Two questions for Flat Earthers

And how do you have the holes in your magic dome turning the radiation into a laser?

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on August 10, 2017, 01:26:59 PM

So many questions...

• How does the sun move across the sky during the day?
• Where is the sun at night?
• Why is background radiation being concentrated into a series of lasers?
• Is there a scientific precedent for such a thing?
• Bananas emit small amounts of radiation, far greater than cosmic background, so why is my fruit bowl not erupting in a lightshow right now?
• During sunset, why does some of the sun slip off the bottom of the dome?
• How is a series of lasers which are emitted radially different to how a lantern operates?
• Why are these lasers organised into 'sets' (if the size of the sun remains constant, but more than one beam of light is hitting my eyes, them most or all beams must be showing a part of the same image, which you claim changes as we move.)
• Why do different lines of light all show the same image?
• What process causes this?
• Why are eclipses only visible from certain locations, when in all other circumstances you claim the sun appears the same from all positions?
• What does a laser-background-radiation-on-the-dome-sun do that isn't done by a normal sun (i.e. how can we scientifically verify your claims)?

1. The Sun is not a star moving across the sky, we are inside a multi-layered dome, one layer opaque rock and the other clear crystal or ice. The movement of the rock, and the holes in it, give the appearance of a moving Sun.
2. See above. At night you don't see any holes larger than the stars.
3. The background radiation is outside the dome. When it passes through to us it is directed by the dome.
4. Everyone knows about directed light and lasers.
5. The cosmic background radiation inside the dome is far less than the radiation outside. I expect this is down to the core of the Earth, inside the north pole, emanating cold like many things emanate heat.
6. This is once more due to the fact what we observe is a hole, rather than a light source.
7. Lasers that point directly at one source are only visible at that one location. When you move, you have to be looking at a different laser, while with a lantern the same part of it can be seen from many locations.
8. Nearby locations on the dome are near enough to parallel, so the lasers reaching you are parallel. You can only see one at a time.
9. They just show the holes, and the image is not always the same depending on the time of day and where you are.
10. It's just light.
11. The Sun you see in one position is not the same as the Sun viewed elsewhere.
12. It would be easy to verify if you wanted to go to Antarctica and walk to the dome. Otherwise the intensity of the Sun's heat should demonstrate it is more directed than a lantern.

And all this comes from this Zetetic Astronomy so beloved of flat earthers?

Or who is the scriptwriter for you "science fantasy"?

He tells us that science is fake ,but tries to convince us that there is a dome above us ,we live on a flat pancake and a beared men living in the clouds ,controls us.Yet again ,not a single evidence or proof.

When light travels through a hole it does not fan out afterwards, it can travel only in the direction that the hole allows, especially if the hole is small. To see as comparatively small a Sun as we do, compared to all of the sky, and the distance it is at, shows that the holes are very small indeed. They are not literally lasers, just laser-liked in the sense it is directed light.

I have never mentioned zetecism, pancakes or God, please don't put words in my mouth.

When light travels through a hole it does not fan out afterwards, it can travel only in the direction that the hole allows, especially if the hole is small. To see as comparatively small a Sun as we do, compared to all of the sky, and the distance it is at, shows that the holes are very small indeed. They are not literally lasers, just laser-liked in the sense it is directed light.

I have never mentioned zetecism, pancakes or God, please don't put words in my mouth.

I take it you have never used lights before?
After going through a hole, it does fan out, it is a process called diffraction and produces a distinct pattern. The larger the hole the less it fans out.

The problem is how you move around.
As you walk around you need to start looking through different holes, but there can't be any gaps between the holes. This is what makes it impossible.
You also need your holes to be quite thick to prevent any off-angle viewing which would produce elliptical "suns"

Quote from: TheMelkur on August 13, 2017, 02:20:14 PM

When light travels through a hole it does not fan out afterwards, it can travel only in the direction that the hole allows, especially if the hole is small. To see as comparatively small a Sun as we do, compared to all of the sky, and the distance it is at, shows that the holes are very small indeed. They are not literally lasers, just laser-liked in the sense it is directed light.

I have never mentioned zetecism, pancakes or God, please don't put words in my mouth.

I take it you have never used lights before?
After going through a hole, it does fan out, it is a process called diffraction and produces a distinct pattern. The larger the hole the less it fans out.

The problem is how you move around.
As you walk around you need to start looking through different holes, but there can't be any gaps between the holes. This is what makes it impossible.
You also need your holes to be quite thick to prevent any off-angle viewing which would produce elliptical "suns"

The holes are small, as I said. if you somehow viewed one from the side it would either immediately stop being visible, or would be blocked by light from another hole, but you wouldn't be able to see it anyway because the light from it is directed. Light travels in straight lines, diffraction only occurs when there is room for light to enter the hole at an angle. Thick holes as well (which must be what we are talking about given it is the dome that encompasses the entire Earth and if it was thin it would not have any integrity) reduce how much that can occur.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 13, 2017, 02:23:16 PM

Quote from: TheMelkur on August 13, 2017, 02:20:14 PM

When light travels through a hole it does not fan out afterwards, it can travel only in the direction that the hole allows, especially if the hole is small. To see as comparatively small a Sun as we do, compared to all of the sky, and the distance it is at, shows that the holes are very small indeed. They are not literally lasers, just laser-liked in the sense it is directed light.

I have never mentioned zetecism, pancakes or God, please don't put words in my mouth.

I take it you have never used lights before?
After going through a hole, it does fan out, it is a process called diffraction and produces a distinct pattern. The larger the hole the less it fans out.

The problem is how you move around.
As you walk around you need to start looking through different holes, but there can't be any gaps between the holes. This is what makes it impossible.
You also need your holes to be quite thick to prevent any off-angle viewing which would produce elliptical "suns"

The holes are small, as I said. if you somehow viewed one from the side it would either immediately stop being visible, or would be blocked by light from another hole, but you wouldn't be able to see it anyway because the light from it is directed. Light travels in straight lines, diffraction only occurs when there is room for light to enter the hole at an angle. Thick holes as well (which must be what we are talking about given it is the dome that encompasses the entire Earth and if it was thin it would not have any integrity) reduce how much that can occur.

Do you miss flying aircraft?

The holes are small, as I said. if you somehow viewed one from the side it would either immediately stop being visible, or would be blocked by light from another hole, but you wouldn't be able to see it anyway because the light from it is directed. Light travels in straight lines, diffraction only occurs when there is room for light to enter the hole at an angle. Thick holes as well (which must be what we are talking about given it is the dome that encompasses the entire Earth and if it was thin it would not have any integrity) reduce how much that can occur.

They are large compared to some other holes.
They are meant to be in a dome, quite high in the sky, producing the image we know of as the sun, which requires them to be tens of km across at least.

In order for it to immediately stop being visible, you need to have it long enough such that no diagonal light can get through (or basically none).
How would light from another hole block the light from the first?
You would simply see the light from both.

Diffraction occurs when the holes are small or when the distances are great which allows the light to spread out. This diffraction is what results in a limit of resolution. The larger the lens, the better the angular resolution you can achieve.

But you leave out the important part, how do you change from one hole to another without having the sun disappear?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 09, 2017, 03:03:00 PM

If Earth is spherical in Euclidean geometry, then using spherical geometry centred on Earth wouldn't produce the correct results.

The coordinate system of spherical geometry would allow for more accurate and more useful results, wouldn't it? If the Earth was being mapped in Euclidean space, then the coordinates would be almost unmanageable.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 09, 2017, 03:03:00 PM

In order for Earth to be flat, space itself needs to curve. If this happens with all objects like the sun and moon, you would need to have pockets of curved space joined to normal space, and an associated explanation for why.

Normal physics has pockets of curved space 'joined' to normal space, so I don't see why I have to provide an alternate explanation. Could you elaborate?

---

Quote from: TheMelkur on August 10, 2017, 04:54:48 AM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on August 08, 2017, 05:48:12 PM

Quote from: TheMelkur on August 08, 2017, 05:07:14 PM

The light from the Sun appears to be directional, more like a laser light than a lantern. The light you see is not the exact same as the light someone a few meters to your left would see. It isn't exactly an illusion, but you can treat it as such.

How does the sun know precisely where you are to direct the precisely correct beam of light to your location in order to maintain the illusion? How can the sun do this to every person and camera and animal on Earth, all at the same time?

It's only the direction light travels in, it doesn't need to know where you are, light travels in directed lines like lasers whether you're there to observe or not. I don't believe the Sun is one object radiating light, rather it is the cosmic background radiation of the universe, but because of the dome around us we only see one circular Sun at a time. When you move, different lines of light hit your eyes.

Quote

So many questions...

• How does the sun move across the sky during the day?

The apparent movement of all celestial bodies such as the sun, has two components, one: the rotation of earth and it’s orbit around the sun, two: the bodie's independent motion in Galactic space.

• Where is the sun at night?

The sun has not moved, it is the point of the observer that has, by rotated, and is now facing away from the sun.

• Why is background radiation being concentrated into a series of lasers?
• Is there a scientific precedent for such a thing?
• Bananas emit small amounts of radiation, far greater than cosmic background, so why is my fruit bowl not erupting in a lightshow right now?
• During sunset, why does some of the sun slip off the bottom of the dome?

As there is no dome as conceptualized by the flat earth. What happens is the sun moves over the horizon due to the rotation of Earth.

• How is a series of lasers which are emitted radially different to how a lantern operates?
• Why are these lasers organised into 'sets' (if the size of the sun remains constant, but more than one beam of light is hitting my eyes, them most or all beams must be showing a part of the same image, which you claim changes as we move.)
• Why do different lines of light all show the same image?
• What process causes this?
• Why are eclipses only visible from certain locations, when in all other circumstances you claim the sun appears the same from all positions?

As for a lunar eclipse should be observable from anywhere at night in the world, as it is caused by the moon, traveling through the shadow of the earth. But when it comes to a solar eclipse it's the moon’s shadow traversing across earth.

• What does a laser-background-radiation-on-the-dome-sun do that isn't done by a normal sun (i.e. how can we scientifically verify your claims)?

As for the laser questions, lasers are not a natural phenomena, they are man maid, so I don't have an answer for you.

Quote from: TheMelkur on August 13, 2017, 02:30:03 PM

The holes are small, as I said. if you somehow viewed one from the side it would either immediately stop being visible, or would be blocked by light from another hole, but you wouldn't be able to see it anyway because the light from it is directed. Light travels in straight lines, diffraction only occurs when there is room for light to enter the hole at an angle. Thick holes as well (which must be what we are talking about given it is the dome that encompasses the entire Earth and if it was thin it would not have any integrity) reduce how much that can occur.

They are large compared to some other holes.
They are meant to be in a dome, quite high in the sky, producing the image we know of as the sun, which requires them to be tens of km across at least.

In order for it to immediately stop being visible, you need to have it long enough such that no diagonal light can get through (or basically none).
How would light from another hole block the light from the first?
You would simply see the light from both.

Diffraction occurs when the holes are small or when the distances are great which allows the light to spread out. This diffraction is what results in a limit of resolution. The larger the lens, the better the angular resolution you can achieve.

But you leave out the important part, how do you change from one hole to another without having the sun disappear?

Why would they need to be tens of thousands of kilometers across?
You wouldn't be able to see two directed light beams at once unless those light beams point at the same location. That doesn't happen. With all the holes at such a distance away there is no room for use to see a gap between the holes. The light beams are directed because their diameter isn't that big compared to the depth of the hole in the dome.
I don't see why you're talking about lenses.

1.) Why does the Sun dip below the horizon at sunset? On the Flat Earth model, the Sun is always above the flat plane, so the Sun should appear low on the horizon as it moves away, but never below it.

But in the spherical reality, the Sun would dip below the horizon as the Earth rotates. And that's what we see.


2.) Why does the Sun's apparent size remain constant throughout the day, if the Sun is moving & changing its distance throughout the day? Flat Earthers allege the Sun is 32 miles in diameter, and 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface, and moves above the flat plane. Those measurements are small enough and close enough to be able to have noticeable size changes in proportion to our visual angle, as the Sun moves towards us and away from us.

But in the spherical & heliocentric reality, the Sun would appear the same size regardless of what time of day it is, given that the distance remains constant throughout the day, and any minor differentiation would not be noticed at such a great distance. And that's what we see.

Something to take into account here:
The point of convergence is a finite distance away from a viewer, simply because of their standpoint, there is a point where there vision convergences, cone eyes.
So, the sun will approach the same vanishing point as a ship will approach, the difference being that at its height, it will need to descend at a steeper angle, in fact, the steepest possible angle at its height (45 degree angle to the horizon). This is because the sun is beyond the apex of perspective lines, which also means it descends at a constant rate from our perspective, 1 degree every 69 miles.

This illustrates what I mean:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

So now that this is out of the way, what gets the sun to dip below the horizon and not change size is atmospheric lensing and refraction. What separates us from the sun is the atmolayer (or 'atmosphere' in popular terminology), which contains a lot of water, creating a lensing/refractive effect. As a result of this, the shrinking of the sun, is counteracted by passing through the atmolayer strata from our viewpoint, being enlarged and therefore maintaining its size. This is similar to the effect of a flashlight moving farther away from the wall while the beam increases size. The sun dips below the horizon due to this same refractive effect, which can be observed personally when placing a camera on the ground while observing a refraction from the ground. Of course, the sun could be brought back again by going to a higher altitude due to the fact that the angle of view with the refraction changes AND the horizon naturally rises to high level, with this rise being made up by seeing farther from higher.

This video has a great example:

In sum, the descent of the sun is constant since it is beyond the apex of the perspective lines, descending into our fixed finite vanishing point, while it is affected by refraction and lensing of the atmolayer that separates us from the sun.

Quote from: December 7, 1972 on August 06, 2017, 05:03:00 AM

1.) Why does the Sun dip below the horizon at sunset? On the Flat Earth model, the Sun is always above the flat plane, so the Sun should appear low on the horizon as it moves away, but never below it.

But in the spherical reality, the Sun would dip below the horizon as the Earth rotates. And that's what we see.


2.) Why does the Sun's apparent size remain constant throughout the day, if the Sun is moving & changing its distance throughout the day? Flat Earthers allege the Sun is 32 miles in diameter, and 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface, and moves above the flat plane. Those measurements are small enough and close enough to be able to have noticeable size changes in proportion to our visual angle, as the Sun moves towards us and away from us.

But in the spherical & heliocentric reality, the Sun would appear the same size regardless of what time of day it is, given that the distance remains constant throughout the day, and any minor differentiation would not be noticed at such a great distance. And that's what we see.

Something to take into account here:
The point of convergence is a finite distance away from a viewer, simply because of their standpoint, there is a point where there vision convergences, cone eyes.
So, the sun will approach the same vanishing point as a ship will approach, the difference being that at its height, it will need to descend at a steeper angle, in fact, the steepest possible angle at its height (45 degree angle to the horizon). This is because the sun is beyond the apex of perspective lines, which also means it descends at a constant rate from our perspective, 1 degree every 69 miles.

This illustrates what I mean:
https://wiki.google.com/images/f/f6/Perspective_speed.png

So now that this is out of the way, what gets the sun to dip below the horizon and not change size is atmospheric lensing and refraction. What separates us from the sun is the atmolayer (or 'atmosphere' in popular terminology), which contains a lot of water, creating a lensing/refractive effect. As a result of this, the shrinking of the sun, is counteracted by passing through the atmolayer strata from our viewpoint, being enlarged and therefore maintaining its size. This is similar to the effect of a flashlight moving farther away from the wall while the beam increases size. The sun dips below the horizon due to this same refractive effect, which can be observed personally when placing a camera on the ground while observing a refraction from the ground. Of course, the sun could be brought back again by going to a higher altitude due to the fact that the angle of view with the refraction changes AND the horizon naturally rises to high level, with this rise being made up by seeing farther from higher.

This video has a great example:

In sum, the descent of the sun is constant since it is beyond the apex of the perspective lines, descending into our fixed finite vanishing point, while it is affected by refraction and lensing of the atmolayer that separates us from the sun.

What does someone1000 miles to the east see while this is happening to you?

Quote from: HeoSkeptic on August 15, 2017, 01:56:44 PM

Quote from: December 7, 1972 on August 06, 2017, 05:03:00 AM

1.) Why does the Sun dip below the horizon at sunset? On the Flat Earth model, the Sun is always above the flat plane, so the Sun should appear low on the horizon as it moves away, but never below it.

But in the spherical reality, the Sun would dip below the horizon as the Earth rotates. And that's what we see.


2.) Why does the Sun's apparent size remain constant throughout the day, if the Sun is moving & changing its distance throughout the day? Flat Earthers allege the Sun is 32 miles in diameter, and 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface, and moves above the flat plane. Those measurements are small enough and close enough to be able to have noticeable size changes in proportion to our visual angle, as the Sun moves towards us and away from us.

But in the spherical & heliocentric reality, the Sun would appear the same size regardless of what time of day it is, given that the distance remains constant throughout the day, and any minor differentiation would not be noticed at such a great distance. And that's what we see.

Something to take into account here:
The point of convergence is a finite distance away from a viewer, simply because of their standpoint, there is a point where there vision convergences, cone eyes.
So, the sun will approach the same vanishing point as a ship will approach, the difference being that at its height, it will need to descend at a steeper angle, in fact, the steepest possible angle at its height (45 degree angle to the horizon). This is because the sun is beyond the apex of perspective lines, which also means it descends at a constant rate from our perspective, 1 degree every 69 miles.

This illustrates what I mean:
https://wiki.google.com/images/f/f6/Perspective_speed.png

So now that this is out of the way, what gets the sun to dip below the horizon and not change size is atmospheric lensing and refraction. What separates us from the sun is the atmolayer (or 'atmosphere' in popular terminology), which contains a lot of water, creating a lensing/refractive effect. As a result of this, the shrinking of the sun, is counteracted by passing through the atmolayer strata from our viewpoint, being enlarged and therefore maintaining its size. This is similar to the effect of a flashlight moving farther away from the wall while the beam increases size. The sun dips below the horizon due to this same refractive effect, which can be observed personally when placing a camera on the ground while observing a refraction from the ground. Of course, the sun could be brought back again by going to a higher altitude due to the fact that the angle of view with the refraction changes AND the horizon naturally rises to high level, with this rise being made up by seeing farther from higher.

This video has a great example:

In sum, the descent of the sun is constant since it is beyond the apex of the perspective lines, descending into our fixed finite vanishing point, while it is affected by refraction and lensing of the atmolayer that separates us from the sun.

What does someone1000 miles to the east see while this is happening to you?

While what is happening to you? The sun setting?
This will depend on the sun's position (it will vary by season) and how you define "East".

Why would they need to be tens of thousands of kilometers across?

I said tens km, not tens of thousands of km.

They would need to be that large due to how far away the dome is and how large the sun appears.

You wouldn't be able to see two directed light beams at once unless those light beams point at the same location. That doesn't happen. With all the holes at such a distance away there is no room for use to see a gap between the holes. The light beams are directed because their diameter isn't that big compared to the depth of the hole in the dome.

These 2 statements contradict each other.
You either can't see 2 at once, and thus get a gap between them, or you can see 2 at once which would result in the sun acting all crazy as you move around.

I don't see why you're talking about lenses.

It was a discussion of light not following a straight line.

Something to take into account here:
The point of convergence is a finite distance away from a viewer

No it isn't. The point of convergence is always infinitely far away.
Some objects simply become too small to resolve before then, and if they do, they typically don't disappear on the horizon.

However a sun set is clearly not a result of that as it doesn't shrink to a point. Instead it disappears from the bottom up.

So, the sun will approach the same vanishing point as a ship will approach

Only if you are referring to the infinitely far away one rather than the resolution limited one.
If you are going for a finite one, the ship's will be much closer as it is much smaller.

This is because the sun is beyond the apex of perspective lines, which also means it descends at a constant rate from our perspective, 1 degree every 69 miles.

No it isn't. There is no magic apex of perspective lines. Perspective lines extend to infinity in all directions.

Assuming the sun is 5000 km up, then after it moves 1000 km from directly overhead it will be at an angle of elevation of 78.7 degrees and thus appear to have descended 11.3 degrees. After another 1000 km it will only have descended another 10.5 degrees to 68.2 degrees angle of elevation. After another 1000 km it will have descended to 59.0 degrees, then after another it will descend to 51.3 degrees, then 45, then 39.8 and so on.

Notice the massive change in rate?
At the start it dropped 11.3 degrees for 1000 km. At the end (well after 45 degrees), it dropped 5.2 degrees.

So no, it will not be the same rate. If it was the result of perspective it would appear to descend quickly near the start and slowly at the end, only ever approaching the horizon (which is at a negative angle of elevation).

There are only 2 ways for an object to appear to descend at the same rate. One is if they travel in a circle centred on you (or close to you), where you are looking at their motion around that circle (note this would require the sun to go below the flat Earth), or it would need to speed up to match. Using the example above, after 45 degree, in order to move at the same apparent angular rate, the sun would need to cover 2497 km in the time it previously covered 1000 km. That is going at roughly 2.5 times the speed.

This illustrates what I mean:
https://wiki.google.com/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

No it doesn't. That is just a crappy drawing with a few lines, some almost true statements and some blatantly wrong ones.
The steepest angle an object can approach the vanishing point is 0. That is because the vanishing point is infinitely far away.

If you are going to use a resolution limited one then they aren't going to disappear on the "horizon". Instead plane 2 will disappear slightly above it and plane 1 will disappear significantly above it.

It does get one thing almost right though, the further away an object is with constant linear speed, the more constant its angular speed will appear to be, but it will also be slower.
In order to get a truly constant speed, the object would need a linear speed of 0.

For a given angle, the angular speed will change in the same way.
So if an object starts out with a linear speed such that when directly overhead their angular speed is 11.3 degrees an hour, once they reach a 45 degree angle of elevation, their angular speed will be 5.2 degrees an hour.
There is no dependence on distance.

The reason it seems like there is is because there is a dependence on angular speed and angular speed depends on linear speed and distance. For the above example, it took 5 hours for the object above to go from directly overhead at 11.3 degrees an hour to reach 45 degrees and 5.2 degrees an hour.
If it was twice as far away, then its angular speed would be cut in half. It would now start travelling at 5.65 degrees per hour, and it would take 10 hours to reach 2.6 degrees per hour. So it would take twice as long to get to the same fraction of initial speed.

So now that this is out of the way

It's hardly out of the way.

what gets the sun to dip below the horizon and not change size is atmospheric lensing and refraction.

Firstly, atmospheric lensing would be the same as refraction.
More importantly, the effects are already well known and just make the sun appear slightly larger in the vertical direction.
It is not significant enough to produce the enlargement required for FEers, nor does it act in the horizontal direction.

More importantly, that wouldn't help it dip below the horizon. That would just make it look bigger.

What separates us from the sun is the atmolayer (or 'atmosphere' in popular terminology)

You mean correct terminology as it is spherical.

which contains a lot of water, creating a lensing/refractive effect. As a result of this, the shrinking of the sun, is counteracted by passing through the atmolayer strata from our viewpoint, being enlarged and therefore maintaining its size.

Again, we know how this works, it isn't just dependent upon water. It produces a very negligible change and only in the vertical direction.

This is similar to the effect of a flashlight moving farther away from the wall while the beam increases size.

No, it is completely different.
That is a result of the beam of light not being straight and instead diverging.

The sun dips below the horizon due to this same refractive effect, which can be observed personally when placing a camera on the ground while observing a refraction from the ground. Of course, the sun could be brought back again by going to a higher altitude due to the fact that the angle of view with the refraction changes AND the horizon naturally rises to high level, with this rise being made up by seeing farther from higher.

No it doesn't. The refractive effect actually makes things higher. What this means is you can see the sun for a little bit after it should have set.
In order for it to make it appear lower, you need to invert the atmosphere.

This video has a great example:

You mean where they use a completely different lens to get the effect we observe rather than the one expected if Earth was flat and atmoplanic lensing was a thing?
For example, in showing the buildings, where was the centre of the lens? Up nice and high. This means some light would be bent down, while other light is bent up, completely different to how refraction actually works where for the most part (i.e. ignoring transient effects) light is just bent down.

The profile for that lens is nothing like what you would expect for atmospheric refraction.

Notice how in order to get the sun to disappear, he has to use a mountain rather than just a flat surface?

Try it again with a lens to simulate what your atmolayer should do, or justify it doing that.

In sum, the descent of the sun is constant since it is beyond the apex of the perspective lines, descending into our fixed finite vanishing point, while it is affected by refraction and lensing of the atmolayer that separates us from the sun.

No, in sum, the descent of the sun should not be constant and it is not descending to any finite vanishing point. Refraction is not capable of explaining the sun remaining constant as it requires using a lens which doesn't match how the atmolayer would behave.

Or, in sum:
FE is yet again unable to offer any sound explanation and is reduced to spouting blatant lies.

Quote from: December 7, 1972 on August 06, 2017, 05:03:00 AM

1.) Why does the Sun dip below the horizon at sunset? On the Flat Earth model, the Sun is always above the flat plane, so the Sun should appear low on the horizon as it moves away, but never below it.

But in the spherical reality, the Sun would dip below the horizon as the Earth rotates. And that's what we see.


2.) Why does the Sun's apparent size remain constant throughout the day, if the Sun is moving & changing its distance throughout the day? Flat Earthers allege the Sun is 32 miles in diameter, and 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface, and moves above the flat plane. Those measurements are small enough and close enough to be able to have noticeable size changes in proportion to our visual angle, as the Sun moves towards us and away from us.

But in the spherical & heliocentric reality, the Sun would appear the same size regardless of what time of day it is, given that the distance remains constant throughout the day, and any minor differentiation would not be noticed at such a great distance. And that's what we see.

Something to take into account here:
The point of convergence is a finite distance away from a viewer, simply because of their standpoint, there is a point where there vision convergences, cone eyes.
So, the sun will approach the same vanishing point as a ship will approach, the difference being that at its height, it will need to descend at a steeper angle, in fact, the steepest possible angle at its height (45 degree angle to the horizon). This is because the sun is beyond the apex of perspective lines, which also means it descends at a constant rate from our perspective, 1 degree every 69 miles.

This illustrates what I mean:
https://wiki.google.com/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

So now that this is out of the way, what gets the sun to dip below the horizon and not change size is atmospheric lensing and refraction. What separates us from the sun is the atmolayer (or 'atmosphere' in popular terminology), which contains a lot of water, creating a lensing/refractive effect. As a result of this, the shrinking of the sun, is counteracted by passing through the atmolayer strata from our viewpoint, being enlarged and therefore maintaining its size. This is similar to the effect of a flashlight moving farther away from the wall while the beam increases size. The sun dips below the horizon due to this same refractive effect, which can be observed personally when placing a camera on the ground while observing a refraction from the ground. Of course, the sun could be brought back again by going to a higher altitude due to the fact that the angle of view with the refraction changes AND the horizon naturally rises to high level, with this rise being made up by seeing farther from higher.

This video has a great example:

In sum, the descent of the sun is constant since it is beyond the apex of the perspective lines, descending into our fixed finite vanishing point, while it is affected by refraction and lensing of the atmolayer that separates us from the sun.

The thing the video ignores is the temperature inversion.  The clip he referenced for the "lensing" effect even says "if our simulated temperature inversion moves into place" the atmosphere is acting like a lens.  It's the temperature inversions that causes the magnifying effect.  It also causes Fata Morgana mirages.  These mirages usually have an inverted version of the image below the actual image, stacked on one another.  However, it can also cause some really cool mirages too like an object hovering above the horizon.  It's the temperature inversion that produces the lensing effect.  I'm not sure why it's in the referenced clip but the producer of this video decided to leaves it out. 

The sun under the clouds is interesting but also easily explainable.  That magnifier is a flat fresnel lens and it designed to pass light perpendicular to it's surface.  When the led light gets the right distance away so it's shining over the whole surface of the fresnel lens you will have parallel light passing under the "clouds".

At least that's my theory to explain his results.  At any rate, without the temperature inversion the magnifying effect would not seen.

Had he used an actual convex lens he wouldn't gotten the same effect.

Mike

Sorry, seemed to have not been cooperating with me with trying to quote you, so I decided to bold it all.

No it isn't. The point of convergence is always infinitely far away.
Some objects simply become too small to resolve before then, and if they do, they typically don't disappear on the horizon.
Nope, perspective lines meet at the point of convergence.

However a sun set is clearly not a result of that as it doesn't shrink to a point. Instead it disappears from the bottom up.
It doesn't need to, the angular diameter is independent of the point of convergence (I forgot to stress that point in my post), if you were to constantly expand the size of something as it furthered away to keep the angular diameter constant, it still follows perspective lines, it doesn't magically defy this the moment we retain the apparent size somehow.

Only if you are referring to the infinitely far away one rather than the resolution limited one.
If you are going for a finite one, the ship's will be much closer as it is much smaller.
Considering that they are converging all at the same point, anything not being visible before it is because the object got to a point in which it was too small to be resolved by our eyes (like the resolution of a camera making things appear to vanish when zooming away).

No it isn't. There is no magic apex of perspective lines. Perspective lines extend to infinity in all directions.
 It's not magic, it's reality.

Assuming the sun is 5000 km up, then after it moves 1000 km from directly overhead it will be at an angle of elevation of 78.7 degrees and thus appear to have descended 11.3 degrees. After another 1000 km it will only have descended another 10.5 degrees to 68.2 degrees angle of elevation. After another 1000 km it will have descended to 59.0 degrees, then after another it will descend to 51.3 degrees, then 45, then 39.8 and so on.

Notice the massive change in rate?
At the start it dropped 11.3 degrees for 1000 km. At the end (well after 45 degrees), it dropped 5.2 degrees.
This again? 
It's all based on your nonsensical assumptions on perspective.

So no, it will not be the same rate. If it was the result of perspective it would appear to descend quickly near the start and slowly at the end, only ever approaching the horizon (which is at a negative angle of elevation).
No, the rate of change is constant due to the fact that the sun is at an altitude above the apex of perspective lines (which all meet at a point of convergence a FINITE distance away), descending at a 45 degree angle to the ground, forming an isosceles right triangle from our perspective. So, if the sun is beyond the apex of perspective, after it moves x distance from directly overhead it, it will, regardless of how close it gets to convergence, always be descending at the same rate of y due to the fact that it is always descending at the same angle to the horizon. Being at a 45 degree angle to the horizon.

There are only 2 ways for an object to appear to descend at the same rate. One is if they travel in a circle centred on you (or close to you), where you are looking at their motion around that circle (note this would require the sun to go below the flat Earth), or it would need to speed up to match. Using the example above, after 45 degree, in order to move at the same apparent angular rate, the sun would need to cover 2497 km in the time it previously covered 1000 km. That is going at roughly 2.5 times the speed.
Or, if its above the apex of perspective lines, which all meet at a vanishing point, which is what I have been saying.

No it doesn't. That is just a crappy drawing with a few lines, some almost true statements and some blatantly wrong ones.
It gets it right actually, that things will descend steeper into the vanishing point to converge due to the fact that there is one a finite distance away, our vision is like a cone.
The steepest angle an object can approach the vanishing point is 0. That is because the vanishing point is infinitely far away.
There you go with your dogmatic and nonsensical assumptions again.

If you are going to use a resolution limited one then they aren't going to disappear on the "horizon". Instead plane 2 will disappear slightly above it and plane 1 will disappear significantly above it.
Nope, they are descending into the same vanishing point and therefore Plane 1 will descend steeper than Plane 2 to the same point of convergence.

It does get one thing almost right though, the further away an object is with constant linear speed, the more constant its angular speed will appear to be, but it will also be slower.
In order to get a truly constant speed, the object would need a linear speed of 0.
That is because the rate of change changes less the steeper it has to descend, descending at a constant rate when something reaches the climax of our perspective triangle.

The reason it seems like there is is because there is a dependence on angular speed and angular speed depends on linear speed and distance. For the above example, it took 5 hours for the object above to go from directly overhead at 11.3 degrees an hour to reach 45 degrees and 5.2 degrees an hour.
If it was twice as far away, then its angular speed would be cut in half. It would now start travelling at 5.65 degrees per hour, and it would take 10 hours to reach 2.6 degrees per hour. So it would take twice as long to get to the same fraction of initial speed.
The sun descends constantly because its part of the isosceles right triangle of our perspective, descending at a 45 degree angle into the vanishing point.

Firstly, atmospheric lensing would be the same as refraction.
True, but it is fair to distinguish them, since one is based on variations in refractive index and the other, basic light deflection.

More importantly, the effects are already well known and just make the sun appear slightly larger in the vertical direction.
It is not significant enough to produce the enlargement required for FEers, nor does it act in the horizontal direction.
Taking the atmolayer as a gradient index material, light converges to magnify, and the sun doesn't reach beyond the focal length of the atmolayer from our perspective, if it did, it would then lack the capability of magnification with further movement away.
As it continues away, it passes through the atmolayer at an angle to reach our vision, increasing the strata length to pass through as it continues away, and converges at an angle due to perspective. To say it isn't significant enough is to be ignorant of the nature of the strata above us.
More importantly, that wouldn't help it dip below the horizon. That would just make it look bigger.
It would actually, it is capable of distorting the imagery of it and have a sort of reflection from refraction that affects our view from our angle of incidence being changed to a different angle, cutting off the bottom of the sun.
This video has an example at around 10:00 where this optical effect obscures the bottom of distant things:
Another point brought up by many is the divergent lines from the horizon, as the sun hits the horizon, it transitions into these divergent lines.

Again, we know how this works, it isn't just dependent upon water. It produces a very negligible change and only in the vertical direction.
Vertical as in? It does it in between the gradient index atmolayer and the sun, it passes through more atmolayer strata at sunset due to its angle to the observer, it is always between us and the sun and the gradient index effect exists all across the atmolayer, not simply in some specific direction you want to imply is the only way it could work.

No, it is completely different.
That is a result of the beam of light not being straight and instead diverging.
It is similar in that as distance increases, it increases apparent size with this magnification effect by converging light. It's a basic concept.
No it doesn't. The refractive effect actually makes things higher. What this means is you can see the sun for a little bit after it should have set.
In order for it to make it appear lower, you need to invert the atmosphere.
The angle of incidence in which the light is reflected from the thick ground layer gives the cut off effect, it is an observed fact that this phenomena happens, no need to bring this up for my point.

You mean where they use a completely different lens to get the effect we observe rather than the one expected if Earth was flat and atmoplanic lensing was a thing?
He used a Fresnel lens, it focuses the light rays by means of refraction, just like the atmolayer.

For example, in showing the buildings, where was the centre of the lens? Up nice and high. This means some light would be bent down, while other light is bent up, completely different to how refraction actually works where for the most part (i.e. ignoring transient effects) light is just bent down.
Again, its a lens, converges light by means of refraction, not light rays bending all in one direction by passing through a different medium.

Notice how in order to get the sun to disappear, he has to use a mountain rather than just a flat surface?
That mountain was used as an example to show the earth sunset.

Try it again with a lens to simulate what your atmolayer should do, or justify it doing that.
Its a lens based on focusing light beams by refraction. The atmolayer does just that by having refractive index variations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient-index_optics

No, in sum, the descent of the sun should not be constant and it is not descending to any finite vanishing point. Refraction is not capable of explaining the sun remaining constant as it requires using a lens which doesn't match how the atmolayer would behave.
1. The sun's descent should be constant, since it is descending beyond the apex of our perspective lines, at a 45 degree angle to the horizon.
2. The atmolayer's behavior matches what I was saying, it is a gradient index material, and acts similar to magnifying glass in that it focuses light.

Or, in sum:
FE is yet again unable to offer any sound explanation and is reduced to spouting blatant lies.
I can tell you are purposefully doing whatever you can to explain away every point I am making, so sad that this is your goal here.

Quote from: HeoSkeptic on August 15, 2017, 01:56:44 PM

Quote from: December 7, 1972 on August 06, 2017, 05:03:00 AM

1.) Why does the Sun dip below the horizon at sunset? On the Flat Earth model, the Sun is always above the flat plane, so the Sun should appear low on the horizon as it moves away, but never below it.

But in the spherical reality, the Sun would dip below the horizon as the Earth rotates. And that's what we see.


2.) Why does the Sun's apparent size remain constant throughout the day, if the Sun is moving & changing its distance throughout the day? Flat Earthers allege the Sun is 32 miles in diameter, and 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface, and moves above the flat plane. Those measurements are small enough and close enough to be able to have noticeable size changes in proportion to our visual angle, as the Sun moves towards us and away from us.

But in the spherical & heliocentric reality, the Sun would appear the same size regardless of what time of day it is, given that the distance remains constant throughout the day, and any minor differentiation would not be noticed at such a great distance. And that's what we see.

Something to take into account here:
The point of convergence is a finite distance away from a viewer, simply because of their standpoint, there is a point where there vision convergences, cone eyes.
So, the sun will approach the same vanishing point as a ship will approach, the difference being that at its height, it will need to descend at a steeper angle, in fact, the steepest possible angle at its height (45 degree angle to the horizon). This is because the sun is beyond the apex of perspective lines, which also means it descends at a constant rate from our perspective, 1 degree every 69 miles.

This illustrates what I mean:
https://wiki.google.com/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

So now that this is out of the way, what gets the sun to dip below the horizon and not change size is atmospheric lensing and refraction. What separates us from the sun is the atmolayer (or 'atmosphere' in popular terminology), which contains a lot of water, creating a lensing/refractive effect. As a result of this, the shrinking of the sun, is counteracted by passing through the atmolayer strata from our viewpoint, being enlarged and therefore maintaining its size. This is similar to the effect of a flashlight moving farther away from the wall while the beam increases size. The sun dips below the horizon due to this same refractive effect, which can be observed personally when placing a camera on the ground while observing a refraction from the ground. Of course, the sun could be brought back again by going to a higher altitude due to the fact that the angle of view with the refraction changes AND the horizon naturally rises to high level, with this rise being made up by seeing farther from higher.

This video has a great example:

In sum, the descent of the sun is constant since it is beyond the apex of the perspective lines, descending into our fixed finite vanishing point, while it is affected by refraction and lensing of the atmolayer that separates us from the sun.

The thing the video ignores is the temperature inversion.  The clip he referenced for the "lensing" effect even says "if our simulated temperature inversion moves into place" the atmosphere is acting like a lens.  It's the temperature inversions that causes the magnifying effect.  It also causes Fata Morgana mirages.  These mirages usually have an inverted version of the image below the actual image, stacked on one another.  However, it can also cause some really cool mirages too like an object hovering above the horizon.  It's the temperature inversion that produces the lensing effect.  I'm not sure why it's in the referenced clip but the producer of this video decided to leaves it out. 

The sun under the clouds is interesting but also easily explainable.  That magnifier is a flat fresnel lens and it designed to pass light perpendicular to it's surface.  When the led light gets the right distance away so it's shining over the whole surface of the fresnel lens you will have parallel light passing under the "clouds".

At least that's my theory to explain his results.  At any rate, without the temperature inversion the magnifying effect would not seen.

Had he used an actual convex lens he wouldn't gotten the same effect.

Mike

The lens simulates the gradual variation of refractive indexes throughout the layer. Temperature inversion contributes to this, being part of the gradient index optics associated with the strata layer above us. With the different temperatures, the refractive index changes, so you are correct, but the video simulates this nonetheless, with the fresnel lens operating as the example, but works the same as any lens would, relying on focusing light by means of refraction, just like the atmolayer would with temperature inversion.

The lens simulates the gradual variation of refractive indexes throughout the layer.

Yes, but for a simulation to be useful and not misleading, it must be an accurate simulation. The simulation in that video is quite inaccurate and deceptive.

Temperature inversion contributes to this, being part of the gradient index optics associated with the strata layer above us.

Bringing "temperature inversion" into the argument is likewise misleading. Sunrises and sunsets are observed with or without temperature inversion's,  the only change being to the appearance very close to the horizon.

With the different temperatures, the refractive index changes, so you are correct, but the video simulates this nonetheless, with the fresnel lens operating as the example, but works the same as any lens would, relying on focusing light by means of refraction, just like the atmolayer would with temperature inversion.

Sure, "the video simulates this nonetheless", but highly inaccurately.

The simulation suggests that refraction causes an object (representing the sun) to appear at something like 20° lower the real position.
The air has a higher density near ground and this "gradual variation of refractive indexes throughout the layer" leads to light being bent downward, so making the sun near the horizon appearing slightly higher than it really is.

Sure, "the fresnel lens . . . . . .  works the same as any lens would, relying on focusing light by means of refraction"
but it is not "just like the atmolayer would with temperature inversion."

Amospheric refraction, do not normally focus light. It normally just bends light a little downward.

So the video''s simulation is incorrect and misleading because it shows far too much refraction, around 20° instead of about 0.6°
and the refraction in the simulation is in opposite direction to that caused by the density (and refractive index) reducing with altitude.

Once again, flat earrhers try to distort physics to explain away errors in their model.

No it isn't. The point of convergence is always infinitely far away.
Some objects simply become too small to resolve before then, and if they do, they typically don't disappear on the horizon.
Nope, perspective lines meet at the point of convergence.

I didn't say they didn't.
The point of convergence is always infinitely far away.
Some objects will appear to vanish before the point of convergence because they are too small to resolve, and they typically don't vanish on the horizon.

It doesn't need to, the angular diameter is independent of the point of convergence (I forgot to stress that point in my post), if you were to constantly expand the size of something as it furthered away to keep the angular diameter constant, it still follows perspective lines, it doesn't magically defy this the moment we retain the apparent size somehow.

No it doesn't.
The entire point of perspective lines is that they are parallel.
A classic example is a set of railway tracks. They start out say 1.5 m apart, and all the way off in the distance they are still 1.5 m apart.
For them to be perspective lines they MUST remain the same distance apart.
It also means the further away an object is, the smaller it appears.

So if it were to get bigger, then it wouldn't be following perspective lines. It getting bigger would be it magically defying perspective. So no, it does magically defy it the moment you retain the apparent size.

So no, by maintaining the apparent size, it no longer disappears due to perspective.
The sole reason things disappear due to perspective is because they become too small to resolve.

Only if you are referring to the infinitely far away one rather than the resolution limited one.
If you are going for a finite one, the ship's will be much closer as it is much smaller.
Considering that they are converging all at the same point, anything not being visible before it is because the object got to a point in which it was too small to be resolved by our eyes (like the resolution of a camera making things appear to vanish when zooming away).

Then it would need to be infinitely far away, which it never reaches.

When you say they "converse all at the same point", you really mean they set behind the horizon. This isn't a result of perspective. It is a result of Earth getting in the way so you can no longer see the object.
If it was a result of perspective they would simply get too small to resolve and thus each disappear at different points.

No it isn't. There is no magic apex of perspective lines. Perspective lines extend to infinity in all directions.
 It's not magic, it's reality.

No, it is magic.

Assuming the sun is 5000 km up, then after it moves 1000 km from directly overhead it will be at an angle of elevation of 78.7 degrees and thus appear to have descended 11.3 degrees. After another 1000 km it will only have descended another 10.5 degrees to 68.2 degrees angle of elevation. After another 1000 km it will have descended to 59.0 degrees, then after another it will descend to 51.3 degrees, then 45, then 39.8 and so on.

Notice the massive change in rate?
At the start it dropped 11.3 degrees for 1000 km. At the end (well after 45 degrees), it dropped 5.2 degrees.
This again? 
It's all based on your nonsensical assumptions on perspective.

No, it is based upon facts of how perspective works.
Do you have anything rational to say to it, or are you just capable of ignoring it because it shows you to be wrong?

So no, it will not be the same rate. If it was the result of perspective it would appear to descend quickly near the start and slowly at the end, only ever approaching the horizon (which is at a negative angle of elevation).
No, the rate of change is constant due to the fact that the sun is at an altitude above the apex of perspective lines (which all meet at a point of convergence a FINITE distance away), descending at a 45 degree angle to the ground, forming an isosceles right triangle from our perspective. So, if the sun is beyond the apex of perspective, after it moves x distance from directly overhead it, it will, regardless of how close it gets to convergence, always be descending at the same rate of y due to the fact that it is always descending at the same angle to the horizon. Being at a 45 degree angle to the horizon.

Pretty much everything in that statement was pure bullshit.
There is no apex of perspective lines, they go to infinity in all directions.
The sun doesn't descend in a magic 45 degree angle triangle.
NOTHING will descend at the same rate due to perspective. The further away it is, the slower it will appear to move.

Or, if its above the apex of perspective lines, which all meet at a vanishing point, which is what I have been saying.

Nope, as that is just pure bullshit. There is no apex of perspective. If you think there is, try proving it.

No it doesn't. That is just a crappy drawing with a few lines, some almost true statements and some blatantly wrong ones.
It gets it right actually, that things will descend steeper into the vanishing point to converge due to the fact that there is one a finite distance away, our vision is like a cone.

No, it gets it completely wrong. Our vision is like a cone, with the apex on our eyes. The further away, the greater the linear size we can see.

It is nothing like the magic you need which needs to be completely independent of our eyes and instead fixed to Earth, such that you get the same magic BS cone regardless of which way you look.

Try drawing it again, but this time have the person look straight up and see what they should see.

The steepest angle an object can approach the vanishing point is 0. That is because the vanishing point is infinitely far away.
There you go with your dogmatic and nonsensical assumptions again.

You mean with facts and reality.
You are the one going with dogmatic and nonsensical assumption which have no basis in reality.

If you are going to use a resolution limited one then they aren't going to disappear on the "horizon". Instead plane 2 will disappear slightly above it and plane 1 will disappear significantly above it.
Nope, they are descending into the same vanishing point and therefore Plane 1 will descend steeper than Plane 2 to the same point of convergence.

Only if you are talking about one infinitely far away which they will never reach.

It does get one thing almost right though, the further away an object is with constant linear speed, the more constant its angular speed will appear to be, but it will also be slower.
In order to get a truly constant speed, the object would need a linear speed of 0.
That is because the rate of change changes less the steeper it has to descend, descending at a constant rate when something reaches the climax of our perspective triangle.

Again, there is no apex or climax. It extends infinitely.
The only time it reaches a "constant rate" would be if it is infinitely far away such that its rate is 0, i.e. it isn't moving.
As soon as it is some finite distance, it will be some changing rate.
I did the math to prove that. If you wish to disagree and have any sane person take you seriously you will need to do more than just dismiss reality and spout bullshit in its place with no backing at all.

The reason it seems like there is is because there is a dependence on angular speed and angular speed depends on linear speed and distance. For the above example, it took 5 hours for the object above to go from directly overhead at 11.3 degrees an hour to reach 45 degrees and 5.2 degrees an hour.
If it was twice as far away, then its angular speed would be cut in half. It would now start travelling at 5.65 degrees per hour, and it would take 10 hours to reach 2.6 degrees per hour. So it would take twice as long to get to the same fraction of initial speed.
The sun descends constantly because its part of the isosceles right triangle of our perspective, descending at a 45 degree angle into the vanishing point.

No it isn't. There is no magic triangle of perspective.

Firstly, atmospheric lensing would be the same as refraction.
True, but it is fair to distinguish them, since one is based on variations in refractive index and the other, basic light deflection.

No, it isn't fair to distinguish them. You are intentionally using a different word to try and hide from the reality of refraction so you can pretend it does something it doesn't and try link it to ideas so your BS with magnifying glasses might be more convincing.
The variations in refractive index case the light deflection.

Taking the atmolayer as a gradient index material, light converges to magnify, and the sun doesn't reach beyond the focal length of the atmolayer from our perspective, if it did, it would then lack the capability of magnification with further movement away.

Again, only in one direction, the vertical direction, and only an insignificant amount.

As it continues away, it passes through the atmolayer at an angle to reach our vision, increasing the strata length to pass through as it continues away, and converges at an angle due to perspective. To say it isn't significant enough is to be ignorant of the nature of the strata above us.

Do you mean the magic strata you have invented?

We know how the refractive index of air compares to a vacuum.
What are you suggesting is above us? Do you have any basis at all for your claim?

More importantly, that wouldn't help it dip below the horizon. That would just make it look bigger.
It would actually, it is capable of distorting the imagery of it and have a sort of reflection from refraction that affects our view from our angle of incidence being changed to a different angle, cutting off the bottom of the sun.
This video has an example at around 10:00 where this optical effect obscures the bottom of distant things:

You mean where they openly admit the ground isn't flat, and they are focusing on a heat haze, a transient effect, where you can get a completely different result by using a flat road without the heat haze?

If you used a lens which actually behaves like the atmosphere, it would make things appear higher, not lower. It would not hide things behind a horizon.

So again, USE A MODEL WHICH MATCHES REALITY NOT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LENS.

Another point brought up by many is the divergent lines from the horizon, as the sun hits the horizon, it transitions into these divergent lines.

Without any explanation at all I see?

These divergent lines are not divergent at all. They just appear that way. They are parallel lines, and if you follow them, they can appear to meet on the opposite horizon.

Again, we know how this works, it isn't just dependent upon water. It produces a very negligible change and only in the vertical direction.
Vertical as in? It does it in between the gradient index atmolayer and the sun, it passes through more atmolayer strata at sunset due to its angle to the observer, it is always between us and the sun and the gradient index effect exists all across the atmolayer, not simply in some specific direction you want to imply is the only way it could work.

Vertical as in if you are looking at the sun, so the sun is directly forward from you, standing upright, such that the ground is roughly level, left to right, vertical is up and down.
You only have the gradient in the atmosphere vertically. You do not have it left and right.
That means the atmosphere is completely incapable of magnifying in the horizontal (i.e. left and right) direction.
Instead, it is only capable of magnifying in the vertical direction (i.e. up and down). With decent equipment this is observed, with only a slight increase in the apparent vertical size of the sun.

Yes, passing through much more of the ATMOSPEHRE results in refraction having a greater effect, as does the angle. This means the most magnification occurs at sunrise and sunset, which is when you can start detecting a slight increase in the apparent vertical size of the sun.

Again, it has no effect on the horizontal size.

It is similar in that as distance increases, it increases apparent size with this magnification effect by converging light. It's a basic concept.

And it is a completely dishonest representation.
Again, it isn't due to converging light, it is due to diverging light.
It is nothing like how your vision or the atmosphere works.

The angle of incidence in which the light is reflected from the thick ground layer gives the cut off effect, it is an observed fact that this phenomena happens, no need to bring this up for my point.

Do you mean in fairly rare instances where it can happen, as opposed to an everyday, everywhere occurrence that would be required to have your FE model match reality?

You mean where they use a completely different lens to get the effect we observe rather than the one expected if Earth was flat and atmoplanic lensing was a thing?
He used a Fresnel lens, it focuses the light rays by means of refraction, just like the atmolayer.

No, completely different to the atmosphere.
Once again, the atmosphere has a vertical gradient, not a horizontal one. The frenzel lens has both.
The atmosphere doesn't magically have the gradient switch half way up. The frenzel lens did.

If you want to make an honest comparison, without getting 2 fancy, you would cut the lens in half, such that the centre is on the table and then try, and state quite clearly that it will distort the horizontal from what would be expected for your model.
To do it properly, you would get a lens which only distorts in the vertical, not horizontal.

For example, in showing the buildings, where was the centre of the lens? Up nice and high. This means some light would be bent down, while other light is bent up, completely different to how refraction actually works where for the most part (i.e. ignoring transient effects) light is just bent down.
Again, its a lens, converges light by means of refraction, not light rays bending all in one direction by passing through a different medium.

Yes, that is why calling it lensing is extremely dishonest.
The atmosphere is based upon refraction with a vertical gradient which results in the light all bending in one direction (down).

Notice how in order to get the sun to disappear, he has to use a mountain rather than just a flat surface?
That mountain was used as an example to show the earth sunset.

And that doesn't change the fact he was unable to show a sunset over an ocean or the like.

Its a lens based on focusing light beams by refraction. The atmolayer does just that by having refractive index variations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient-index_optics

Again, the issue is he has the gradient horizontally as well as vertically, and more importantly, the gradient is not monotonically decreasing with height as the atmosphere is.

Notice the first image in your link?
It shows the refractive index as a function of x. Notice how it decreases from the centre? To model the atmosphere it should decrease from the table.

So again, TRY IT AGAIN WITH A LENS TO SIMULATE WHAT YOUR ATMOLAYER SHOULD DO OR JUSTIFY HOW IT HAS THIS BS REFRACTIVE INDEX!!!

]
1. The sun's descent should be constant, since it is descending beyond the apex of our perspective lines, at a 45 degree angle to the horizon.

Again, PURE BULLSHIT. There is no apex, it extends to infinity. Simple math shows quite clearly that the rate will vary.

2. The atmolayer's behavior matches what I was saying, it is a gradient index material, and acts similar to magnifying glass in that it focuses light.

No it doesn't. Your fictitious pile of crap matches. That in almost no way matches the reality of the atmosphere/atmolayer.

/b]
I can tell you are purposefully doing whatever you can to explain away every point I am making, so sad that this is your goal here.

Yes, my goal is to point out all your BS rather than leaving it to go unchallenged.
I am "explaining it away" by pointing out exactly what is wrong with it, explaining why it is wrong and even giving examples. All you seem to be able to do in response is assert that the same bullshit again and dismiss what i have said.

Are you able to disprove any of what I have said or prove any of your nonsense?

The lens simulates the gradual variation of refractive indexes throughout the layer. Temperature inversion contributes to this, being part of the gradient index optics associated with the strata layer above us. With the different temperatures, the refractive index changes, so you are correct, but the video simulates this nonetheless, with the fresnel lens operating as the example, but works the same as any lens would, relying on focusing light by means of refraction, just like the atmolayer would with temperature inversion.

But it doesn't just do that. Instead it also simulates a non-existent horizontal gradient to pretend the sun can remain the same size, and it gets the vertical gradient completely wrong with the refractive index increasing with height to begin with before dropping.
So no, it isn't just like the atmolayer would.

The lens simulates the gradual variation of refractive indexes throughout the layer. Temperature inversion contributes to this, being part of the gradient index optics associated with the strata layer above us. With the different temperatures, the refractive index changes, so you are correct, but the video simulates this nonetheless, with the fresnel lens operating as the example, but works the same as any lens would, relying on focusing light by means of refraction, just like the atmolayer would with temperature inversion.

The point made in the video is that it’s the temperature inversion that causes the magnifying effect.  The problem with this is that while it may magnify can also have other effects like the Fata Morgana mirages I mentioned.  The possibility of varying effects caused by the temperature inversion make this an unreliable hook to hang your hat.

However, let’s assume it was just meant illustrate the magnifying effect of atmospheric refraction.  We already knew about that and minus introducing anomalies such as a temperature inversion the amount of magnification is minor.  Also, calculators such as the following link already take that into account.  The refraction is quantifiable, testable, and repeatable.

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Additionally, the amount of atmospheric refraction varies with altitude and adding in other atmospheric conditions it isn’t linear either.  The apparent size of the sun is identical to all viewers regardless of location and altitude so this really isn’t a very good explanation the constant size of the sun. 

Mike