Double standards

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2019, 03:57:15 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 07, 2019, 04:48:13 PM

Note that those lights appear to be getting smaller in size.

Actually, the last six in that scene don't seem to be shrinking much, as compared to the first six.

So what? The sun and moon don't change noticably in angular size from near overhead till they meet the horizon.

What makes you think that the Sun and Moon are closer than the furthest lamp in that image when they are overhead?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 04, 2019, 06:12:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2019, 03:57:15 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 07, 2019, 04:48:13 PM

Note that those lights appear to be getting smaller in size.

Actually, the last six in that scene don't seem to be shrinking much, as compared to the first six.

So what? The sun and moon don't change noticably in angular size from near overhead till they meet the horizon.

What makes you think that the Sun and Moon are closer than the furthest lamp in that image when they are overhead?

How far away is the sun from earth?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 04, 2019, 06:12:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2019, 03:57:15 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 07, 2019, 04:48:13 PM

Note that those lights appear to be getting smaller in size.

Actually, the last six in that scene don't seem to be shrinking much, as compared to the first six.

So what? The sun and moon don't change noticeably in angular size from near overhead till they meet the horizon.

What makes you think that the Sun and Moon are closer than the furthest lamp in that image when they are overhead?

I neither said nor hinted that they were but the sun and moon not changing noticeably in angular size from near overhead till they meet the horizon is simple a matter of observation.

Noticing that those lights in the background stay relatively the same size is also an observation.

Noticing that those lights in the background stay relatively the same size is also an observation.

I observe it slightly differently. The lights closest to the observer are of a certain size and as the lights get successively further away they appear to shrink. The closest maybe the size of a beachball, the one furthest away a baseball.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2019, 09:26:51 PM

Noticing that those lights in the background stay relatively the same size is also an observation.

I observe it slightly differently. The lights closest to the observer are of a certain size and as the lights get successively further away they appear to shrink. The closest maybe the size of a beachball, the one furthest away a baseball.

The shrinking does not appear to be linear, and appears to slow significantly the further back it goes.

Quote from: Stash on December 04, 2019, 09:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2019, 09:26:51 PM

Noticing that those lights in the background stay relatively the same size is also an observation.

I observe it slightly differently. The lights closest to the observer are of a certain size and as the lights get successively further away they appear to shrink. The closest maybe the size of a beachball, the one furthest away a baseball.

The shrinking does not appear to be linear, and appears to slow significantly the further back it goes.

They seem to get progressively smaller to me. The closest is quite large, the middle much smaller and the last even smaller still.

Actually, the last six in that scene don't seem to be shrinking much, as compared to the first six.

Due to glare and limits on angular resolution.
Notice how they just appear to be bright spots with no descernable details?

Noticing that those lights in the background stay relatively the same size is also an observation.

Then your one example must prove same for all examples.
And if not, the factoring varibale should be noted.
So, from sunrise to sunset across the PLANE, how do you account?
Pr are we doing a classic TomB cherry pick?
You have only one dxample?
Wirte a paper and catalogue the time, weather and location.
Im sure instagram can give you more than enough data.

Quote from: Stash on December 04, 2019, 09:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2019, 09:26:51 PM

Noticing that those lights in the background stay relatively the same size is also an observation.

I observe it slightly differently. The lights closest to the observer are of a certain size and as the lights get successively further away they appear to shrink. The closest maybe the size of a beachball, the one furthest away a baseball.

The shrinking does not appear to be linear, and appears to slow significantly the further back it goes.

So if you want to say rhat atmoplaner lensing is a thing then the distance to the 6th7th8th should be measurable and you could creats a formula estinate much simliar to refraction.

We should see this in airplanes
Ships
Buliding
Etc

Quote from: rabinoz on November 07, 2019, 04:48:13 PM

Note that those lights appear to be getting smaller in size.

Actually, the last six in that scene don't seem to be shrinking much, as compared to the first six.

That's glare, not the lamps themselves, unlike the Sun and Moon.

It is obvious that the same distance looks shorter as it is farthe away,
unlike Sun and Moon where same traveled distances have same angular sizes.

Path from 12pm to 1pm and path from 5pm to 6pm seen from the same point have the same angular speed.

Quote from: Stash on December 04, 2019, 09:39:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2019, 09:26:51 PM

Noticing that those lights in the background stay relatively the same size is also an observation.

I observe it slightly differently. The lights closest to the observer are of a certain size and as the lights get successively further away they appear to shrink. The closest maybe the size of a beachball, the one furthest away a baseball.

The shrinking does not appear to be linear, and appears to slow significantly the further back it goes.

But the changes in size are more significant the closer it gets.  Why is this not observed with the sun or moon?  At what distance and/or angle of elevation does the atmoplanic lensing even out the size changes?

Good job tomB posting your own failure to realize your double standard.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2019, 03:57:15 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 07, 2019, 04:48:13 PM

Note that those lights appear to be getting smaller in size.

Actually, the last six in that scene don't seem to be shrinking much, as compared to the first six.

That's glare, not the lamps themselves, unlike the Sun and Moon.

It is obvious that the same distance looks shorter as it is farthe away,
unlike Sun and Moon where same traveled distances have same angular sizes.

Path from 12pm to 1pm and path from 5pm to 6pm seen from the same point have the same angular speed.

Prove that it's glare.

Why would glare cause bodies appear to be the same size into the distance?

If glare at is making a body 2x its size, for example, a body 8x smaller at 8 times distance from the original position (Position A) would be required to have a glare of 16x to match the glare of position A, which is eight fold increase of the initial ratio. It is questionable how 'glare' could know where the observer is, in order to cause bodies to maintain their sizes into the distance.

Prove that it's glare.

That is easiest done in person. If you alter the exposure setting of the camera, the glare changes, but the actual size of the object does not.
This can be seen in some footage, such as when the sun is obscured by a cloud or mountain.

But as I said before, the easiest way to show it from the photo is that it doesn't have resolvable features and instead it just a bright spot.

Why would glare cause bodies appear to be the same size into the distance?

The glare and limits of angular resolution.

An object in a photo can never appear smaller than 1 pixel. If it did, it wouldn't be there.
With how the photos are processed to reduce, they typically take up several pixels at the smallest, for example if you look at the edge of the buildings in those photos instead of being a sharp edge of one pixel they extend over 3 or 4.

If glare at is making a body 2x its size

It doesn't.
Instead it makes it appear a relatively fixed size.
This is due to a multitude of factors including scattering of light as it passes through the air, multiple reflections inside your eyes and the nature of how your eyes work.

But this is all ignoring the main point of this thread, the double standard that FEers use when it comes to rockets and the sun, claiming that because the rocket appears to go down, it must go down and not actually go to or stay in space, but the sun is fine staying up there even though it appears to go down below Earth.

So you can't prove it. And you can't even really explain why the lights appear to be about the same size. Yet we should listen to you about what it is? I see.

So you can't prove it. And you can't even really explain why the lights appear to be about the same size. Yet we should listen to you about what it is? I see.

Who cares about the lights?
It's the easily observed fact that neither the Sun nor the Moon changes significantly in angular size from when near overhead till near the horizon.
And don't try "the intense glare of the . . . . . " excuse! There is no intense glare from the moon - it can easily be photographed from just after rising.

Well this thread is double standards in general.

And tomB believes we (RE) are applying magic refraction or glare to explain these far away lights while dismissing FE attempts to use the same fuzzy magic affects to explain why the sun doesnt shrink.

However, cherry picking a single photo  doesnt really count tomB.
Lets see this same photo in winter.

So you can't prove it. And you can't even really explain why the lights appear to be about the same size. Yet we should listen to you about what it is? I see.

Strawman deployed

Check the video below. Timelapse of moon rises and sets.

Notice no discernible change in angular size, what could that mean?

Added bonus in the first sequence, you can see lensing effects of the clouds reflecting the glare, but the source, ie. The moon, not itself changing size.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2019, 01:50:28 PM

So you can't prove it. And you can't even really explain why the lights appear to be about the same size. Yet we should listen to you about what it is? I see.

Strawman deployed

Check the video below. Timelapse of moon rises and sets.

Notice no discernible change in angular size, what could that mean?

Added bonus in the first sequence, you can see lensing effects of the clouds reflecting the glare, but the source, ie. The moon, not itself changing size.

Oops wrong link

This one includes glare

Notice no discernible change in angular size, what could that mean?

It looks to me that the consistency in angular diameter of light effect that Rabinoz posted is in full effect.

Quote

Notice no discernible change in angular size, what could that mean?

It looks to me that the consistency in angular diameter of light effect that Rabinoz posted is in full effect.

Bit strange though isnt it, once the cloud passes you can clearly see the moon hasn't changed size at all.

Stranger that you seem to be suggesting that the object going farther away gets bigger.

Can you provide a predictive model and timelapse of the moons movement on your FE version?

So you can't prove it. And you can't even really explain why the lights appear to be about the same size. Yet we should listen to you about what it is? I see.

Who cares about street lights? Look at what the moon does in this:

Check the video below. Timelapse of moon rises and sets.

Notice no discernible change in angular size, what could that mean?

Added bonus in the first sequence, you can see lensing effects of the clouds reflecting the glare, but the source, ie. The moon, not itself changing size.

Now Let's see what the ultimate flat Earth authority, Samuel Birely Rowbotham has to say on perspective:

Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham),  CHAPTER XIV.
"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."
The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.

Now, on the flat Earth the moon is claimed to be about 30 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the Earth.
So when overhead it "subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of" about 0.57°.
At moonrise or moonset for a person on the equator and the moon on the equator it would be roughly 14,000 miles away, it would "subtend at the eye of the observer, an angle of" only about 0.0.12°.

If you don't agree with my distances work out your own and we'll try them.

But simple observation tells us that the moon  "subtends at the eye of the observer" the same angle of whether overhead or on the horizon.

How can this be?

But this is all ignoring the main point of this thread, the double standard that FEers use when it comes to rockets and the sun, claiming that because the rocket appears to go down, it must go down and not actually go to or stay in space, but the sun is fine staying up there even though it appears to go down below Earth.

Actually, I think that it quite aptly proves the OP's point.  Tom (and other FE'ers) demand a much higher burden of proof from RE'ers than they are willing to accept for FET.  Is the the Flat Earth Society or is it the Deny Round Earth Society?

Quote from: JackBlack on December 05, 2019, 01:45:32 PM

But this is all ignoring the main point of this thread, the double standard that FEers use when it comes to rockets and the sun, claiming that because the rocket appears to go down, it must go down and not actually go to or stay in space, but the sun is fine staying up there even though it appears to go down below Earth.

Actually, I think that it quite aptly proves the OP's point.  Tom (and other FE'ers) demand a much higher burden of proof from RE'ers than they are willing to accept for FET.  Is it the Flat Earth Society or is it the Deny Round Earth Society?

Even on YouTube much the effort seems to be in either:

• ridiculing the spinning twisting twirling Earth (which has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth) or
• trying to disprove the Globe by attempting to show "no curvature" or claiming that the horizon always rises to "eye-level".

Many seem to blame NASA for this "conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth" and claim the ubiquitous "8 inches per mile squared" formula is NASA's formula when it was published in Robotham's Zetetic Astronomy:

Zetetic Astronomy, at sacred-texts.com

CHAPTER II.
EXPERIMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE TRUE FORM OF STANDING WATER, AND PROVING THE EARTH TO BE A PLANE.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle.
From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:
<< etc >>

Well again my intetnion for this thread was to disucss double std in general.

TomB feels slighted we DS him on his single image, and does not like the fact we questioned the atmoplaner westher effects.
Do we (RE) validate this claim (of DS, not of his poor logic) or substantiate it by further brushing it off?

Many seem to blame NASA for this "conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth" and claim the ubiquitous "8 inches per mile squared" formula is NASA's formula when it was published in Robotham's Zetetic Astronomy:

Apparently no one ever picked up on the fact that "8 inches per mile squared" describes the curvature of a parabola, not a sphere.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 05, 2019, 10:52:02 PM

Many seem to blame NASA for this "conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth" and claim the ubiquitous "8 inches per mile squared" formula is NASA's formula when it was published in Robotham's Zetetic Astronomy:

Apparently no one ever picked up on the fact that "8 inches per mile squared" describes the curvature of a parabola, not a sphere.

It is very close out to even hundreds of miles. It isn't "curvature" but a measure of how far the horizon falls below the local horizontal.

The geometrical definition of local curvature is the inverse of the radius if the osculation (kissing) circle. For the Earth that is just 1/radius.

But calling it a NASA formula is just plain ignorance of the contents of their own SacredTexts but . . . . . 'nuff said!

So you can't prove it. And you can't even really explain why the lights appear to be about the same size. Yet we should listen to you about what it is? I see.

Again, if you just ignore what has been said, sure.
Or you can go back and actually read what has been said and do what is suggested.

Also notice that you provide absolutely no explanation at all.
It literally makes no sense at all for something to magically appear the same angular size regardless of distance unless it is the result of a phenomenon affecting the observer, rather than the object. Otherwise, your objection applies to you as well.
How does the object know how far away the observer is to know to magically change the apparent size to make it appear constant?

Why do things fall?

Scepti seems to have abandoned the rocket debate.
But ill put one here on his behalf for denP because sando brought up a point a few days ago arguing the mechanisms of gravity are unknown and therefore doesnt exist.

So is the double std applicable to sceptis denP downward atmodome?
Scepti claims things push down because they pushdown.
Gravity pulls down because it just does.
He claims the meausement is the same as whar everyone sees, but the cause and interpeetation is reverse.
Can we ever right him off?
He even uses mysterious alt definitions on top of his poor communication skills so one can never know wtf hes on about.

But
But!

Take electricity.
Is it a positive flow of e? Or a negative flow of charge?
Maybe his version is similar?