The sun, right triangles, and the problem with perspective

  • 36 Replies
  • 8306 Views
*

Mikey T.

  • 3546
  • +0/-1
Re: The sun, right triangles, and the problem with perspective
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2017, 06:39:35 PM »
Point, set, Match.  Rab wins this one.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: The sun, right triangles, and the problem with perspective
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2017, 06:55:16 PM »
Silicon, how about addressing what we have already brought up before bringing up more crap?
The sun emits light, it does not reflect it, there is a difference.
Not really. That would only be the case if you were comparing it to an object being illuminated by a point source near you, where it can fade as it gets distant much faster, rather than being iluminated by the sun (or being a source of light itself) which means its luminosity remains the same.

See, as it emits light, it can cause glare, where it appears larger than it is, it also means rather than simply shrinking to nothing, it needs to fade so it is no longer brighter than its surroundings. That means you should always be able to see the sun on a flat Earth, but you can't.

So all of RAB's building, and ships behind the curve does not apply.
No. That does still apply.
It clearly indicates a curve.

There is the long explanation for what is really happening in these cases but the simplest way you know, is because of the 'supposed' curve itself.
Yes, the simplest explanation which actually makes sense and matches reality, there is a curve.

Think about it.  He is showing you videos of 190 M buildings hidden behind a curve under 30 miles away at sea level.  If this were true then being 19 miles in the air should reveal enormous drop off in terms of curvature, and the horizon would make an extreme drop from eye level.
No. It wouldn't.

As you go higher up, the horizon gets further away, and while there is a drop off, it is quite small.
Being 30 km in the air (why must you guys always use miles), the angle of depression to the horizon is only a mere 5.5 degrees. That is quite dificult to detect by eye, especially when you are in a plane or the like.

There is no way around this. They try to have it both ways however, dozens of amateur balloons, rockets, and other video always show the flat horizon at eye level, no matter how high you go.
That's right, there is no way around this, there is a curve, perspective doesn't make the sun set.

The rockets do not show the horizon is flat at eye level. However ametuers with theodite apps on their phone show that even by going to the top of a tall building, the horizon is below eye level.

If you claim you have evidnece of the horizon being at eye level, even at high altitudes, feel free to provide it. 

Now the sun is magnified at ground level as it recedes into the distance, due to atmosphere conditions which shows little to no shrinkage.  A common example of this is pictures or observing vehicle traffic.  You will notice the lights the furtherest away are larger than those closer to the observer and often times the left and right lights blend together.
No, they don't.
The further away they are, the smaller they are.
When they are different you are likely looking at different vehicles with different lights, or you are percieving multiple lights as one.

There are plenty of videos available showing the sun does shrink as it recedes away.  Mostly these are timelapses from dry areas, or in higher altitudes.
Which completely ignore glare and thus don't bother with a solar gilter to remove the glare. As such, their results are useless. 

Just my opinion. Keep asking questions and good luck.
Here is one for you, got any comment on the modified picture of the brick wall I posted? The one showing what the sun would do? How it should remain quite high in the sky?

?

Silicon

  • 609
  • +0/-0
Re: The sun, right triangles, and the problem with perspective
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2017, 07:06:35 PM »
Point, set, Match.  Rab wins this one.

OK, no need for me to respond and destroy his arguments then.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: The sun, right triangles, and the problem with perspective
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2017, 07:08:53 PM »
Point, set, Match.  Rab wins this one.

OK, no need for me to respond and destroy his arguments then.
How about you respond to the picture of the brick wall plotting the path of the sun?

?

Silicon

  • 609
  • +0/-0
Re: The sun, right triangles, and the problem with perspective
« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2017, 07:12:14 PM »
Point, set, Match.  Rab wins this one.

OK, no need for me to respond and destroy his arguments then.
How about you respond to the picture of the brick wall plotting the path of the sun?

I did.

?

Silicon

  • 609
  • +0/-0
Re: The sun, right triangles, and the problem with perspective
« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2017, 09:36:57 PM »
The sun emits light, it does not reflect it, there is a difference.  So all of RAB's building, and ships behind the curve does not apply.
Rubbish! Reflected light and emitted light are all light leaving the surface of the object. The only difference is in the intensity.

But if you want reflected light, the moon appears to do exactly the same thing.

The following photos show the moon at quite different altitudes, and all almost the same size!

...

Any explanations as to how this might be possible with the flat earth model of the moon's motion?

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard from you.  Do you even think about anything before posting?

Last time I checked we were talking about the sun.  Are you having trouble saying focused?  Are you suggesting your table with moon pics proves anything?  I think you and I have been through this and I posted a very definitive time lapse of the moon shrinking or growing if memory serves me correctly.



Quote from: Silicon
There is the long explanation for what is really happening in these cases but the simplest way you know, is because of the 'supposed' curve itself.  Think about it.  He is showing you videos of 190 M buildings hidden behind a curve under 30 miles away at sea level.  If this were true then being 19 miles in the air should reveal enormous drop off in terms of curvature, and the horizon would make an extreme drop from eye level.
Where did the "19 miles in the air" come from? But, that's no problem!
From 19 miles high the horizon would be almost 390 miles away and the angle down to the horizon about 5.6° below eye-level.
Show me any balloon photos where you could measure that sort of angle.

19 miles is roughly 100k ft.  Many amateur balloons go this high.  You cannot say that curvature is 'visible' (hiding ships hulls) several miles out and then at the same time say that curvature is not visible 19 miles in the air.  The earth cannot be a sphere. It's very simple.

Quote from: Silicon
  There is no way around this. They try to have it both ways however, dozens of amateur balloons, rockets, and other video always shows the flat horizon at eye level, no matter how high you go. 
Show me photos from this sort of altitude that "shows the flat horizon at eye level". None I have seen have lenses that do not distort.



What's ironic is they claim the curve is in the background at 65k feet.  No, its not, as you can see from the level adjusted screenshot below (at the highest point of 108k ft)



Quote from: Silicon
Now the sun is magnified at ground level as it recedes into the distance, due to atmosphere conditions which shows little to no shrinkage.  A common example of this is pictures or observing vehicle traffic.  You will notice the lights the furtherest away are larger than those closer to the observer and often times the left and right lights blend together.
No, you claim without any foundation that
"the sun is magnified at ground level as it recedes into the distance, due to atmosphere conditions which shows little to no shrinkage"

Then you try to use glare as the excuse! Glare causes a "fuzz" around the light, in clear conditions, the setting sun does not show that!
           

You're right, in clearer conditions, the sun shrinks









Quote from: Silicon
There are plenty of videos available showing the sun does shrink as it recedes away.  Mostly these are timelapses from dry areas, or in higher altitudes. 

Just my opinion. Keep asking questions and good luck.
So first you explain why the sun does not shrink, then claim evidence that it does?

Would you please show these "videos available showing the sun does shrink as it recedes away" and please don't thry to palm off any with glare making the sun look bigger when it is brighter!
Metabunk, Time Lapse Video of Sunset
This sort of thing! It's not on YouTube, just a link to a ".mov" file.

See above, and here is one with a filter.  And we usually end this with me asking what a proper filter is and you disappearing.


« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 09:39:54 PM by Silicon »

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: The sun, right triangles, and the problem with perspective
« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2017, 11:23:57 PM »
Point, set, Match.  Rab wins this one.

OK, no need for me to respond and destroy his arguments then.
How about you respond to the picture of the brick wall plotting the path of the sun?

I did.

No. You didn't.
Here is the post to remind you:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70239.msg1896809#msg1896809

I took the picture you provided and showed the path of the sun over time, showing how it wouldn't drop below the horizon or come close to the vanishing point.
You are yet to respond to it.

The sun emits light, it does not reflect it, there is a difference.  So all of RAB's building, and ships behind the curve does not apply.
Rubbish! Reflected light and emitted light are all light leaving the surface of the object. The only difference is in the intensity.

But if you want reflected light, the moon appears to do exactly the same thing.

The following photos show the moon at quite different altitudes, and all almost the same size!

...

Any explanations as to how this might be possible with the flat earth model of the moon's motion?

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard from you.  Do you even think about anything before posting?

Last time I checked we were talking about the sun.  Are you having trouble saying focused?  Are you suggesting your table with moon pics proves anything?  I think you and I have been through this and I posted a very definitive time lapse of the moon shrinking or growing if memory serves me correctly.
There is nothing ridiculous about it at all.
They both work in quite similar ways.
They are both quite bright and both shine light quite a distance, and both do not appear to change size throughout the day.

I assume your memory doesn't serve you correctly.


Quote from: Silicon
There is the long explanation for what is really happening in these cases but the simplest way you know, is because of the 'supposed' curve itself.  Think about it.  He is showing you videos of 190 M buildings hidden behind a curve under 30 miles away at sea level.  If this were true then being 19 miles in the air should reveal enormous drop off in terms of curvature, and the horizon would make an extreme drop from eye level.
Where did the "19 miles in the air" come from? But, that's no problem!
From 19 miles high the horizon would be almost 390 miles away and the angle down to the horizon about 5.6° below eye-level.
Show me any balloon photos where you could measure that sort of angle.

19 miles is roughly 100k ft.  Many amateur balloons go this high.  You cannot say that curvature is 'visible' (hiding ships hulls) several miles out and then at the same time say that curvature is not visible 19 miles in the air.  The earth cannot be a sphere. It's very simple.
No. Earth can be a sphere, it is quite simple.
We didn't say it isn't visible 19 miles in the air. You get the same effect happening, but the horizon is much further away.
What is the problem?

Quote from: Silicon
  There is no way around this. They try to have it both ways however, dozens of amateur balloons, rockets, and other video always shows the flat horizon at eye level, no matter how high you go. 
Show me photos from this sort of altitude that "shows the flat horizon at eye level". None I have seen have lenses that do not distort.


Really?
1:27, notice the horizon with a massive slope. So, if you are saying that can accurately measure eye level, that means the Earth is a massive hill.
1:39, notice how now the horizon is heaps far above eye level. So much for the flat horizon being at eye level.
The shot you use has the horizon heaps below.

So where are these shots showing the horizon is at eye level at 100k feet?

What's ironic is they claim the curve is in the background at 65k feet.  No, its not, as you can see from the level adjusted screenshot below (at the highest point of 108k ft)
You mean which has a slight curve?

You're right, in clearer conditions, the sun shrinks
No, it doesn't.
Again, get one with a decent solar filter and no glare.

See above, and here is one with a filter.  And we usually end this with me asking what a proper filter is and you disappearing.
Not a proper one, or the camera has too great an exposure. It still has massive overexposure and loads of glare.
With a proper filter and proper exposure settings you see the sun as a circle, without any light around it. It is also the only thing you see.