The Horizon On A Flat Earth

You and Rabinoz are saying that even if gravity was causing light to fall, that it would actually make the sun appear higher, not lower.
I'm going to have to think that over, and get back to you.

Yes. Say the light from the sun shoots off to the side, and then gravity causes it to fall bending its path downwards.
This means the light from the sun will reach you from an angle higher than that for the actual position of the sun.

Here is a picture:

The straight lines indicate roughly normal light, travelling in a straight line (Earth's gravity isn't enough to cause any significant distortion).
The curved lines represent the light being pulled down by gravity, showing that to view the object, you need to look higher than you would if gravity didn't bend the light, which would thus make the sun appear even higher in the sky, making the FE case even harder and instead requiring an even greater curve of Earth.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 12, 2017, 04:06:05 PM

You and Rabinoz are saying that even if gravity was causing light to fall, that it would actually make the sun appear higher, not lower.
I'm going to have to think that over, and get back to you.

Yes. Say the light from the sun shoots off to the side, and then gravity causes it to fall bending its path downwards.
This means the light from the sun will reach you from an angle higher than that for the actual position of the sun.

Here is a picture:

The straight lines indicate roughly normal light, travelling in a straight line (Earth's gravity isn't enough to cause any significant distortion).
The curved lines represent the light being pulled down by gravity, showing that to view the object, you need to look higher than you would if gravity didn't bend the light, which would thus make the sun appear even higher in the sky, making the FE case even harder and instead requiring an even greater curve of Earth.

You've definitely given me food for thought.
I'll get back to you on this and other things.

You've definitely given me food for thought.
I'll get back to you on this and other things.

Glad I could help, and glad you are actually thinking about it.

The Horizon On A Flat Earth:

If the earth was flat, the only place where the horizon would be would be at the edge of the disc, where the land at the  top of the ice wall meets the sky at the bottom of the bottom of the dome.
The horizon would only be seen near the edge of the disc.
Farther away from the edge, the horizon would not be seen due to the density of the atmoplane.
All that would be seen would be a blur in all directions.
On the other hand.......If the atmoplane was perfectly clear, the horizon could be seen from any place on a flat earth with a powerful enough telescope, but the horizon would always be only at the edge of a flat earth.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 13, 2017, 04:33:16 AM

You've definitely given me food for thought.
I'll get back to you on this and other things.

Glad I could help, and glad you are actually thinking about it.

Hold on, did we just get a flat earther to think about and semi take on our point of view, if so bloody well done mate, and Anti, welcome to the light

Quote from: Piesigma on April 12, 2017, 09:59:02 AM

Quote from: Canadabear on April 12, 2017, 09:03:27 AM

Quote from: Piesigma on April 12, 2017, 08:46:42 AM

...

I have been studying Samuel Rcboatman's perspective diagrams and they are not making sense to me why things disappear from the bottom up.  Please help.

if something make no sense, do you thought about it that the earth is really not flat?

why do you think in the first place that the earth is flat, what evidence did you saw to get to this conclusion?

It might just be much much more complicated than my understanding allows at this moment.  I'm always learning.  I'm not so sure it is flat anymore now that I can't figure this out.  This is why I am asking for Physical Observer's help to explain.

Reasons like the physics of flat and level water seeking the lowest point and staying calm on an allegedly 1000 mph spinning ball (yeah right).  Try spinning a merry-go-round at 1000 mph with a bucket of water on there and see where the water goes. 

Besides, if the earth were round then you would see the curve of earth from side to side along the horizon.  If you were to follow that curve while turning around you would end up at a point lower in height or altitude than where you started, therefore your elevation would decrease just by spinning your body around while following the curve of the horizon.  My elevation does not decrease just by looking left or right or spinning around (how absurd is that?), therefore the earth cannot be round.

Piesigma, think about these things regarding the Sun:

If the diameter of the flat Earth is 25,000, then the half that's lit must have a radius of 12,500 miles. A "spotlight Sun" centered in that half must be shining in a circle half of that, about 6,250 miles. FE often places the Sun 3,000 miles up. The radius of the cone of light and the altitude of the Sun make a right triangle. Using the inverse tangent function, the Sun must always be at about 29 degrees or higher. Not sure about trigonometry? Try drawing a right triangle with one side three cm (or inches--won't matter) and the other about 6.25. The smallest of the three angles would be about right. Does the Sun ever appear lower than that? If so, then the FE model can't work. Now try to make sense of this:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.oregonlive.com/articles/18063481/a_second_rare_shadow_sunrise_b.amp

The only way the shadow can be above the mountain is if the light source is below. The Sun is about to rise in the photo, but it is already casting a shadow--of the mountain on the cloud! Follow the edge of the shadow back to the Sun. That Sun is not 3,000 miles above the 15,000 ft mountain. It's "below" it (shining from a very low angle--below level).

Jonny B Smart.  That would seem to make some sense about the spotlight sun and the angles and such but I haven’t done the math myself.  Also, I would not know how to explain the shadow on the clouds.   The actual reason could be some very very advanced FE theory that explains all this for all I know.  I’ll have to search youtube for video or google pics for some proof.   
I would like to see what Physical Observer has to say addressing these points you have made?  I wish he would chime in on this stuff cuz I’m getting nervous that it will appear that I am losing ground with the arguments I started with some colleagues and need help winning them.
That being said, I have come to realize that what I said earlier about the horizon is silly.  You can’t change your elevation just by spinning your body around on a surface simply because you are following the horizon while doing so, it has nothing to do with the horizon you are looking at.  I must regrettably admit that a horizon would appear flat on a round object unless Physical Observer has any words of wisdom here.
I still don’t see how the Earth could rotate even if it is round due to the physics of water being flat and level and so calm but that is a topic for another thread. 

unless Physical Observer has any words of wisdom here.

That's not likely, is it

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 12, 2017, 08:56:42 PM

Quote from: Piesigma on April 12, 2017, 09:59:02 AM

Quote from: Canadabear on April 12, 2017, 09:03:27 AM

Quote from: Piesigma on April 12, 2017, 08:46:42 AM

...

I have been studying Samuel Rcboatman's perspective diagrams and they are not making sense to me why things disappear from the bottom up.  Please help.

if something make no sense, do you thought about it that the earth is really not flat?

why do you think in the first place that the earth is flat, what evidence did you saw to get to this conclusion?

It might just be much much more complicated than my understanding allows at this moment.  I'm always learning.  I'm not so sure it is flat anymore now that I can't figure this out.  This is why I am asking for Physical Observer's help to explain.

Reasons like the physics of flat and level water seeking the lowest point and staying calm on an allegedly 1000 mph spinning ball (yeah right).  Try spinning a merry-go-round at 1000 mph with a bucket of water on there and see where the water goes. 

Besides, if the earth were round then you would see the curve of earth from side to side along the horizon.  If you were to follow that curve while turning around you would end up at a point lower in height or altitude than where you started, therefore your elevation would decrease just by spinning your body around while following the curve of the horizon.  My elevation does not decrease just by looking left or right or spinning around (how absurd is that?), therefore the earth cannot be round.

Piesigma, think about these things regarding the Sun:

If the diameter of the flat Earth is 25,000, then the half that's lit must have a radius of 12,500 miles. A "spotlight Sun" centered in that half must be shining in a circle half of that, about 6,250 miles. FE often places the Sun 3,000 miles up. The radius of the cone of light and the altitude of the Sun make a right triangle. Using the inverse tangent function, the Sun must always be at about 29 degrees or higher. Not sure about trigonometry? Try drawing a right triangle with one side three cm (or inches--won't matter) and the other about 6.25. The smallest of the three angles would be about right. Does the Sun ever appear lower than that? If so, then the FE model can't work. Now try to make sense of this:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.oregonlive.com/articles/18063481/a_second_rare_shadow_sunrise_b.amp

The only way the shadow can be above the mountain is if the light source is below. The Sun is about to rise in the photo, but it is already casting a shadow--of the mountain on the cloud! Follow the edge of the shadow back to the Sun. That Sun is not 3,000 miles above the 15,000 ft mountain. It's "below" it (shining from a very low angle--below level).

Jonny B Smart.  That would seem to make some sense about the spotlight sun and the angles and such but I haven’t done the math myself.  Also, I would not know how to explain the shadow on the clouds.   The actual reason could be some very very advanced FE theory that explains all this for all I know.  I’ll have to search youtube for video or google pics for some proof.   
I would like to see what Physical Observer has to say addressing these points you have made?  I wish he would chime in on this stuff cuz I’m getting nervous that it will appear that I am losing ground with the arguments I started with some colleagues and need help winning them.
That being said, I have come to realize that what I said earlier about the horizon is silly.  You can’t change your elevation just by spinning your body around on a surface simply because you are following the horizon while doing so, it has nothing to do with the horizon you are looking at.  I must regrettably admit that a horizon would appear flat on a round object unless Physical Observer has any words of wisdom here.
I still don’t see how the Earth could rotate even if it is round due to the physics of water being flat and level and so calm but that is a topic for another thread.

"Advanced FE theory" is super-convoluted nonsense that only makes sense while you're stoned (if then--wouldn't know, but it sure sounds like it).

Here's an article about a similar mountain doing the same thing:

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html?m=1

Here is the same mountain again. Notice the comments: "only the top third of the mountain due to curvature."

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/4j1ta0/til_mount_rainier_is_visible_from_vancouver_which/

Here is the same mountain again. Notice the comments: "only the top third of the mountain due to curvature."

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/4j1ta0/til_mount_rainier_is_visible_from_vancouver_which/

Where in Vancouver that Rainier can be seen from This photo is, of course, taken from a much higher altitude.

You can see an unobstructed view of Vancouver's skyline from the mountains of Vancouver island up to 145km northwest of downtown. The Olympic mountains in Washington State are 150+km, but have a partly obscured view due to the hill that the city of Vancouver is located. But the 280km view from Mt Rainier to Metrotown is hands-down the winner.

In conclusion, from Mt Rainier, one can actually see any building taller than ~80m in Burnaby's Metrotown.

From Furthest your city's skyline can be seen from?

It is worth noting that this 280 km view is through very clear air, much of it at high altitude in much less dense and clearer than at sea-level.

Quote from: Antithecyst on April 12, 2017, 04:06:05 PM

You and Rabinoz are saying that even if gravity was causing light to fall, that it would actually make the sun appear higher, not lower.
I'm going to have to think that over, and get back to you.

Yes. Say the light from the sun shoots off to the side, and then gravity causes it to fall bending its path downwards.
This means the light from the sun will reach you from an angle higher than that for the actual position of the sun.

Here is a picture:

The straight lines indicate roughly normal light, travelling in a straight line (Earth's gravity isn't enough to cause any significant distortion).
The curved lines represent the light being pulled down by gravity, showing that to view the object, you need to look higher than you would if gravity didn't bend the light, which would thus make the sun appear even higher in the sky, making the FE case even harder and instead requiring an even greater curve of Earth.

Does a light wave have enough mass to be affected by the magical force of gravity? I know light can bend going through water, do you think that is what is happening in your light wave animation?

Does a light wave have enough mass to be affected by the magical force of gravity? I know light can bend going through water, do you think that is what is happening in your light wave animation?

It doesn't need mass to be affected by the completely natural and real force of gravity. It needs mass to effect other objects via gravity.

If you bothered reading, I was pointing out that gravity bending light doesn't help FEers.

In reality, it doesn't bend significantly at all for Earth.

Quote from: Piesigma on April 12, 2017, 08:46:42 AM

...

Quote from: Piesigma on April 12, 2017, 08:46:42 AM

It might just be much much more complicated than my understanding allows at this moment. 
...
The actual reason could be some very very advanced FE theory that explains all this for all I know. 

"Advanced FE theory" is super-convoluted nonsense that only makes sense while you're stoned (if then--wouldn't know, but it sure sounds like it).

Here's an article about a similar mountain doing the same thing:

http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html?m=1

I agree, lol.  I was trying to be ridiculous

Guys guys guys, just had a thought, anyone here who has studied medium level physics likely would have seen diffraction gratings and Young's Double Slit, can you imagine a FE trying to explain that

Oh lord no.  Size relationship is near impossible and simple algebra is too hard for most of them.