FE Problems

  • 102 Replies
  • 12689 Views
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
FE Problems
« on: December 15, 2007, 04:29:59 PM »
We shall discuss a single topic until we get an answer then move on to the next one.

I: Why doesn't the sun appear oval-like at sunset/sunrise?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2007, 04:30:53 PM »
Why would the sun turn into an oval at sunset?

The sun is not a flat disk. The sun is a globe.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2007, 04:44:48 PM »
Got it.  Stupid me, I knew that.

Why doesn't the sun get smaller at sunrise/sunset?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2007, 04:46:52 PM »
Quote
Why doesn't the sun get smaller at sunrise/sunset?

It's a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere.

From Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe we read:

    "IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour."

The next time you observe the sunset notice how the sun is much hazier, diluted, and less intense than it is overhead at noonday. This is a telltale sign that its rays are passing through a thick atmosphere, much like the light rays from a distant street lamp.

If you've ever seen a city at night you would know that distant light sources appear magnified from afar because they are shining though a dense medium. The farther you get from the source the more magnified they appear. As you move towards the source the magnified lights shrink in appearance. As you move away the lights grow in diameter again.

For example, here is a picture of an average bustling city at night. You will immediately notice upon looking at the image that the distant lights in the scene appear magnified and intense, particularly the white ones in the upper left of the image. Without the magnification effect of the atmosphere the actual size of the bulbs should be much smaller by an order of magnitude, smaller than a single pixel on the image due to the distances involved.

As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light. If we walk backwards and recede away from the wall the spot of light grows in diameter. When we walk towards the wall the spot of light becomes smaller again. The same effect happens with the distant sun at sunset. Instead of a solid surface, however, the rays of light are affecting the semi-transparent fog of the atmosphere. The shrinking of the sun due to perspective is counteracted by the enlarging effects of its light upon the horizontal strata of the atmosphere.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2007, 04:51:33 PM »
Yes, but according to your Flashlight analogy, since everything reflects light, everything should appear bigger at a distance.

In the same room, shine the light against a mirror and move the mirror back and forth.  The light will produce the same effects.

As for the city pictures, maybe there are MORE lights in that region?  That's not evidence.  And if the atmosphere INTENSIFIES light, why does the sun disappear?  Shouldn't, like the city photo, the sun become MORE intensified as it moves farther away, making it brighter and bigger even into midnight?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2007, 04:51:43 PM »
Perhaps the following image will clarify. Here is an image of a few average stadium lights:



You should notice that the lights which are pointing away from the camera appear small and normal. The lights which are pointed directly at the camera appear magnified by the atmosphere.



Does this look familiar?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 04:57:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2007, 04:53:42 PM »
The link is broken.

Granted, light could become magnified through a medium.  But then how could the sun set?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2007, 05:02:18 PM »
Quote
Granted, light could become magnified through a medium.  But then how could the sun set?

Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them. When a plane flies away from an observer, without increasing or decreasing its altitude, it appears to gradually approach the horizon. In a long row of lamps, the second--supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series---will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.

Once the lower part of the Sun meets the horizon line, however, it will intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the sun's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent beyond the resolution of the human eye. The vanishing point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:



However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:



This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point. Every receding star and celestial body in the night sky likewise disappears after intersecting with the vanishing point.

For more information please read Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe

« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 05:25:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2007, 05:10:09 PM »
In addition to this modified law of perspective the remaining light of the sun bouncing around in the atmosphere will be lost by the non transparent atmosphere. After the sun sets the sky is still relatively illuminated. It takes a couple hours for the deep blackness of the night to set in. The cause of night is simply due to a non-transparent atmosphere. As the sun recedes its light is dimmed and lost to the increasing number of atoms and molecules which intersect the light rays.

Take note that at sunset the sun is already dimmed by an order of magnitude compared to its intensity overhead at noonday. At sunset it is possible to look directly at the sun without a straining of the eye, while overhead at noon looking directly at the sun can be quite painful.

Summarily:

As the sun descends it will create a tangent into the horizon. The perspective lines nearly merge, causing the receding body to appear to collapse in on itself. Next the light of the receding sun is dimmed to blackness by a non-transparent atmosphere.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 05:17:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2007, 05:15:46 PM »
Can I walk to the vanishing point?  Is there a figured distance to how far it is away, and if so, why would it be a finite distance away?

Things become smaller at an inverse proportion to how far they are away.

So if a pencil is 2 feet away from a camera and in the picture the pencil is 2 inches tall, then when moved 4 feet away, the pencil will appear 1 inch tall.  Given this simple concept, an object will never be 0 inches tall in the picture.  If you had an infinitely good definition photo, on a flat plane you would be able to see all objects with an infinitely good magnifying glass.

If you are right about ships being able to come back with a telescope, then the solution would be that objects just become too small to see.  However, this does not explain the "sinking" phenomenon, in which part of an object is below the horizon.  The object  should just become smaller, along with waves and any other sort of object.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2007, 05:48:42 PM »
bump?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2007, 05:50:47 PM »
Quote
Can I walk to the vanishing point?  Is there a figured distance to how far it is away, and if so, why would it be a finite distance away?

The vanishing point of a receding body is defined by the altitude receding body. Every receding body has a different vanishing point depending on its altitude above the surface of the earth. A ship, for example, will reach its vanishing point sooner than a flock of birds overhead.

The vanishing point is also defined by the altitude of the observer. When the observer increases his altitude he is increasing the distance to the vanishing point for all bodies on or near the earth. This is why when you ascend into the air in an airplane far and distant lands can be seen, which could not be seen from the ground. This is also why a half sunken ship can be restored by walking to the top of a three story building. By increasing his altitude, the observer is increasing the distance to his vanishing point.

You can figure out the distance to vanishing point by knowing velocity of the receding body. For the sun; knowing that during equinox the sun moves at a little over 1,000 miles per hour over the surface of the earth, that the sun is directly overhead at twelve o'clock noon and sets at 6:15pm, we can use basic math to estimate the vanishing point of the sun to be around 6,250 horizontal miles from the observer.

Of course, if you were to attempt to reach the vanishing point by foot or boat, the vanishing point would continue to move away from you with every forward step you take.

Quote
So if a pencil is 2 feet away from a camera and in the picture the pencil is 2 inches tall, then when moved 4 feet away, the pencil will appear 1 inch tall.  Given this simple concept, an object will never be 0 inches tall in the picture.  If you had an infinitely good definition photo, on a flat plane you would be able to see all objects with an infinitely good magnifying glass.

That's correct.

Quote
If you are right about ships being able to come back with a telescope, then the solution would be that objects just become too small to see.  However, this does not explain the "sinking" phenomenon, in which part of an object is below the horizon.  The object  should just become smaller, along with waves and any other sort of object.

The vanishing point is an area of divergence where the perspective lines become too narrow for the human eye to perceive, causing the body to appear to collapse into itself as it further recedes.

As the sun recedes from the observer it is creating increasingly narrow perspective lines in relation to the surface of the earth. The narrowest of those lines are imperceptible to the observer due to the limits of his humanity. The bottom of the sun is the first to touch this narrow imperceptible area where the lines merge, and so the bottom of the sun will be the first section of the sun to disappear. The laws of perspective will cause the sun to appear to collapse in on itself.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 08:21:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2007, 05:57:36 PM »
How an object should look like as it recedes.



Notice how it never reaches the horizon, and how the speed is not constant.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2007, 06:12:50 PM »
How an object should look like as it recedes.

Notice how it never reaches the horizon, and how the speed is not constant.

After a point that ball will become imperceptible from the horizon line, just as the bottom of the sun becomes imperceptible from the top of the sun at sunset. A computer model is actually a good analogy here, since a higher the resolution of the observing camera paints a different scene. If we increase the resolution of that particular animation the ball will take a little longer to become imperceptible from the horizon line. I'm sure that you can agree with me on that.

In regards to the constant speed of the sun; the higher overhead a body is the more constant it will descend as it approaches the horizon line. A receding Frisbee will descend at one rate, a flock of birds will descend at a slower rate, and a receding jet will descend at an even slower rate. The higher a body is above the surface of the earth the slower pace it will descend into the horizon: It takes more time for the perspective lines to merge.

The sun, being about 3,000 miles above the surface of the earth (very high in comparison to a Frisbee, bird, or plane), will descend at a pretty slow and nearly constant rate. This is why it takes about six hours past noonday for the sun to set into the horizon.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 07:24:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2007, 06:20:49 PM »
Right, it will get pretty close to the horizon.  Not quite there, but pretty much.

But notice how small the ball gets.  If the sun remains about a constant size throughout the day, should not a boat receding get magnified also?  I mean, the sun returning to normal size from a pretty small size is a MAJOR magnification.  The ball is almost 1 pixel by the time it gets that close to the horizon.

As for the sun's constant speed, at noon the sun is mighty slow.  But at sunset/sunrise, the sun actually seems to go faster.  Have you ever noticed that?  I may be wrong, but if not, I think it's because in RE by the time you are perpendicular to the sun, you are receding from the sun FASTER because of the curvature of the Earth.

Do you see what I'm saying?  I'd make a picture but I'm on a Mac and I can't find any image editing software.

On an FE, the sun would go SLOWER at sunset, no matter how small a decrease, it would go slower.  On RE it goes FASTER.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: FE Problems
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2007, 05:42:25 AM »
how could a globe sun cause a spotlight ?

also, them pictures are distorted like that because they are taken with a camera, if u was there it wouldn't be.
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2007, 10:12:09 AM »
Quote
But notice how small the ball gets.  If the sun remains about a constant size throughout the day, should not a boat receding get magnified also?  I mean, the sun returning to normal size from a pretty small size is a MAJOR magnification.  The ball is almost 1 pixel by the time it gets that close to the horizon.

That is true.  If the atmosphere of the earth did not exist the sun would be a tiny spec near the horizon during sunset. The magnification of the sun's horizontal rays are pretty extreme in relation to the true size of the sun during its setting.

The magnification of the light through atmosphere occurs by means of Polarization. Polarization occurs when light is scattered while traveling through a medium. When light strikes the atoms of a material, it will often set the electrons of those atoms into vibration. The vibrating electrons then produce their own electromagnetic wave which is radiated outward in all directions. This newly generated wave strikes neighboring atoms, forcing their electrons into vibrations at the same original frequency. These vibrating electrons produce another electromagnetic wave which is once more radiated outward in all directions. This absorption and reemission of light waves causes the light to be scattered about the medium and therefore appear magnified to the observer.

Quote
As for the sun's constant speed, at noon the sun is mighty slow.  But at sunset/sunrise, the sun actually seems to go faster.  Have you ever noticed that?  I may be wrong, but if not, I think it's because in RE by the time you are perpendicular to the sun, you are receding from the sun FASTER because of the curvature of the Earth.

Do you see what I'm saying?  I'd make a picture but I'm on a Mac and I can't find any image editing software.

On an FE, the sun would go SLOWER at sunset, no matter how small a decrease, it would go slower.  On RE it goes FASTER.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you agree with me that, the higher the altitude of a receding body, the greater angle it's perspective lines will be?

An overhead flock of birds at an altitude of 200 feet will descend into the horizon much faster than a receding jet at 45,000 feet in altitude. The jet's rate of descent due to perspective will take much longer due to the fact that the jet will need to follow perspective lines with a greater inclination to the vanishing point. The higher a body is the greater angle its perspective lines would make in relation to the earth, the more time it will take to reach the horizon line.

The sun is so far up above the earth that the perspective lines must make a nearly 45 degree angle into the surface of the earth. The rate of the sun's decent is nearly constant because a 45 degree angle is the the largest angle an overhead receding body could make into the earth - beyond that the sun would appear to speed up as it approaches the horizon line, an impossibility of perspective laws.

The sun is always coming or going, only directly overhead for a moment in the day.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 10:14:31 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2007, 10:16:30 AM »
Quote
how could a globe sun cause a spotlight ?

The sun creates a spot of light upon the earth because, in addition to the collapsing of the sun as it touches the vanishing point, after a distance its horizontal rays of light are absorbed and blocked by the atoms and molecules of the semi-transparent atmosphere.

Quote
also, them pictures are distorted like that because they are taken with a camera, if u was there it wouldn't be.

Have you ever heard of a glare? That is precisely the phenomenon I am describing. A glare is nothing more than a magnification of light as it passes through the strata of the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 10:19:46 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2007, 10:31:24 AM »
Quote
As for the sun's constant speed, at noon the sun is mighty slow.  But at sunset/sunrise, the sun actually seems to go faster.  Have you ever noticed that?  I may be wrong, but if not, I think it's because in RE by the time you are perpendicular to the sun, you are receding from the sun FASTER because of the curvature of the Earth.

Do you see what I'm saying?  I'd make a picture but I'm on a Mac and I can't find any image editing software.

On an FE, the sun would go SLOWER at sunset, no matter how small a decrease, it would go slower.  On RE it goes FASTER.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you agree with me that, the higher the altitude of a receding body, the greater angle it's perspective lines will be?

An overhead flock of birds at an altitude of 200 feet will descend into the horizon much faster than a receding jet at 45,000 feet in altitude. The jet's rate of descent due to perspective will take much longer due to the fact that the jet will need to follow perspective lines with a greater inclination to the vanishing point. The higher a body is the greater angle its perspective lines would make in relation to the earth, the more time it will take to reach the horizon line.

The sun is so far up above the earth that the perspective lines must make a nearly 45 degree angle into the surface of the earth. The rate of the sun's decent is nearly constant because a 45 degree angle is the the largest angle an overhead receding body could make into the earth - beyond that the sun would appear to speed up as it approaches the horizon line, an impossibility of perspective laws.

The sun is always coming or going, only directly overhead for a moment in the day.

All right, that makes sense.

Re: FE Problems
« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2007, 12:13:14 PM »
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: FE Problems
« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2007, 12:15:27 PM »
yep , that sort of sunrise/set is just impossible to explain in FE its obviously not getting further away its just getting blocked by the curvature of the earth you can see that
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

Re: FE Problems
« Reply #21 on: December 16, 2007, 12:45:38 PM »
Have you ever noticed that?  I may be wrong, but if not, I think it's because in RE by the time you are perpendicular to the sun, you are receding from the sun FASTER because of the curvature of the Earth.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here I am correcting you.  You are wrong.  The sun's angular velocity across the sky is, for all intents and purposes, constant.

There is a minuscule change in the sun's velocity throughout the year, due to the Earth's orbit being elliptical.  This is why the analemma has 'width' and why 'solar time' will tend to deviate from 'true time' by a few minutes as the year cycles through.

But I can't stress how insignificant this change in apparent velocity is.  It's enough to shift the apparent position of the sun by a few degrees every six months.  Compared to the much more obvious daily motion of the sun across the sky, this annual motion is undetectable to the naked eye.

"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #22 on: December 16, 2007, 03:10:42 PM »
Quote
As for the sun's constant speed, at noon the sun is mighty slow.  But at sunset/sunrise, the sun actually seems to go faster.  Have you ever noticed that?  I may be wrong, but if not, I think it's because in RE by the time you are perpendicular to the sun, you are receding from the sun FASTER because of the curvature of the Earth.

Do you see what I'm saying?  I'd make a picture but I'm on a Mac and I can't find any image editing software.

On an FE, the sun would go SLOWER at sunset, no matter how small a decrease, it would go slower.  On RE it goes FASTER.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you agree with me that, the higher the altitude of a receding body, the greater angle it's perspective lines will be?

An overhead flock of birds at an altitude of 200 feet will descend into the horizon much faster than a receding jet at 45,000 feet in altitude. The jet's rate of descent due to perspective will take much longer due to the fact that the jet will need to follow perspective lines with a greater inclination to the vanishing point. The higher a body is the greater angle its perspective lines would make in relation to the earth, the more time it will take to reach the horizon line.

The sun is so far up above the earth that the perspective lines must make a nearly 45 degree angle into the surface of the earth. The rate of the sun's decent is nearly constant because a 45 degree angle is the the largest angle an overhead receding body could make into the earth - beyond that the sun would appear to speed up as it approaches the horizon line, an impossibility of perspective laws.

The sun is always coming or going, only directly overhead for a moment in the day.

All right, that makes sense.

are you kidding!?  that makes no sense at all.  it is just a string of random assertions having no basis in, or description of, direct observation, or understanding of perspective, or principles of polarization, or atmospheric refraction.  he is just pulling craq out of his ast.  there is no way a rational person could convince themselves that this nonsense is real. 

which is no commentary on the fe model - just bishop's model.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2007, 03:13:40 PM »
Quote
But notice how small the ball gets.  If the sun remains about a constant size throughout the day, should not a boat receding get magnified also?  I mean, the sun returning to normal size from a pretty small size is a MAJOR magnification.  The ball is almost 1 pixel by the time it gets that close to the horizon.

That is true.  If the atmosphere of the earth did not exist the sun would be a tiny spec near the horizon during sunset. The magnification of the sun's horizontal rays are pretty extreme in relation to the true size of the sun during its setting.

The magnification of the light through atmosphere occurs by means of Polarization. Polarization occurs when light is scattered while traveling through a medium. When light strikes the atoms of a material, it will often set the electrons of those atoms into vibration. The vibrating electrons then produce their own electromagnetic wave which is radiated outward in all directions. This newly generated wave strikes neighboring atoms, forcing their electrons into vibrations at the same original frequency. These vibrating electrons produce another electromagnetic wave which is once more radiated outward in all directions. This absorption and reemission of light waves causes the light to be scattered about the medium and therefore appear magnified to the observer.


that is the single most nonsensical - and preposterously incorrect - description of polarization i have ever heard.  try again.


The sun is so far up above the earth that the perspective lines must make a nearly 45 degree angle into the surface of the earth. The rate of the sun's decent is nearly constant because a 45 degree angle is the the largest angle an overhead receding body could make into the earth - beyond that the sun would appear to speed up as it approaches the horizon line, an impossibility of perspective laws.

i thought i've heard everything from bishop. 

tell me, once again, how it is that we only see one face of the moon, which wobbles slightly over the course of a lunar month (rather than 24 hours)?  does that have something to do with your redefinitions of perspective and polarization?

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2007, 03:15:42 PM »
How an object should look like as it recedes.



Notice how it never reaches the horizon, and how the speed is not constant.

you are so good with visualizations.  nice.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2007, 03:16:17 PM »
...just as the bottom of the sun becomes imperceptible from the top of the sun at sunset...

can someone explain what part of that makes any sense?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2007, 03:37:27 PM »
Quote
Magnification aside
Explain
http://flickr.com/photos/axel-d/479627824/

If the atmosphere of the earth did not exist, the sun in that image would be a very small and intense spec of light which is half way into its vanishing point. The sun is collapsing in on itself as the bottom of the sun intersects with a region of perspective lines so narrow that the portion of the sun within it is imperceptible by the camera's resolution. At that moment, if we were able to take a picture of the sun with a multi-gigapixel camera, the sun would be seen a tad higher in the sky.

While it is not possible to significantly restore a half-collapsed sun with a telescope due to the distances involved and limited resolutions of most telescopes, the vanishing point of a half sunken ship is near enough to the observer that it does not take much more resolution to restore it. A good telescope is all that is necessary. This is one of the first and primary proofs for the Flat Earth model: half-sunken ships have been restored through the use of a telescope.

As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea after it touches the horizon line. It has been found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient optical zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship:











These published accounts put the globe earth theory to shame and act as further evidence demonstrating the earth to be a plane.

Quote
that is the single most nonsensical - and preposterously incorrect - description of polarization i have ever heard.  try again.

That's funny. Because I just copy and pasted that paragraph describing polarization from a university science website.



« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 12:47:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2007, 04:40:45 PM »
Have you ever heard of a glare? That is precisely the phenomenon I am describing. A glare is nothing more than a magnification of light as it passes through the strata of the atmosphere.

Sorry, not the case. Cars give glare with headlights all the time. Glare can be accounted for by say... putting on sunglasses? Extremely darkened glass, (discussed with singularity already) can reduce glare to the point that the edges of the sun are clearly visible.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2007, 05:19:03 PM »
Quote
Sorry, not the case. Cars give glare with headlights all the time. Glare can be accounted for by say... putting on sunglasses? Extremely darkened glass, (discussed with singularity already) can reduce glare to the point that the edges of the sun are clearly visible.

While sunglasses might reduce the stray scattering of a glare, sunglasses do not reduce a glare completely and allow one to see past the magnified light.

On a bright summer day will putting on a pair of sunglasses completely eliminate a glare bounced off of a car's hood? No. When one puts on sunglasses the glare is simply reduced in intensity. The glare is still visible- the intensity of the glare is just darkened and defined by the tinted plastic of the glasses.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 08:21:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #29 on: December 16, 2007, 05:20:13 PM »
Sunglasses was an example not a tool for viewing the sun. The dark glass was the one I was making the argument with. Like I already said, dark glass allows us to see the edges of the sun definitely.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 05:22:28 PM by Gabe »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.