Sunsets on FE explained

Thought I would share this, N1 Rob Skiba

• Right at the start he claims that there is a huge amount of water in the atmosphere, which seems true when you look at his reference:
  The USGS Water Science School, The Water Cycle: Water Storage in the Atmosphere, The atmosphere is full of water.
  
  But, look at the numbers:
  That reference gives the water volume as 12,900 cubic kilometers on close to 1.29 x 10¹³ metric tonnes - the number looks huge, BUT
  you must compare it with the total mass of the atmosphere!
  This reference The Physics Factbook, Mass of the Atmosphere gives the mass of the atmosphere as 5.3 × 10¹⁵ metric tonnes.
  
  This makes the average water content of the atmosphere only 0.24%, not quite the massive amount the Rob Skiba would have us believe.
  
  
• He claims that there is so much water in the air that it refract light enough to bend the light enough to make the sun appear to set,
  and to magnify the sun so that the sun appears to stay exactly the same size as it moves away and sets.
  
  As you can see from above, when you look at the relative mass of water and atmosphere, Rob Skiba's claim is pure rubbish.
  
  
• He claims to have video of a building taken from 0.6 miles and 46 miles, with the more distant one appearing later because of "atmospheric magnification"! Here is a screenshot from it:
  
  
  Photo same building from 0.6 miles and 46 miles away
  Now Rob Skiba does not explicitly say anything about the lens focal lengths used or the distances to the car in each image,but he clearly implies that we can judge the relative sizes from his pictures.
  As far as I am concerned his images are completely deceptive, whether intentional or not I can't judge.
  Without knowing details of the lens used there is no way to compare sizes.
  

Obviously the more moisture there is in the air, the larger the potential magnification would be.  Likewise when there is less (or no) atmosphere in the air,  you would observe the sun or moon getting smaller as the set (as we have seen in other videos).

Quote from: Silicon on January 23, 2017, 10:50:15 PM

Thought I would share this, N1 Rob Skiba

You list the points so that we can discuss them. I'm not going to virtually transcribe a video to debunk it.

I looked quickly through the video.

• Right at the start he claims that there is a huge amount of water in the atmosphere, which seems true when you look at his reference:
  The USGS Water Science School, The Water Cycle: Water Storage in the Atmosphere, The atmosphere is full of water.
  
  But, look at the numbers:
  That reference gives the water volume as 12,900 cubic kilometers on close to 1.29 x 10¹³ metric tonnes - the number looks huge, BUT
  you must compare it with the total mass of the atmosphere!
  This reference The Physics Factbook, Mass of the Atmosphere gives the mass of the atmosphere as 5.3 × 10¹⁵ metric tonnes.
  
  This makes the average water content of the atmosphere only 0.24%, not quite the massive amount the Rob Skiba would have us believe.
  
  

Maybe a Silicon Man could stomach Rob Skiba's errors, but II'm afraid an ordinary human being would choke!

Rob Skiba is a well known idiot.

  Why do people think that moisture in the atmosphere magnifies anything?  Do these people even know how magnification works?

Quote from: markjo on January 24, 2017, 06:31:13 AM

  Why do people think that moisture in the atmosphere magnifies anything?  Do these people even know how magnification works?

  Fill a clear glass with water (dense moisture). Put an object behind it. See magnification of object.

Why don't you show us some numbers that account for the atmosphere water density that is close to the earth and not just take a totality.  Very deceiving of you.

Atmosphere of Earth
By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

From Wikipedia, Atmosphere of Earth.

from Saturated Vapor Pressure, Density for Water

• The refractive index for air is 1.000292 and for water vapour is 1.000256, slight LESS than AIR!
  From NPL, Tables of Physical Constants, General physics, Radiation and optics, Refractive index of gases.
  
  
• And the real killer! Atmospheric refraction, all half a degree of it, bends light the wrong way! It raises the apparent sun.

Goodness...  Someone is a little moody.

Rab, I still believe what Skiba has shown to be close to the truth.  Maybe we shouldn't worry about how much water vapor refracts light...and be more concerned with nitrogen, or the air itself.

Astronomical refraction
Astronomical refraction deals with the angular position of celestial bodies, their appearance as a point source, and through differential refraction, the shape of extended bodies such as the Sun and Moon.

Atmospheric refraction of the light from a star is zero in the zenith, less than 1′ (one arc-minute) at 45° apparent altitude, and still only 5.3′ at 10° altitude; it quickly increases as altitude decreases, reaching 9.9′ at 5° altitude, 18.4′ at 2° altitude, and 35.4′ at the horizon;
. . . . . . . . . . .
On the horizon refraction is slightly greater than the apparent diameter of the Sun, so when the bottom of the sun's disc appears to touch the horizon, the sun's true altitude is negative. If the atmosphere suddenly vanished, the sun would too. By convention, sunrise and sunset refer to times at which the Sun’s upper limb appears on or disappears from the horizon and the standard value for the Sun’s true altitude is −50′: −34′ for the refraction and −16′ for the Sun’s semi-diameter. The altitude of a celestial body is normally given for the center of the body’s disc. In the case of the Moon, additional corrections are needed for the Moon’s horizontal parallax and its apparent semi-diameter; both vary with the Earth–Moon distance.

More in Wikipedia, Astronomical Refraction

"The refractivity of water vapour is less than that of air, so that if the air is moist its refractive index will be smaller than the value calculated for dry air."

http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_5/2_5_7.html

• Atmospheric refraction makes the apparent sun higher than the real sun, not lower as would be needed to make the FE sun appear to set.
  
  
• The atmospheric refraction at the horizon is normally about 0.5°, but is quite variable and 2° has been reported, but not verified.
  

From Atmospheric Refraction Applet

Rab, the charts and data you give only make sense if the earth was round, which it is not.

What is happening is the sun / moon are moving away from the observer across a flat plane, which causes someone to view these celestial bodies through denser atmosphere.  This increases the refraction of light and magnification of their image. 

Both the shrinking of the sun / moon moving away due to human perspective and also magnification of these objects from the atmosphere lead to a result of whatever you see on a given day. 

For example here in Houston where I live, the humidity is outrageous, so the moon on the horizon is more often times than not, quite enormous. As it moves across the sky the moon becomes smaller.   Science tells us this is due to some kind of optical illusion, however, that is bullshit.

Looking forward to more charts and graphs of your fictitious ball, which have no bearing on reality.

Quote from: Silicon on January 26, 2017, 08:21:04 PM

Rab, the charts and data you give only make sense if the earth was round, which it is not.

Now, that is the question, isn't it?
But the data on refractive index of air and water vapour and the fraction of water in the atmos(whatever) are simply measured physical quantities on the earth we live on flat or spherical.
Why do you think things like refractive index would be different on your earth?

Quote from: Silicon

What is happening is the sun / moon are moving away from the observer across a flat plane, which causes someone to view these celestial bodies through denser atmosphere.  This increases the refraction of light and magnification of their image. 

On a Globe or flat earth the sun is viewed through a larger thickness of dense atmosphere as it sets. More for the Globe in fact, as the real sun sinks below the horizon. For the flat earth in most places, the real sun can never fall below about 15° above the horizon at sunset.

In any case, the amount refraction is determined not the thickness of material, but by the difference in refractive indices.
As we saw before the refractive index of damp air is not significantly different from dry air. The main cause of changes in refractive index are temperature and pressure.

In any case the refractive index of air is so low that, except in extreme circumstances, sunlight at the horizon can only be refracted by about 0.5° and in the wrong direction to help explain sunset on a flat earth.

Then to get magnification you need curved surfaces - on a flat earth?

Quote from: Silicon

Both the shrinking of the sun / moon moving away due to human perspective and also magnification of these objects from the atmosphere lead to a result of whatever you see on a given day. 

The sun's size does not change perceptibly during the day.
You might look at the photos in Flat Earth Q&A / Re: distance to the sun « on: January 25, 2017, 02:29:22 PM », from a video by an ardent Flat Earther, I might add!
Likewise, the apparent size of the moon can increase by up to 2% from the horizon to overhead, but that's not enough to by perceptible.

Quote from: Silicon

For example here in Houston where I live, the humidity is outrageous, so the moon on the horizon is more often times than not, quite enormous. As it moves across the sky the moon becomes smaller.   Science tells us this is due to some kind of optical illusion, however, that is bullshit.

Funny moon you have in Houston, here the change in size of the in not noticeable to the unaided eye. I suggest you look again!
In the meantime this post has photos I took Flat Earth Debate / The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon « Message by rabinoz on September 19, 2016, 01:16:05 PM »

All I have seen is that the moon can appear larger near the horizon and objects with which we can compare it's visual size.
National Geographic, Why the Moon Looks Bigger Near the Horizon

Quote from: Silicon

Looking forward to more charts and graphs of your fictitious ball, which have no bearing on reality.

Maybe you should show what refractive indices you are using, but please remember that all I quoted are measured values on the only earth we have.

Still, I cannot argue with "Flat Earth Physics", which clearly differ from "Real Earth Physics" in your universe.

. . . . . . . . . . . .
I think there are many variables of play, type of light. Moon light/ Sunlight, Temp, Pressure, Air Quality etc.   

I believe the refractive index of air when it is stacked for many miles at sea level may be significant enough to provide a magnification effect on a general basis.  Really the only way you would notice is to film with proper equipment at higher altitudes.

Also your eyeball is round is it not?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

The sun's size does not change perceptibly during the day.
You might look at the photos in Flat Earth Q&A / Re: distance to the sun « on: January 25, 2017, 02:29:22 PM », from a video by an ardent Flat Earther, I might add!
Likewise, the apparent size of the moon can increase by up to 2% from the horizon to overhead, but that's not enough to by perceptible.

I'm not going to call you deceitful again, but you definitely leave out a lot to be desired in your replies.  For example here, what video are you referring to in this thread?  Its not this video that definitely shows the sun shrinking:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69043.msg1862880#msg1862880

Quote from: rabinoz on January 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

Quote from: Silicon

For example here in Houston where I live, the humidity is outrageous, so the moon on the horizon is more often times than not, quite enormous. As it moves across the sky the moon becomes smaller.   Science tells us this is due to some kind of optical illusion, however, that is bullshit.

Funny moon you have in Houston, here the change in size of the in not noticeable to the unaided eye. I suggest you look again!
In the meantime this post has photos I took Flat Earth Debate / The Constancy of Angular Size of the Moon « Message by rabinoz on September 19, 2016, 01:16:05 PM »

All I have seen is that the moon can appear larger near the horizon and objects with which we can compare it's visual size.
National Geographic, Why the Moon Looks Bigger Near the Horizon

Yes I'm quite aware of this nonsense from National Geographic.   What is happening in this video Rab?  Are you claiming this video is fake or some kind of mind illusion?

Ha!

I'm not going to call you deceitful again, but you definitely leave out a lot to be desired in your replies.  For example here, what video are you referring to in this thread?  Its not this video that definitely shows the sun shrinking:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69043.msg1862880#msg1862880

Yes I'm quite aware of this nonsense from National Geographic.   What is happening in this video Rab?  Are you claiming this video is fake or some kind of mind illusion?

We could go round and round on this so....

1) What specific filter and or camera/settings would be acceptable for me to video the sun/moon, to show changing size being the only possible explanation, if changing size does indeed occur.
2) Using said filter, would you agree that any change in size of sun/moon at any position, or angle would disprove the round earth.

If the earth is indeed a ball, you should feel pretty safe answering #1 with specifics and #2 with a "Yes I agree"

(1) May 24, 2016 19:36 EAST Alt 6.3°, Az 107.7°,  size  0.52°

(2) May 24, 2016 at 20:16 EAST Alt 14.5°, Az 103.6°,  size  0.52°

(3) May 24, 2016 at 20:57 EAST Alt 23.1°, Az  99.6°,  size  0.52°

(5) May 24, 2016 at 22:16 EAST Alt 37.8°, Az  92.7°,  size  0.52°

(6) June 21, 2916 at 23.12 EAST, Strawberry Moon+1, Alt 67.1°, Azm 70.8°,  size  0.53°

(7) May 19, 2016 at 22:08 EAST Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.52°

(8) June 20, 2916 at 23:38 EAST, Strawberry Full Moon Alt 80.2°, Azm 23.4°,  size  0.52°

Oct 16, 2016 - Full Perigee Moon - just a fill in!

We could go round and round on this so....


1) What specific filter and or camera/settings would be acceptable for me to video the sun/moon, to show changing size being the only possible explanation, if changing size does indeed occur.
2) Using said filter, would you agree that any change in size of sun/moon at any position, or angle would disprove the round earth.

If the earth is indeed a ball, you should feel pretty safe answering #1 with specifics and #2 with a "Yes I agree"

We could go round and round on this so....


1) What specific filter and or camera/settings would be acceptable for me to video the sun/moon, to show changing size being the only possible explanation, if changing size does indeed occur.
2) Using said filter, would you agree that any change in size of sun/moon at any position, or angle would disprove the round earth.

If the earth is indeed a ball, you should feel pretty safe answering #1 with specifics and #2 with a "Yes I agree"

You really think no one in the last 5,000 years has noticed the sun or moon change size significantly from sunrise to directly overhead?

If I had listened to you then I would have never found the discrepancy which proved the globe earth sun setting time did not reflect reality.

Quote

If I had listened to you then I would have never found the discrepancy which proved the globe earth sun setting time did not reflect reality.

could you please link me to that?