Double standards

Quote from: Macarios on December 05, 2019, 01:33:30 AM

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.

The lamp details get blurred and only the shine on and around them shows.

Glare is not just at the lamp location.
All the way between lamp and us there are rays that don't hit our eyes directly but get dispersed at the moist and dust a bit away from the direct path.

As you can see, and said it yourself, the first six lamps get reduced in size significantly.
Why is such effect with Sun and Moon missing?
According to the given photo, between 12pm and 1pm we should see the difference as between the first and the second lamp.
The similarity in size between 7pm and 8pm (in summer the Sun is visible at those times) would not be relevant if the angular diamters would be as changeable as between first and eighth lamp.
They are not.

I just see statements without evidence. I also see that you can't explain why the "glare" makes bodies in the far field to be the same size.

I just see statements without evidence. I also see that you can't explain why the "glare" makes bodies in the far field to be the same size.

The bodies in the far field don't look the same size to me especially in comparison to the first. Are you just making a statement without evidence?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2019, 03:11:50 PM

I just see statements without evidence. I also see that you can't explain why the "glare" makes bodies in the far field to be the same size.

The bodies in the far field don't look the same size to me especially in comparison to the first. Are you just making a statement without evidence?

Interesting that you do not see what several here feel the need to justify. It appears that you are practicing deception. Please explain why the bodies in the distance seem to stop shrinking, as compared to the first few bodies. We have yet to see a valid explanation.

Quote from: Stash on December 06, 2019, 04:30:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2019, 03:11:50 PM

I just see statements without evidence. I also see that you can't explain why the "glare" makes bodies in the far field to be the same size.

The bodies in the far field don't look the same size to me especially in comparison to the first. Are you just making a statement without evidence?

Interesting that you do not see what several here feel the need to justify. It appears that you are practicing deception. Please explain why the bodies in the distance seem to stop shrinking, as compared to the first few bodies. We have yet to see a valid explanation.

They seem to be shrinking all the way, especially on the right:

Quote from: Stash on December 06, 2019, 04:30:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2019, 03:11:50 PM

I just see statements without evidence. I also see that you can't explain why the "glare" makes bodies in the far field to be the same size.

The bodies in the far field don't look the same size to me especially in comparison to the first. Are you just making a statement without evidence?

Interesting that you do not see what several here feel the need to justify. It appears that you are practicing deception. Please explain why the bodies in the distance seem to stop shrinking, as compared to the first few bodies. We have yet to see a valid explanation.

They decrease to the limit of the photograph,  1 pixel cant decrease any further.

This has already been pointed out, no deception.

Not really. Otherwise a picture of the night sky would be blinding with stars.

Not really. Otherwise a picture of the night sky would be blinding with stars.

Same resolution as that picture it would be, indeed the majority of the observable universe are blobs of pixels, at best, when viewed in visible light only.

Your camera would only pick up a few thousand stars in the night sky, as individual points. As you know doubt know there are many many more stars than that.

The smallest lights in the image seem to be four pixels big, not one pixel.

Further, if your assertion that all bodies showed one pixel regardless of distance were true, then we should see far more stars in the night sky.

The smallest lights in the image seem to be four pixels big, not one pixel.

Further, if your assertion that all bodies showed one pixel regardless of distance were true, then we should see far more stars in the night sky.

1st point scroll up to Stashes post, really the lights smear as it pixelates

2nd point who said all bodies showed one pixel regardless of distance?  Also with the human eye, or a camera of that resolution no.

What is the fascination with photographic evidence?

Can you provide any evidence or formula to describe how the angular size of the moon, or sun for that matter, doesnt change as it circles the flat earth at a near distance?

The smallest lights in the image seem to be four pixels big, not one pixel.

What makes you think that distant objects should get smaller at a linear rate?

Further, if your assertion that all bodies showed one pixel regardless of distance were true, then we should see far more stars in the night sky.

You probably would if the atmoplane was perfectly transparent.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2019, 05:29:42 PM

The smallest lights in the image seem to be four pixels big, not one pixel.

What makes you think that distant objects should get smaller at a linear rate?

"The Sun should shrink linearly to a tiny dot" -- you guys

Quote from: markjo on December 06, 2019, 05:56:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2019, 05:29:42 PM

The smallest lights in the image seem to be four pixels big, not one pixel.

What makes you think that distant objects should get smaller at a linear rate?

"The Sun should shrink linearly to a tiny dot" -- you guys

Who guys?

Quote from: markjo on December 06, 2019, 05:56:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2019, 05:29:42 PM

The smallest lights in the image seem to be four pixels big, not one pixel.

What makes you think that distant objects should get smaller at a linear rate?

"The Sun should shrink linearly to a tiny dot" -- you guys

Who claims that "The Sun should shrink linearly to a tiny dot"? Tough luck, the real Sun doesn't agree.

And neither does the flat-Earther, Matrix Decode, (at least he was).

Flat Earth - The Size Of The Sun by Matrix Decode

The problem is that a solar filter is needed to see the true size of the sun when high in the sky. These two videos demonstrate that:

You can't trust "Sun size" videos unless a Solar Filter is used.

Another Sunset with and without the Solar Filter - (Clearer skies today)

The moon presents no such problem so I have to ask,
            "Have to ever really observed that the moon close to the horizon is near enough to the same size as when it is overhead?"
If you haven't observed this yourself it's about time that you did!

But the moon is far less bright, about the same as a sunlit day on earth, so there is no problem with glare unless there are intervening clouds
The following photos were taken with automatic exposure and focus. The 35mm equivalent focal length used on all photos was 1,600 mm.

These show the Moon at quite different altitudes, first when close to the horizon.

(1) May 24, 2016 19:36 EAST Alt 6.3°, Az 107.7°,  size  0.52°

(3) May 24, 2016 at 20:57 EAST Alt 23.1°, Az  99.6°,  size  0.52°

(5) May 24, 2016 at 22:16 EAST Alt 37.8°, Az  92.7°,  size  0.52°

The next photos are of the Moon at higher altitudes, but on different nights.

(6) June 21, 2916 at 23.12 EAST, Strawberry Moon+1, Alt 67.1°, Azm 70.8°,  size  0.53°

(7) May 19, 2016 at 22:08 EAST Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.52°

(8) June 20, 2916 at 23:38 EAST, Strawberry Full Moon Alt 80.2°, Azm 23.4°,  size  0.52°

The angular size of the moon stays (almost) the same size from rising to virtually overhead.

It looks like the constant size effect that you proposed by posting a picture to show us how light sources behave applies.

It looks like the constant size effect that you proposed by posting a picture to show us how light sources behave applies.

Why light sources? Exactly the same perspective rules apply to all objects and the moon is not a light source, just an illuminated object.

Do you hypothesise that the Sun and Moon grow in size as they recede?
I've seen:

Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing into the distance, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.

But that cannot apply to the Moon nor to Sun when a solar filter is used.

And how do you get away from the angular size of a distant object being simply size/distance radians?

Photoshop . . . I can literally see the pixels.   

Photoshop . . . I can literally see the pixels.   

Quote from: Stash on December 06, 2019, 04:59:53 PM

Guilty as charged...

Quote from: markjo on December 06, 2019, 05:56:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2019, 05:29:42 PM

The smallest lights in the image seem to be four pixels big, not one pixel.

What makes you think that distant objects should get smaller at a linear rate?

"The Sun should shrink linearly to a tiny dot" -- you guys

It should, unless we were not moving away from it, say in a fixed gravitational orbit.

Is this your evidence?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2019, 07:10:24 PM

"The Sun should shrink linearly to a tiny dot" -- you guys

It should, unless we were not moving away from it, say in a fixed gravitational orbit.

Is this your evidence?

How do you like their Wiki entry for their Sun not shrinking?

Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing into the distance, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This explanation is simply incorrect.
When overhead the glare of the Sun makes it look much larger than it really is but as it approaches  the horizon the light has to pass though far more air till near the horizon we finally see the true angular size of the Sun.

Mirror Reflection Example
A relative constant sizing effect can be seen in the simple reflections of mirrors. This may be analogous to a projection on a medium between the observer and the source body.

http://faqoverflow.kranzky.com/physics/36233.html(Archive)

  “Q. This was an experiment I saw in my son's workbook. It said to mark out the top of your forehead and the bottom of your chin on a mirror using a whiteboard marker. Then slowly move backwards, and investigate what happens to the size of the reflection subjective to the two marks made. It actually got me quite flabbergasted. I always thought the reflection would get smaller as you moved away from the mirror.

Why is this? ”

  “A.The mirror gets proportionally smaller. The explanation is the similarity of triangles. The eye and the marks on the mirror form a triangle, while the eye and the two points on the image form another triangle. The two triangles are similar, with ratio 1/2, no matter the distance. ”

Explanatory image:

Applying the mirror example to the projection explanation, the "mirror" (projecting surface) of the atmolayer maintains a fixed distance away from the observer on the atmoplane, and thus does not get proportionately smaller. The radiating light source creates a projection in front of the observer and can recede in distance away from the observer with its new apparent dimensions being same as its original projection upon the atmoplane. As it shrinks to perspective, its projection also enlarges by the same ratio, just as with the mirror reflection experiment, causing it to stay the same relative size on the medium as it recedes. It should be noted that not all light sources can create a projection upon the atmoplane.

The reader is encouraged to perform the mirror experiment for his or her own self.

It starts off with "It actually got me quite flabbergasted. I always thought the reflection would get smaller as you moved away from the mirror."
But the reflection (the virtual image in the mirror) does appear to "get smaller as you moved away from the mirror".
The explanation clearly states that "The mirror gets proportionally smaller" and the image remains the same proportion of the mirror.

Then there is no similarity between the mirror example and the Sun receding because in the latter case there is no reflecting surface and no reflection. The Sun is simply viewed through an increasing thickness of air.

Their explanation seems to make no sense at all.

The most the air does is to retract the light to make the Sun appear slightly higher.

An atempt at trying to explain angular size and separation

Tom will hide If you ask too many questions, 12 year cycle on this topic alone. He is well versed with the arguments and where he gets tripped up.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=10571.msg171164#msg171164

Quote from: markjo on December 06, 2019, 05:56:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2019, 05:29:42 PM

The smallest lights in the image seem to be four pixels big, not one pixel.

What makes you think that distant objects should get smaller at a linear rate?

"The Sun should shrink linearly to a tiny dot" -- you guys

Incorrect.  FE'ers are the ones saying that the sun is moving away from the observer and shrinks/fades away causing the sun to appear to set.  RE'ers contend that the sun is always more or less the same distance from the observer ans therefore is always appears to be more or less the same size.

An atempt at trying to explain angular size and separation

Somehow they seem able the claim that
       the separation of Sun, Moon etc from then Earth follows some magic perspective to even appear to disappear below the horizon but
       Sun and Moon don't follow the normal perspective rules and stay the same size - a little sprinkling of magic dust helps I guess.
But when pressed on the topic Tom just quips back that we don't know for sure how light behaves over "such vast distances ".

Well if we don't know for sure how light behaves over "such vast distances" what justifies his assumptions that purport to make the movement of all the celestial objects over his flat-Earth exactly match those expected on the Globe.

He seems to choke on "a gnat, but . . . swallow a camel" - a classic example of "Double standards".

Tom will hide If you ask too many questions, 12 year cycle on this topic alone. He is well versed with the arguments and where he gets tripped up.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=10571.msg171164#msg171164

Is it my imagination or do the FES "Gurus " draw straws or take turns as to who will answer questions by pesky globularists, like us.
We have John Davis, Tom Bishop, Sandokhan and Totallackey who take turn-about and who the going gets too tough the current short-straw holder gets going.

Some, like you-know-who and never-you-mind are, like the proverbial . . . . always with us. One well-named supporter seems to just shift with the prevailing tide.

If the sun and moon grew and shrunk over the day, the standard model would still be that the earth was a globe, just with different ideas about distances of the celestial bodies.

You have an observation and a conclusion, but nothing to back up the axioms assumed about how light behaves on a large scale. You are already claiming that light exhibits special properties at large scale, such as sometimes jumping over the curve to create Flat Earth observations. Assumption without direct emperical evidence for cause is called pseudoscience.

Refraction, diffraction, and diffusion are not “special properties at large scale”.

I personally can’t think of any property of light that is only there at large scales.

Perhaps restate your claim but in a way that doesn’t use blatant lies.

Refraction, diffraction, and diffusion are not “special properties at large scale”.

I personally can’t think of any property of light that is only there at large scales.

Perhaps restate your claim but in a way that doesn’t use blatant lies.

Refraction is claimed for those observations, not proven for those observations. I don't see any refraction when I look across my room. This is a special effect which you claim only occurs across large distances and which conveniently explains why we see further than we should.

Quote from: TFES Wiki

Mirror Reflection Example
A relative constant sizing effect can be seen in the simple reflections of mirrors. This may be analogous to a projection on a medium between the observer and the source body.

http://faqoverflow.kranzky.com/physics/36233.html(Archive)

  “Q. This was an experiment I saw in my son's workbook. It said to mark out the top of your forehead and the bottom of your chin on a mirror using a whiteboard marker. Then slowly move backwards, and investigate what happens to the size of the reflection subjective to the two marks made. It actually got me quite flabbergasted. I always thought the reflection would get smaller as you moved away from the mirror.

Why is this? ”

  “A.The mirror gets proportionally smaller. The explanation is the similarity of triangles. The eye and the marks on the mirror form a triangle, while the eye and the two points on the image form another triangle. The two triangles are similar, with ratio 1/2, no matter the distance. ”

Explanatory image:

Applying the mirror example to the projection explanation, the "mirror" (projecting surface) of the atmolayer maintains a fixed distance away from the observer on the atmoplane, and thus does not get proportionately smaller. The radiating light source creates a projection in front of the observer and can recede in distance away from the observer with its new apparent dimensions being same as its original projection upon the atmoplane. As it shrinks to perspective, its projection also enlarges by the same ratio, just as with the mirror reflection experiment, causing it to stay the same relative size on the medium as it recedes. It should be noted that not all light sources can create a projection upon the atmoplane.

The reader is encouraged to perform the mirror experiment for his or her own self.

It starts off with "It actually got me quite flabbergasted. I always thought the reflection would get smaller as you moved away from the mirror."
But the reflection (the virtual image in the mirror) does appear to "get smaller as you moved away from the mirror".
The explanation clearly states that "The mirror gets proportionally smaller" and the image remains the same proportion of the mirror.

Then there is no similarity between the mirror example and the Sun receding because in the latter case there is no reflecting surface and no reflection. The Sun is simply viewed through an increasing thickness of air.

Their explanation seems to make no sense at all.

The most the air does is to retract the light to make the Sun appear slightly higher.

The question you asked is given in the very section that you quoted. Unlike a mirror, the projection layer of atmoplane is fixed from the observer.

Once again we see that you are not interested in discussing the actual theories, and pretend that there are no theories or explanations, or that they are different than stated.

Quote from: sokarul on December 07, 2019, 01:45:36 PM

Refraction, diffraction, and diffusion are not “special properties at large scale”.

I personally can’t think of any property of light that is only there at large scales.

Perhaps restate your claim but in a way that doesn’t use blatant lies.

Refraction is claimed for those observations, not proven. I don't see any refraction when I look across my room. This is a special effect which you claim only occurs across large distances and which conveniently explains why we see further than we should.

Ummm...look at a glass of water to see refraction. It’s happens when light passes into a new medium.


Anyways the old pictures used to show the buildings upside down. It’s refraction. You are just play dumb.

If the sun and moon grew and shrunk over the day, the standard model would still be that the earth was a globe, just with different ideas about distances of the celestial bodies.

Only if all the evidence still indicated that Earth was round.

You have an observation and a conclusion, but nothing to back up the axioms assumed about how light behaves on a large scale.

It comes down to the assumed/cooncluded isotropy of the universe.
There is no evidence of any special direction for the universe and thus it is assumed/concluded that all directions should behave the same.
In all observations of light, it has never shown any preferred directionality except with specific materials/set ups, such as polarising filters being able to polarise it based upon the orientation of the filter and a change in medium being able to cause the light to refract based upon the orientation of the interface.
I would call that fairly good evidence.
Unless you want to pretend that light is sentient and will know that it has travelled some set distance and then just magically change direction without cause?

This means there is no reason for light to bend as required by a FE to explain a sunset.

You are already claiming that light exhibits special properties at large scale

No we aren't.
Refraction is a property that is quite well understood and occurs at the small scale as well as the large scale.
This is not a special property of light.

Assumption without direct emperical evidence for cause is called pseudoscience.

You mean like what FE does all the time?
Such as all the pseudoscience you try and use to explain things like the constant angular size of the sun and moon and constellations and to try and explain sunrise/sunset and to try and explain why the lower sections of objects are hidden behind the curve?

Refraction is claimed for those observations, not proven for those observations.

And how would you try and prove it?
Based upon the fact that Earth is round and we can see further than we can without refraction?
I would say it is fairly conclusively proven.
It also matches what is expected due to how the atmosphere works with it having a pressure and density gradient, which also results in a refractive index gradient, which based upon countless observations of how light interacts with changing refractive index will result in refraction of the light.

I don't see any refraction when I look across my room.

You mean it is too insignificant for you to notice, and even at the large scale it isn't noticed by things appearing higher than you think they should and instead is observed by an object which should be hidden based upon ignoring refraction being visible due to refraction.

This is a special effect which you claim only occurs across large distances

Again, that is pure strawman. No one is saying it only occurs across large distances except for you.

The only ones claiming magical properties of light over large distances are the FEers.
The only ones claiming magical properties of light with no evidence at all to back it up are the FEers.

The question you asked is given in the very section that you quoted. Unlike a mirror, the projection layer of atmoplane is fixed from the observer.

Which directly contradicts the explanation.
The explanation for why the RELATIVE sizes remain constant is that the distance to the mirror is proportional to the distance to the reflection.
i.e. if in one view the mirror is 2 m away the reflection is 4 m away, then if you step back 2 m, the mirror is 4 m away and the reflection is 8 m.
If instead the mirror remained 2 m away and the reflection moved to 8 m, the relationship would not hold.

The only way out is for you to also claim that the sun remains a fixed distance from the observer. But that then means it can't be circling overhead a hypothetical FE.

Once again we see that you are not interested in actually discussing the claims put forth, and instead just want to pretend that there are theories or explanations which mean there are no problems for the FE.

Once more, we get blah blah about theories about refraction and glare and the nature of light, but no actual proof of any of what the standard model claims. Only hypothesis.

This "mountains of evicence" for the standard model which is often quoted is quite a failure if noting can actually be demonstrated.