Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain

According to that explanation the sun gets to the sea level horizon, parallel to the base of the mountain, a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

Your rebuttal to this is to bring up what ancient people thought about how perspective works at long distances.

Likewise, your rebuttal to EAT is to bring up what ancient people though about how light travels at long distances. An ancient theory. Totally uncompelling.

According to that explanation the sun gets to the sea level horizon, parallel to the base of the mountain, a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

Your rebuttal to this is to bring up what ancient people thought about how perspective works at long distances.

Likewise, your rebuttal to EAT is to bring up what ancient people though about how light travels at long distances. An ancient theory. Totally uncompelling.

I have no idea what you're prattling on about. Back to the subject:

How does FET account for a shadow from the lower mountain rising up to the top of the highest mountain when the FE sun is setting?

Under any FET the sun is at the sea level horizon, at 90 degrees, and the photons are pointing up at the mountain top.

If you ask how, because of xyz, your xyz is undemonstrated ancient hypothesis. You are using undemonstrated ancient hypothesis to make conclusions about the world and tell us how things "should" be -- an inherent fallacy.

Under any FET the sun is at the sea level horizon, at 90 degrees, and the photons are pointing up at the mountain top.

If you ask how, because of xyz, your xyz is undemonstrated ancient hypothesis. You are using undemonstrated ancient hypothesis to make conclusions about the world and tell us how things "should" be -- an inherent fallacy.

You need to provide a diagram showing the location of the sun being seen from multiple locations at the same time on earth at the correct angle as measured.

Sun-horiz converge because of distance.
Not converge in reality.
Nice try.
Logic fail.

None of those models say that the sun recedes forever without setting. A long line of lamp posts also "sets" into the horizon.

No it doesn't.
The top of the lamp posts appear to get closer to the ground but never under the ground,
So let's look at the scale of things.

Tall lamp posts might be 50 feet high and by 5 miles away the light is only 0.1° above the ground. They have near enough merged with it.

But your sun and moon are supposedly 32 miles in diameter an 3000 miles above the earth.
On the Flat Earth, the sun would typically be a bit under 10,000 miles away at sunrise or sunset so it would be roughly 17° above the horizon.

Perspective cannot put your sun anywhere near the horizon, let alone hidden by it!

Your lamp post analogy/perspective falls totally flat. So you invent your purely hypothetical Electromagnetic Accelerator!

But I have to repeat that electric and magnetic fields do not bend light in other than in artificially constructed microstructures!

Q & A: Light and Magnets... and Gravity Q: How far can a magnetic field bend light?
A:
Hi Jon --

Nice try. Unfortunately, the path light takes is not affected by the presence of a magnetic field. Light itself is composed of an oscillating electric and magnetic field, and one very important property of electric and magnetic fields is what we call "linearity." That is, if you have two sources of electric and/or magnetic fields, you can predict what the combined field is just by adding the two source fields together. The two fields don’t change each other at all. So if you add the field of a light ray to any other field we can imagine, the light ray will continue as before and the extra field will just stay the same, adding to it in places where the extra field is strong, but having no effect beyond the reach of the extra field. So there is no way that a magnetic field can bend light.

Also what is the source on any electric or magnetic field that might have cause this purely imaginary Electromagnetic Acceleration?

So either come up with evidence or discard it. I do wonder how all your hypotheses fit into Zetetic Science.

>>Perspective cannot put your sun anywhere near the horizon, let alone hidden by it!

>> Also what is the source on any electric or magnetic field that might have cause this purely imaginary Electromagnetic Acceleration?

Do you have any evidence for how light or perspective behaves at distances over, say, 20 miles?

Link me to the studies please.

The official RET model discards Euclidean Space and Euclid's assumptions. I don't see that you have ANYTHING to stand on for your opinions.

>>Perspective cannot put your sun anywhere near the horizon, let alone hidden by it!
>> Also what is the source on any electric or magnetic field that might have cause this purely imaginary Electromagnetic Acceleration?

So no answers! I ask again!

You invent your purely hypothetical Electromagnetic Accelerator!
But I have to repeat that electric and magnetic fields do not bend light in other than in artificially constructed microstructures!
Also what is the source on any electric or magnetic field that might have cause this purely imaginary Electromagnetic Acceleration?

If you aren't prepared to support your hypotheses it seems little point continuing.

Do you have any evidence for how light or perspective behaves at distances over, say, 20 miles?
Link me to the studies please.

Since there's no evidence that light follows other that a straight path except when refracted by predictable amounts by the medium I suggest that you need to provide evidence to that contrary.

But laser beams can be aimed at where the moon is predicted to be and to return to the receiving telescope.

Science Experiments - Laser Ranging Retroreflector
The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from. A similar device was also included on the Soviet Union's Lunakhod 2 spacecraft. These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large telescopes on Earth. The reflected laser beam is also observed with the telescope, providing a measurement of the round-trip distance between Earth and the Moon. This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon. Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.

Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused for large distances. Nevertheless, there is enough dispersion of the beam that it is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20 kilometers in diameter when it returns to Earth. Because of this very weak signal, observations are made for several hours at a time. By averaging the signal for this period, the distance to the Moon can be measured to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters (the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometers).

That sort of experiment cannot be aimed purely by trial and error.

Then plenty of your Flat Earth Friends on YouTube assume just that in their attempts to disprove "curvature".
Here's Mark Sargent claiming that infrared photos eliminate refraction (they don't but so what?): Flat Earth 100 mile infrared test by JTolan, markksargent

The official RET model discards Euclidean Space and Euclid's assumptions. I don't see that you have ANYTHING to stand on for your opinions.

That is quite irrelevant so please present evidence for all your baseless assumptions.

But "Euclidean Space and Euclid's" Geometry has not been discarded. It is now just part of higher level geometries.
What do you mean by "Euclid's assumptions"? Obvious things like parallel lines never crossing (in Euclidean Space)?

And "Euclidean Space" has  only been "discarded" in GR as far as an almost unmeasuraby small deviation from Euclidean space as part of the very slightly curved spacetime or GR.
But the only effect of that of the earth would be increase its diameter a few centimetres - in our region it is quite negligible.

Newtonian Laws in Euclidean space are quite adequate for almost all calculations that most people do.

None of that has changed the shape of size of the Globe. The earth's being a Globe goes way back many centuries before Copernicus.
And none of the scientists or astronomers for a couple of millennia have supported any other shape.

Where did we say that it simulates RET?

Are you capable of actually responding to what is said, or only pathetic strawmen?

Where did I say it simulates RET?
I said it would cause similar issues to the curvature of Earth.

Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.

Interesting how you still fail to address what has been said.

Again, so far the only alternative you have provided to the sun going below the mountain is pure magic.

Do you have anything to substantiate your claims of pure magic?
Again, this is especially important as this magic refutes other FE arguments.

Unless you do, the sun actually going below the height of the mountain remains the most rational option, which when combined with the fact of different time zones and the sun always being above some point on Earth is quite strong evidence that Earth is round.

The argument for how the nature of light and perspective works is based on "the most rational argument"? Funny. That's not science. If you are backing the axioms of Euclidean Space and Euclidean Geometry then I expect you to have science to back up those arguments.

It is quite reasonable that bodies would intersect with the horizon when they recede because that is what is observed. It is quite unreasonable to imagine infinite paths of perspective lines which approach each other forever. One of these scenarios occurs in nature and is backed by direct observation and the other occurs only in the mind and imagination. The argument of which is the "most rational" is a matter of opinion.

Science has zero evidence for these infinite perspective lines. A compete hypothesis. Finite perspective lines are, however, observed. Railroad tracks will appear to touch, and the airy disks which define our optical resolution will literally merge at a small enough angle. There is no such thing as infinite resolution, infinite perspective lines, or a continuous universe as proposed by those euclidean axioms.

If you are to champion those axioms, you need to demonstrate them. Yet all you have for us is what you personally consider "reasonable," with the implicit message that you have no real evidence whatsoever.

>>Perspective cannot put your sun anywhere near the horizon, let alone hidden by it!

>> Also what is the source on any electric or magnetic field that might have cause this purely imaginary Electromagnetic Acceleration?

Do you have any evidence for how light or perspective behaves at distances over, say, 20 miles?

Link me to the studies please.

The official RET model discards Euclidean Space and Euclid's assumptions. I don't see that you have ANYTHING to stand on for your opinions.

Actually, the evidence production is required by you. We already demonstrated how the sunset can shine upward and cast the shadows mentioned as it dips lower and then below the horizon. You have not. There’s no mechanism to get your sun down to the horizon let alone below it.



What you need to figure out is how do you get an FE 3000 mile high sun to disappear below the horizon for 12 hours every day for everyone on the planet using some undefined bendy light and some sort of trompe l’oeil technique where the sun doesn't shrink down to a pinpoint at the “vanishing point”. And explain how to do so in a down to the minute predictable manner for every day. Like clockwork. And then reverse all that and have the sun rise again behind you as its magically been missing for half a day.

When you get sunsets and sunrises sussed out, let us know. In the mean time, it’s safe to say that the explanation for the phenomenon discussed in this thread is unknown to FE. And that’s ok. Just means there’s more work to be done with the theory and the wiki.

I don't see any evidence for that version of perspective or light in that animation. Once again, you fail to provide evidence for your assumptioms and give only that -- assumptions.

We see all bodies appear to intersect the horizon a finite distance away. Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away, and yet you think that you have knowledge for how things should behave over thousands of miles? Quite irrational and undemonstrated.

We see finite perspective and you offer only half-baked ideas about infinite perspective lines which never merge! Please prove your ancient assumptions and hypothesis. The Ancient Greeks never demonstrated any of that.

I don't see any evidence for that version of perspective or light in that animation. Once again, you fail to provide evidence for your assumptioms and give only that -- assumptions.

We see all bodies appear to intersect the horizon a finite distance away. Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away, and yet you think that you have knowledge for how things should behave over thousands of miles? Quite irrational and undemonstrated. Please prove your assumptions and hypothesis.

RE has an explanation for the phenomenon of sunsets and sunrises and the shadows discussed here. FE does not. Sorry, as you have yet to provide one.

What you need to figure out is how do you get an FE 3000 mile high sun to disappear below the horizon for 12 hours every day for everyone on the planet using some undefined bendy light and some sort of trompe l’oeil technique where the sun doesn't shrink down to a pinpoint at the “vanishing point”. And explain how to do so in a down to the minute predictable manner for every day. Like clockwork. And then reverse all that and have the sun rise again behind you as its magically been missing for half a day.

When you have an explanation, let us know.

>>What you need to figure out is how do you get an FE 3000 mile high sun to disappear below the horizon for 12 hours every day

There are already several descriptions on that matter.

What you need to figure out is how you can demonstrate your base assumptions for how perspective and light should behave. We literally see finite perspective, and yet you propose infinite perspective which never merges against all observations. No one has seen these "infinite perspective lines" or anything to verify the concept that things will infitely approach each other. Quite absurd and quite against the reality of our quantized universe.

We now  know that there are discrete units of space, time, and energy. Perfect circles  do not exist. The geometry and continuous universe model of the ancients is quite bunk in that regard. Why should it be the "most reasonable" version of things if it has never been demonstrated and goes against observation?

And again, you completely fail to address what has actually been said, instead resorting to pathetic strawmen.

It is quite reasonable that bodies would intersect with the horizon when they recede because that is what is observed.

No it isn't as you haven't shown that they are receding.
That is based upon your baseless assumption that Earth is flat and the object remains at the same altitude.

If you discard that assumption and instead just use reason (or even zeteticism) you will conclude that object drops in altitude to cause it to go below the horizon.

It is quite unreasonable to imagine infinite paths of perspective lines which approach each other forever.

Only if you think of them as some physical object rather than a phenomenon of vision.
In reality the lines remain equidistant.

Science has zero evidence for these infinite perspective lines. A compete hypothesis. Finite perspective lines are, however, observed.

The finite examples, showing that objects remain equidistant when perpendicular is evidence of Euclidean geometry.
At least near Earth.
Sure, at much larger scales, such as those of the universe, we are currently unsure if the curvature is 0, positive or negative. But we know its magnitude must be small.


Now, do you have any sane justification for using magic instead of the far more reasonable option?

never been demonstrated and goes against observation?

No, RE has been demonstrated in many ways. And perspective, which is what we are dealing with here, isn't really a thing. It is just stating that light travels in straight lines.
Other than the minor effect of gravitational lensing (which is separate from perspective as it is an effect on apparent angular position and size apart from distance), just what observations does this go against?
Your reasoning appears to be entirely circular, first asserting that Earth is flat, to then claim that perspective isn't obeyed for objects like the sun as they clearly go below the horizon, whereas in the FE mythos it remains well above Earth, to then dismiss the argument against a FE.
Reason doesn't work like that.
You can't just assume your conclusion and dismiss problems with it because you assert your conclusion is true.

The only form of "perspective" we have ever observed is that know quite well where light travels in a straight line.

If you wish to assert an alternative version the burden is on you to show that.

>>What you need to figure out is how do you get an FE 3000 mile high sun to disappear below the horizon for 12 hours every day

There are already several descriptions on that matter.

No, not really. Undefined bendy light and 'laws of perspective' don't actually explain it nor work. As it stands, the phenomenon is unknown to FE.

What you need to figure out is how you can demonstrate your base assumptions for how perspective and light should behave. We literally see finite perspective, and yet you propose infinite perspective which never merges against all observations. No one has seen these "infinite perspective lines" or anything to verify the concept that things will infitely approach each other. Quite absurd and quite against the reality of our quantized universe.

We now  know that there are discreet units of space, time, energy, that perfect circles actually do not exist, and that the geometry and continuous universe model of the ancients is quite bunk in that regard. Why should it be the "most reasonable" version of things if it has never been demonstrated and goes against observation?

Nope, not proposing anything of the sort. You're throwing the whole kitchen sink at something as simple as a sunset which can be explained in RE without being distracted by all of this infinite versus finite perspective nonsense. FE has to start throwing around a 'quantized universe' just to explain the sun going down below the horizon everyday. Keep distracting and not addressing. It suits your non-explanation and non-argument well. Let us know when you have something substantive.

>>What you need to figure out is how do you get an FE 3000 mile high sun to disappear below the horizon for 12 hours every day

There are already several descriptions on that matter.

What you need to figure out is how you can demonstrate your base assumptions for how perspective and light should behave. We literally see finite perspective, and yet you propose infinite perspective which never merges against all observations. No one has seen these "infinite perspective lines" or anything to verify the concept that things will infitely approach each other. Quite absurd and quite against the reality of our quantized universe.

We now  know that there are discrete units of space, time, and energy. Perfect circles  do not exist. The geometry and continuous universe model of the ancients is quite bunk in that regard. Why should it be the "most reasonable" version of things if it has never been demonstrated and goes against observation?

As requested please provide a diagram showing how the sun appears for all points on earth at a particular time that agrees with what we measure.

The word perspective is used in the art world and is not relevant to any discussion here, however much you choose to use it.

Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.

No FE model says that Sun is keeping the altitude of 3000 miles?
What do they say?

Also:
Why so many different FE models?
Why they say so many different things?

Could it be because for every subset of real life data one has to make different FE model?

TomB quote:

It is quite reasonable that bodies would intersect with the horizon when they recede because that is what is observed.



It is quite UNreasonable they DONT interect because that would mean the sun tocuhsd down on the earth.
Meaning when the UK sees the sun set, newfoundland should be seeing the sun dropping on their heads?

Is that what youre saying is observed?

We see all bodies appear to intersect the horizon a finite distance away.

What do you even mean by that? The horizon is at right angles to our line of sight so an object extending to the horizon must intersect it.
So you might need to explain yourself better. Maybe draw a diagram.

Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away,

You might claim that "Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away" but I've yet to see anyone with any of knowledge of railroad tracks or geometry claim that.

And if you claim that, then you must believe that trains must be derailed and crash when these "Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away"

and yet you think that you have knowledge for how things should behave over thousands of miles? Quite irrational and undemonstrated.

We see finite perspective and you offer only half-baked ideas about infinite perspective lines which never merge! Please prove your ancient assumptions and hypothesis. The Ancient Greeks never demonstrated any of that.

I'll consider that after you have proven that "Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away".

All I claim is that parallel lines never physically meet but do appear to meet a finite distance away. Rowbotham expresses it fairly well in:

Zetetic Astronomy, at sacred-texts.com, CHAPTER XIV. pp 202,203
The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . .
The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet.

So objects separated by 3000 miles would not appear to meet until they were 9,000,000 miles away - so far that they can never meet within the confines of the earth.

Everything intersects with the horizon. Railroad tracks can receed and intersect with the horizon, and the metal tracks can intersect with each other. Quite literally to all properties of vision. The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.



It all occurs a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as proposed by ancient geometry. You are literally invoking ancient fantasy and conjecture to support your arguments and ideas about perspective infinities.

Your argument that the tracks of railroads don't "really" merge together is a very poor argument. They merge to vision and perspective. No one is claiming that the sun really crashes into the earth, and so that argument is inadequate.

If you read Earth Not a Globe and the tfes.org wiki the sun we see is a projection on the atmolayer. Basically a cloud in the sky. The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective.

Everything intersects with the horizon. Railroad tracks can receed and intersect with the horizon, and the metal tracks can intersect with each other. Quite literally to all properties of vision. The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.



It all occurs a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as proposed by ancient geometry. You are literally invoking ancient fantasy and conjecture to support your arguments and ideas about perspective infinities.

Your argument that the tracks of railroads don't "really" merge together is a very poor argument. They merge to vision and perspective. No one is claiming that the sun really crashes into the earth, and so that argument is inadequate.

If you read Earth Not a Globe and the tfes.org wiki the sun we see is a projection on the atmolayer. Basically a cloud in the sky. The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective.

So you are still using perspective to explain your ideas.  Science measures things and where is your diagram and map?

If the sun is a projection how do you explain the direct heat?

Aaaha
So tomB busts his own theory.
Thanks for coming out.

Lers check it out.
The shadow rises because the light is coming upwards from the horizon due to perspectuve convergence of sun-horizon.

The sun doesnt literally drop down to the horizon.

Therefore....how again does a light ray magically go down then back up?


And (if it hasnt been asked already) what is the cause of the shadow - if not the buldge of the earth?

Everything intersects with the horizon.

Nope.
Plenty of things go behind it.
And that isn't perspective doing it.
It is literally the object being behind the horizon.

Again, you are using completely circular reasoning to justify your nonsense.

Railroad tracks can receed and intersect with the horizon, and the metal tracks can intersect with each other.

Nope.
While they can intersect with the horizon (as they can be part of it), they don't intersect with each other.

The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.

For human eyes.
This clearly doesn't apply to the sun as the sun, even when at the horizon, is much larger than that.
We aren't dealing with the limits of human visual resolution here.

You are also completely misrepresenting how vision works.
It isn't that these objects intersect, it is that you are unable to resolve them.
And note that with railway tracks (and with the hypothetical FE sun) you loose the ability to resolve the object long before it merges (i.e. the rails with each other and the sun with the horizon).

Also note that with the sun being a light source you would be limited by your ability to perceive that light (which unless you appeal to magic you would easily be able to do even in the middle of the night unless something was obstructing it), rather than your ability to resolve the image, with the sun appearing as a point at the limit of resolution.

The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective.

Yes, it proposes that, but it is yet to substantiate it in any way.
It also doesn't explain the upwards light.

Everything intersects with the horizon.
Railroad tracks can receed and intersect with the horizon,
and the metal tracks can intersect with each other. Quite literally to all properties of vision.

Everything does not intersect with the horizon. I do not intersect with the horizon. So please reword your claim in a way that makes sense!
And no! railroad tracks can recede and appear to meet with the horizon - note the "appear to" and the "meet" NOT "intersect"!
No! the metal tracks NEVER intersect with each other. Intersect means to cross not just meet. Look it up in a dictionary!

intersect
verb

• divide (something) by passing or lying across it.
  "the area is intersected only by minor roads"
  synonyms: bisect, divide, halve, cut in two, cut in half, cut across, cut through;
• (of two or more things) pass or lie across each other.
  synonyms: cross, criss-cross;

The metal tracks do appear to meet with each other.

You seem to have great difficulty separating reality (where railway tracks stay the same distance apart) from visual appearance (where railway tracks appear to meet).

The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.

It all occurs a finite distance away,

The "airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree" for a typical human eye but not necessarily for other optical devices!

And yes, I'm quite aware of the Rayleigh criterion but that only shows when two objects appear to merge visually.

Limits of Resolution: The Rayleigh Criterion
The Rayleigh criterion for the diffraction limit to resolution states that two images are just resolvable when the center of the diffraction pattern of one is directly over the first minimum of the diffraction pattern of the other. See [link](b). The first minimum is at an angle of θ_R = 1.22λ/D, so that two point objects are just resolvable if they are separated by the angle

θ_R = 1.22λ/D

where λ is the wavelength of light (or other electromagnetic radiation) and D is the diameter of the aperture, lens, mirror, etc., with which the two objects are observed. In this expression, θ_R has units of radians.

It has nothing to do with when they actually meet because they do not meet anywhere as is easily shown by getting a telescope with a larger aperture than the human eye!

Do you honestly believe that a telescope moves the actual distance away that "the metal tracks can intersect with each other"? Come off it!

and not an infinite distance away as proposed by ancient geometry. You are literally invoking ancient fantasy and conjecture to support your arguments and ideas about perspective infinities.

I'm invoking no "ancient fantasy". Look at Euclid's fifth postulate again:
"That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side of which are the angles less than the two right angles."
Surely anyone would interpret "if produced indefinitely" as "if produced to infinity" which means that they never physically meet.

There is nothing in that saying that parallel lines do not appear to meet at some finite point.

Your argument that the tracks of railroads don't "really" merge together is a very poor argument.

If it "is a very poor argument" why did you claim that

Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away.

They merge to vision and perspective. No one is claiming that the sun really crashes into the earth, and so that argument is inadequate.

Well why did you claim that "Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away?

If you read Earth Not a Globe and the tfes.org wiki the sun we see is a projection on the atmolayer. Basically a cloud in the sky. The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective.

I have thank you, and there is no possibolity of aby "projection on the atmolayer. Basically a cloud in the sky"! There is nothing to cause a projection and nothing to project an image onto!

Sure, "The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective".
But "perspective theory" can only cause the sun or moon to appear to descend to 15° to 20° os so above the horizon and would also reduce the angular size of the sun or moon to something like 1/3 of their sizes when overhead.

Everything intersects with the horizon. Railroad tracks can receed and intersect with the horizon, and the metal tracks can intersect with each other. Quite literally to all properties of vision. The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.

It all occurs a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as proposed by ancient geometry. You are literally invoking ancient fantasy and conjecture to support your arguments and ideas about perspective infinities.

Your argument that the tracks of railroads don't "really" merge together is a very poor argument. They merge to vision and perspective. No one is claiming that the sun really crashes into the earth, and so that argument is inadequate.

If you read Earth Not a Globe and the tfes.org wiki the sun we see is a projection on the atmolayer. Basically a cloud in the sky. The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective.

Everything doesn't intersect the horizon all of the time:



 'Laws of perspective' demand that objects get smaller as they recede. The sun we observe does not. Then you have to invoke some 'magnification' business to explain why the sun doesn't get smaller. Talk about illusion, what sort of voodoo is that? In any case your perspectively setting FE sun would be shrinking to a pinpoint. It doesn't. No amount of magic 'magnification' is going to maintain the precise size of the sun from noon to sunset. There's no magic magnification going on here:



You keep going on about railroad tracks but what we're talking about here is the sun. The FE sun, 32 miles wide and at an altitude of 3000 miles. Not some railroad tracks at an altitude of 1 foot. My sun at sunset is above somewhere else on the planet about 6500 miles west of me. How far away would this perspectively setting sun have to be for it to converge with the horizon? Would 6500 miles be enough to to perspectively lower the sun 3000 miles down to the horizon? And then at that point, push it below the horizon and keep it there for 12 hours, out of sight? It's a confusing notion and seemingly requires a tremendous amount of illusion.

They say Sun is 5000 km high and 51 km in diameter (32 miles).
If you are in Mineapolis at solar noon for Equinox, Sun will have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTg(25.5 / 7071) = 0.41 degrees.
In reality we see angular diameter of 0.53 degrees, which means Sun ahs to be 2 * tg(0.275) * 7071 = 65 km = 40 miles.
(7071 km is distance along the line of sight because the ground distance from Mineapolis to Equator is 5000 km and Sun is 5000 km above it.)

To reach vanishing point Sun has to look as small as 0.0167 degrees (1 arc minute).
Remember, the 0.0167 degrees (1/60 of a degree) is not only vertically but also horizontally.

With 65 km in diameter it has to be (65/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 223 450 km away.
There is not enough room under the dome. The whole diameter of the flat disc is 40 000 km.
It is 5.5 times smaller.

Even if it was just 51 km in diameter, it would have to be (51/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 175 325 km away.
Still can't fit.
40 000 km is still 4.3 times smaller.

Even at that distance Sun would keep floating at ArcTg(5000 / 175 325) = 1.6 degrees above the horizon.

And still 5000 - 6 = 4994 kilometers higher than the highest clouds.

Another option would be if light simply stops at 10 000 km from Sun and we don't see it any more.
Then how that light hits tops of high mountains and tall buildings further away behind us?

The third option would be for Sun to hide behind something for sunset and sunrise, but that's what FE is trying to avoid.

They say Sun is 5000 km high and 51 km in diameter (32 miles).
If you are in Mineapolis at solar noon for Equinox, Sun will have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTg(25.5 / 7071) = 0.41 degrees.
In reality we see angular diameter of 0.53 degrees, which means Sun ahs to be 2 * tg(0.275) * 7071 = 65 km = 40 miles.
(7071 km is distance along the line of sight because the ground distance from Mineapolis to Equator is 5000 km and Sun is 5000 km above it.)

To reach vanishing point Sun has to look as small as 0.0167 degrees (1 arc minute).
Remember, the 0.0167 degrees (1/60 of a degree) is not only vertically but also horizontally.

With 65 km in diameter it has to be (65/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 223 450 km away.
There is not enough room under the dome. The whole diameter of the flat disc is 40 000 km.
It is 5.5 times smaller.

Even if it was just 51 km in diameter, it would have to be (51/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 175 325 km away.
Still can't fit.
40 000 km is still 4.3 times smaller.

Even at that distance Sun would keep floating at ArcTg(5000 / 175 325) = 1.6 degrees above the horizon.

And still 5000 - 6 = 4994 kilometers higher than the highest clouds.

Another option would be if light simply stops at 10 000 km from Sun and we don't see it any more.
Then how that light hits tops of high mountains and tall buildings further away behind us?

The third option would be for Sun to hide behind something for sunset and sunrise, but that's what FE is trying to avoid.

you ignore the fact that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said.

Quote from: Macarios on June 18, 2019, 02:23:49 AM

They say Sun is 5000 km high and 51 km in diameter (32 miles).
If you are in Mineapolis at solar noon for Equinox, Sun will have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTg(25.5 / 7071) = 0.41 degrees.
In reality we see angular diameter of 0.53 degrees, which means Sun ahs to be 2 * tg(0.275) * 7071 = 65 km = 40 miles.
(7071 km is distance along the line of sight because the ground distance from Mineapolis to Equator is 5000 km and Sun is 5000 km above it.)

To reach vanishing point Sun has to look as small as 0.0167 degrees (1 arc minute).
Remember, the 0.0167 degrees (1/60 of a degree) is not only vertically but also horizontally.

With 65 km in diameter it has to be (65/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 223 450 km away.
There is not enough room under the dome. The whole diameter of the flat disc is 40 000 km.
It is 5.5 times smaller.

Even if it was just 51 km in diameter, it would have to be (51/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 175 325 km away.
Still can't fit.
40 000 km is still 4.3 times smaller.

Even at that distance Sun would keep floating at ArcTg(5000 / 175 325) = 1.6 degrees above the horizon.

And still 5000 - 6 = 4994 kilometers higher than the highest clouds.

Another option would be if light simply stops at 10 000 km from Sun and we don't see it any more.
Then how that light hits tops of high mountains and tall buildings further away behind us?

The third option would be for Sun to hide behind something for sunset and sunrise, but that's what FE is trying to avoid.

you ignore the fact that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said.

considering any factor by wise is unwise
booooooya!
you're fully discredited.
no one makes a map by using flight times.

Quote from: wise on June 18, 2019, 02:56:38 AM

Quote from: Macarios on June 18, 2019, 02:23:49 AM

They say Sun is 5000 km high and 51 km in diameter (32 miles).
If you are in Mineapolis at solar noon for Equinox, Sun will have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTg(25.5 / 7071) = 0.41 degrees.
In reality we see angular diameter of 0.53 degrees, which means Sun ahs to be 2 * tg(0.275) * 7071 = 65 km = 40 miles.
(7071 km is distance along the line of sight because the ground distance from Mineapolis to Equator is 5000 km and Sun is 5000 km above it.)

To reach vanishing point Sun has to look as small as 0.0167 degrees (1 arc minute).
Remember, the 0.0167 degrees (1/60 of a degree) is not only vertically but also horizontally.

With 65 km in diameter it has to be (65/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 223 450 km away.
There is not enough room under the dome. The whole diameter of the flat disc is 40 000 km.
It is 5.5 times smaller.

Even if it was just 51 km in diameter, it would have to be (51/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 175 325 km away.
Still can't fit.
40 000 km is still 4.3 times smaller.

Even at that distance Sun would keep floating at ArcTg(5000 / 175 325) = 1.6 degrees above the horizon.

And still 5000 - 6 = 4994 kilometers higher than the highest clouds.

Another option would be if light simply stops at 10 000 km from Sun and we don't see it any more.
Then how that light hits tops of high mountains and tall buildings further away behind us?

The third option would be for Sun to hide behind something for sunset and sunrise, but that's what FE is trying to avoid.

you ignore the fact that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said.

considering any factor by wise is unwise
booooooya!
you're fully discredited.
no one makes a map by using flight times.

This is not about map. It is about whether a water block breaks the sun rays or not. Appearently, it does. And majority of flat earth models have a water (or ice) dome around it. Hence it has to be get considered. Your baseless BH's, insults and "booyaa"s can not change the reality.