2016, 07:13:23 PM »
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Can you give another example of that?  I've never seen a thing that would magnify the apparent size of something the farther it got away from you.  How exactly does that work?  I also don't see how it then dips below the horizon.  Also how then does the light strike the top of a mountain at sunrise and leave it last at sunset.

yeah, basically the light from the sun is focused at a > 0 degree angle, as it refracts through the humidity in our atmosphere it creates this optical illusion as well as rainbows. This effect is described in much more detail from Tom Bishop. You'll need to use the search tool to find additional reading. Fascinating stuff really.
Yeah, that really doesn't explain it at all.  We can build lenses, I work with lenses for things like spot lights and stuff quite frequently.  I've never heard of an example of a lense that makes its source look bigger as it gets farther away.  Certainly there are lenses that spread the light over a wider area as it gets farther away.  Also this by no means explain the sun disappearing over the horizon, or light hitting the top of the mountain first in an exactly predictable manner.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2016, 07:16:50 PM »
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Can you give another example of that?  I've never seen a thing that would magnify the apparent size of something the farther it got away from you.  How exactly does that work?  I also don't see how it then dips below the horizon.  Also how then does the light strike the top of a mountain at sunrise and leave it last at sunset.

yeah, basically the light from the sun is focused at a > 0 degree angle, as it refracts through the humidity in our atmosphere it creates this optical illusion as well as rainbows. This effect is described in much more detail from Tom Bishop. You'll need to use the search tool to find additional reading. Fascinating stuff really.
Yeah, that really doesn't explain it at all.  We can build lenses, I work with lenses for things like spot lights and stuff quite frequently.  I've never heard of an example of a lense that makes its source look bigger as it gets farther away.  Certainly there are lenses that spread the light over a wider area as it gets farther away.  Also this by no means explain the sun disappearing over the horizon, or light hitting the top of the mountain first in an exactly predictable manner.

Who said it gets bigger as it gets further away?

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2016, 07:20:11 PM »
OK.. We get it. You're a troll. Not even a good one.

*

sokarul

  • 17506
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2016, 07:23:57 PM »
There is a reason why he left for so long.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2016, 07:25:01 PM »
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.
That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller.  Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it.  In fact I can't really see what it does explain.

The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.
Can you give another example of that?  I've never seen a thing that would magnify the apparent size of something the farther it got away from you.  How exactly does that work?  I also don't see how it then dips below the horizon.  Also how then does the light strike the top of a mountain at sunrise and leave it last at sunset.

yeah, basically the light from the sun is focused at a > 0 degree angle, as it refracts through the humidity in our atmosphere it creates this optical illusion as well as rainbows. This effect is described in much more detail from Tom Bishop. You'll need to use the search tool to find additional reading. Fascinating stuff really.
Yeah, that really doesn't explain it at all.  We can build lenses, I work with lenses for things like spot lights and stuff quite frequently.  I've never heard of an example of a lense that makes its source look bigger as it gets farther away.  Certainly there are lenses that spread the light over a wider area as it gets farther away.  Also this by no means explain the sun disappearing over the horizon, or light hitting the top of the mountain first in an exactly predictable manner.

Who said it gets bigger as it gets further away?
Perhaps I was unclear.  Perspective shows us that as an object moves farther away it appears smaller, eventually disappearing.  The sun, and the moon for that matter, do not do this as they supposedly follow their path across the flat earth sky.  They are moving farther away but not shrinking.  You said this is because the sun is really a convex lense focusing the light of the stars.  In order for the sun to appear the same size the lense would have to increase the apparent size of the source.  Make it appear bigger as it moves away.  Otherwise it would appear smaller, like everything else I have ever seen does.
And it still does not address the sun falling behind the horizon or rising from it.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2016, 07:27:48 PM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2016, 07:32:21 PM »
I'm sorry, but "atmoplane" does not appear to be a real word, but rather made up. So logic would follow anything else with atmoplane in it would be made up as well.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2016, 07:36:06 PM »
General Relativity was just a made up term at one time.  Do you think you are smarter than Einstein?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2016, 07:37:21 PM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.

This is a very good point, I hope it doesn't get lost in all this noise.

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2016, 07:37:52 PM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2016, 07:39:35 PM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

I think it's the sun that will have to show you.

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #44 on: October 12, 2016, 07:52:06 PM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

I think it's the sun that will have to show you.
It does.  It shows that the earth is most certainly round.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #45 on: October 12, 2016, 07:54:32 PM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

I think it's the sun that will have to show you.
It does.  It shows that the earth is most certainly round.

Non sequitur

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #46 on: October 12, 2016, 08:18:36 PM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.

I'm pretty sure this has been asked a bajillion times, give or take, and you have never answered it, but here's hoping...

How do we take into account atmoplanic lensing when discussing the angular size of the sun? Why does it cause the sun to appear the same size? Can you show us the math?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #47 on: October 12, 2016, 08:37:44 PM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.

I'm pretty sure this has been asked a bajillion times, give or take, and you have never answered it, but here's hoping...

How do we take into account atmoplanic lensing when discussing the angular size of the sun? Why does it cause the sun to appear the same size? Can you show us the math?

It has been postulated that the atmoplanic lensing effect negates the change in angular size that one would expect due to perspective.  In this model, density changes in atmoplanic pressure combined with the natural curvature of the sky act similarly to a magnifying lens. 

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #48 on: October 12, 2016, 09:03:27 PM »
It has been postulated that the atmoplanic lensing effect negates the change in angular size that one would expect due to perspective. In this model, density changes in atmoplanic pressure combined with the natural curvature of the sky act similarly to a magnifying lens.

Ok, yes, I assumed it had to do with a lensing effect based on its name. You need to be more specific than that though. How does this magnifying effect allow it to be the same size no matter how far away it is? That isn't a normal property of any lens I have seen. (Hint: this is where you should start using math)


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #49 on: October 12, 2016, 09:30:13 PM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #50 on: October 12, 2016, 09:33:21 PM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

I think it's the sun that will have to show you.
It does.  It shows that the earth is most certainly round.

Non sequitur

Same as yours.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2016, 10:05:13 PM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2016, 10:08:15 PM by TotesReptilian »

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #52 on: October 12, 2016, 10:20:20 PM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #53 on: October 12, 2016, 10:44:13 PM »
My piece of paper caught fire..

Damn you jroa.

Maybe an indoor experiment then.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2016, 12:04:24 AM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!

Good job! Baby's first experiment! Next steps:

1. How precise were your measurements of the size of the text? Are you sure it was the same size, or did you just get lucky by testing a small range of scenarios?
2. Were other people also able to see the text as the same size from different angles and distances? Remember, this has to work from any direction/distance.

Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2016, 01:47:42 AM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.
Ok.  Show me how that works and how it explains sunsets

I think it's the sun that will have to show you.
It does.  It shows that the earth is most certainly round.

Non sequitur
Not at all.  It was a direct response to your statement.  It's the sun that will have to show you.  Every observable phenomenon of the sun shows me the earth is round.  Sunsets, sun rises, the way light hits the top of the mountain first and leaves it last.  The fact that the sun does not change shape throughout the day, it certainly doesn't get smaller as it dips below the horizon. All of these things show me the earth is round.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2016, 01:53:15 AM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!

Good job! Baby's first experiment! Next steps:

1. How precise were your measurements of the size of the text? Are you sure it was the same size, or did you just get lucky by testing a small range of scenarios?
2. Were other people also able to see the text as the same size from different angles and distances? Remember, this has to work from any direction/distance.

1.  I repeated the experiment.  This time I made a slight alteration.  I used two pieces of paper with the exact same font and viewed the exact same letter: a capitol E.  One piece was held against the lens and the other approximately 1 m away.  The lens remained at approximately 0.25 m.  I compared the E at 0.25 m to the one at 1 m, and to the naked eye, there was no discernible difference in apparent size between the two.  I then repeated it with the same papers and distances without the lens.  The farther letter appeared to be about half the width and height of the nearer letter.  I can try to repeat the experiment tonight and post a picture, but I do not have time this morning to mess with it. 

2.  I don't know what other people could have been able to see if anyone else had been there.  I was by myself at work. 

While this does not constitute as proof of anything, it does, at the least, show that atmoplanic lensing is optically not impossible. 

*

rabinoz

  • 26285
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2016, 03:18:09 AM »
We must also remember to take atmoplanic lensing into account when discussing the angular size of the sun at varying distances.

I'm pretty sure this has been asked a bajillion times, give or take, and you have never answered it, but here's hoping...

How do we take into account atmoplanic lensing when discussing the angular size of the sun? Why does it cause the sun to appear the same size? Can you show us the math?

It has been postulated that the atmoplanic lensing effect negates the change in angular size that one would expect due to perspective.  In this model, density changes in atmoplanic pressure combined with the natural curvature of the sky act similarly to a magnifying lens.

Are you joking there is no "the natural curvature of the sky" on the Flat Earth.

As you describe these layers, they are planar.

But any effect caused by the atmosphere would also vary with different atmospheric conditions. No such variation is observed, except close to the horizon,.

The sun stays the same size and the moon almost the same size every day (or night).

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39547
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2016, 09:51:42 AM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.
Except that most trig functions are not linear.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39547
Re: Round Earth Illusion vs Flat Earth Reality
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2016, 10:13:06 AM »
The effect of this lensing increases linearly as the viewing angle decreses.  You say you want me to teach you math, but this is simply high school level trig that you can easily look up online.

I know that it MUST increase linearly, in order for it to counter perspective. Yes, I can do the math in order to come up with the necessary magnification based on distance. That's not the point.

Mathematically, I know what this lens NEEDS to do. I just don't know of any type of lens that is ABLE to do it. You need to show that there is a type of lens that is capable of producing this effect, either mathematically or empirically. This lens must be able to:

1. Increase magnification linearly with distance.
2. Produce this effect no matter where you are on the day-side of earth.
3. Produce this effect regardless of weather, as long as the sun is visible.

I just performed an experiment.  I got a magnifying lens, held a piece of paper against it and noted the apparent size of the text on the paper.  I then slowly moved the paper away from the lens while keeping the lens and my eye relatively still and observed the apparent size of  the text the entire distance.  Results: with the lens about 0.25 m from my eye, moving the paper from against the lens to full arms length, the apparent size of the text hardly changed. 

You can repeat this experiment yourself to see if you get the same results.  It's Science!
Except that it isn't anywhere close to observing the sun as it moves across the sky.

First of all, a magnifying glass is a convex lens, the atmoplane is flat.

Secondly, as the sun moves across the sky, the angle to the observer constantly changes.  Your "experiment" did not include that.

Thirdly, I have a hard time believing that the text didn't go in and out of focus as you moved the paper away from the magnifying glass.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.