# How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE

• 38 Replies
• 5917 Views
?

#### Richard Kilgore

• 115
##### How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« on: December 17, 2007, 03:48:45 PM »
Hi everyone,

The Flat Earth model explains that when the sun appears to be setting behind the horizon, it is really 3,000 miles above the plane surface of the earth.

Let L denote the line which vertically connects the centre of the sun to the plane in which the observers eyeline lies. The angle subtended by L at the observers eye changes as the sun moves away, and when the angle becomes less than a minute of a degree, the centre of the sun reaches its vanishing point. This is Rowbotham's explanation for the illusion of the sun's setting.

Given this explanation, how far does the sun have to be from the observer when its center appears to meet the horizon? Let the distance to the observer be x. The height of the sun is 3,000 miles. Then tan (one minute of one degree) = 3,000/x (from the rule that "tangent of an angle = opposite/adjacent").

So x = 3,000/tan(1/60) = 3,000/0.0003 = 10,000,000 miles, roughly.

So it seems the only way for the sun to vanish at the horizon is if it is 10,000,000 miles away. But this flatly contradicts (no pun intended) the orbit of the sun according to the Flat Earth model. The sun woud have to be in the middle of the vast infinite wasteland that surrounds us on the infinite plane Earth, in order for it to appear to reach the horizon.

So that's it. A disproof of FE. Anything left to add?

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17538
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2007, 03:50:23 PM »
Quote
So that's it. A disproof of FE. Anything left to add?

Yeah, the human eye cannot make out increasingly narrow perspective lines ten million miles away from the observer.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 03:52:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### GG-Xtreme

• 119
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2007, 03:53:34 PM »
Quote
So that's it. A disproof of FE. Anything left to add?

Yeah, the human eye cannot make out increasingly narrow perspective lines ten million horizontal miles away from the observer.
I have a perspective of 10,000,000 lightyears. And I still don't see the sun.

?

#### Richard Kilgore

• 115
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2007, 03:54:00 PM »
Quote
So that's it. A disproof of FE. Anything left to add?

Yeah, the human eye cannot make out increasingly narrow perspective lines ten million horizontal miles away from the observer.

Put it another way, if the sun stays within the region required by the FE model, the angle at the observers eye will never be small enough for the sun to reach its vanishing point.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17538
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2007, 03:55:18 PM »
Quote
I have a perspective of 10,000,000 lightyears. And I still don't see the sun.

Can you prove that the stars are lightyears away?

Quote
Put it another way, if the sun stays within the region required by the FE model, the angle at the observers eye will never be small enough for the sun to reach its vanishing point.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement? How can you prove that the laws of perspective work in the way you claim?

?

#### Richard Kilgore

• 115
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2007, 03:58:17 PM »
Quote
I have a perspective of 10,000,000 lightyears. And I still don't see the sun.

Can you prove that the stars are lightyears away?

Quote
Put it another way, if the sun stays within the region required by the FE model, the angle at the observers eye will never be small enough for the sun to reach its vanishing point.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

The evidence is a simple trigonometric calculation along the lines of the one I did in my first post. I could do it, but it seems to be the sort of thing that is best left as an "exercise for the reader".

Is there a flaw in the reductio ad absurdum I just gave in my first post? If so, please tell me what it is.

?

#### GG-Xtreme

• 119
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2007, 03:59:14 PM »
Quote
I have a perspective of 10,000,000 lightyears. And I still don't see the sun.

Can you prove that the stars are lightyears away?
Yes, there are markings on my retina, just like in a golf scope, but for millions of lightyears.

?

#### Richard Kilgore

• 115
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2007, 04:05:20 PM »
Quote
I have a perspective of 10,000,000 lightyears. And I still don't see the sun.

Can you prove that the stars are lightyears away?

Quote
Put it another way, if the sun stays within the region required by the FE model, the angle at the observers eye will never be small enough for the sun to reach its vanishing point.

Do you have any evidence to support that statement? How can you prove that the laws of perspective work in the way you claim?

I am following Rowbotham's exposition of the laws of perspective.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17538
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2007, 04:05:38 PM »
Quote
Yes, there are markings on my retina, just like in a golf scope, but for millions of lightyears.

I don't see million light-year long markings on my retina when I look up at the stars at night.

Can you provide evidence which is a little more coherent this time?

Quote
The evidence is a simple trigonometric calculation along the lines of the one I did in my first post. I could do it, but it seems to be the sort of thing that is best left as an "exercise for the reader".

Is there a flaw in the reductio ad absurdum I just gave in my first post? If so, please tell me what it is.

That calculation operates on the assumption that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer. However, how do you know that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer?

Man cannot perceive infinity after all. Therefore the vanishing point is a finite distance away.

Instead of perspective lines meeting an infinite distance away like this:

The perspective lines meet a finite distance away as so, based on the limits of the observer's humanity:

« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 04:07:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### Richard Kilgore

• 115
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2007, 04:08:19 PM »
Quote
Yes, there are markings on my retina, just like in a golf scope, but for millions of lightyears.

I don't see million light-year long markings on my retina when I look up at the stars at night.

Can you provide evidence which is a little more coherent this time?

Quote
The evidence is a simple trigonometric calculation along the lines of the one I did in my first post. I could do it, but it seems to be the sort of thing that is best left as an "exercise for the reader".

Is there a flaw in the reductio ad absurdum I just gave in my first post? If so, please tell me what it is.

That calculation operates on the assumption that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer. However, how do you know that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer?

Man cannot perceive infinity after all. Therefore the vanishing point is a finite distance away.

Instead of perspective lines meeting an infinite distance away:

The perspective lines meet a finite distance away as so:

No, I never made any assumption that perspectve lines meet an infinite distance away. I never made this assumption either explicitly or implicitly, and the calculation does not depend on it. Please show me where this asusmption comes into play in my reasoning.

?

#### GG-Xtreme

• 119
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2007, 04:12:05 PM »
Quote
Yes, there are markings on my retina, just like in a golf scope, but for millions of lightyears.

I don't see million light-year long markings on my retina when I look up at the stars at night.

Can you provide evidence which is a little more coherent this time?

Your mom.

?

#### eric bloedow

##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2007, 04:40:45 PM »
i don't know where to find the exact reference, but this is what i was i read in a science book:

astonomers observed the stars for a long time. they noticed that some of the stars were not always at the same relative spots-that is, at different times of the year, they would appear to be in slightly different places relative to the other stars. do from these observations, they calculated that Alpha Centari is 4 light-years away.

(i also heard that some of the people doing the calculations assumed the other stars were infinitely far away, but that was to simplify the math)

so how far does Tom think the stars are? and what does he base his calculations on?
"show your work" as they say.

?

#### Richard Kilgore

• 115
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2007, 05:33:18 PM »
I think I have revealed a pretty decisive problem with the Flat Earth model in my initial post.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 09:57:54 PM by Richard Kilgore »

#### Trekky0623

• Official Member
• 10061
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2007, 05:40:47 PM »
Tom, the vanishing point is not finite.  Thy just become too small to see.

If an object is 2x farther away, it will be 1/2 as big.

So, and object will never sink below the horizon.  Why?  Because the proportions will stay the same.

So if the sun moves 2x farther away, the distance between the sun and the horizon will be 1/2 of what it was when it was x away.

It doesn't "collapse in on itself".  That makes no sense.

A human's eye is still going to see what's there, the distance between the sun and the horizon will grow exponentially smaller, but will never reach 0.  Therefore the human eye is not going to perceive the sun as sinking, because common sense tells us that that would be going into the negative range.  How far would the sun have to go so that the distance between it and the horizon is -1/x?  The distance would have to be infinite, which cannot be.

?

#### GG-Xtreme

• 119
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2007, 05:49:50 PM »
Tom, the vanishing point is not finite.  Thy just become too small to see.

If an object is 2x farther away, it will be 1/2 as big.

So, and object will never sink below the horizon.  Why?  Because the proportions will stay the same.

So if the sun moves 2x farther away, the distance between the sun and the horizon will be 1/2 of what it was when it was x away.

It doesn't "collapse in on itself".  That makes no sense.

A human's eye is still going to see what's there, the distance between the sun and the horizon will grow exponentially smaller, but will never reach 0.  Therefore the human eye is not going to perceive the sun as sinking, because common sense tells us that that would be going into the negative range.  How far would the sun have to go so that the distance between it and the horizon is -1/x?  The distance would have to be infinite, which cannot be.
I agree, regardless of the fact that I did not even read your post.

?

#### Quarrior

• 280
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2007, 05:59:31 PM »
Tom Bishop is a complete moron, he has no grasp of any scientific theories bar his own unique version of FE theory, not even the other FE believe him. We know the distance of stars from a variety of methods

Spectroscopy can provide a good indicator of a star's distance. Super giants have very different spectra from a normal hydrogen fusing star of the same spectral type. White dwarfs have very different spectra than either a giant, super giant or hydrogen fusing, also called Main Sequence stars. Each stage in a star's life stamps certain distinct traits in their light astronomers can find in spectra, and thus retrieve information on it's brightness, size and distance from Earth.

For stars that are relatively close, they use parallax to calculate the distance. I have to say, it never ceases to amaze me that this method actually works, since it requires measuring extremely small angles - we are talking arc-seconds, which are 1/3600 of a degree. To give you an idea how small an arc-second is, it is the angle the sun moves in 1/15 of a second due to the Earth's rotation. So, take a look at the sun for 1/15 of the second and let me know how much movement you notice.

To measure distances beyond 100 light-years, one method is to use Cepheid variable stars. These stars change in brightness over time, which allows astronomers to figure out the true brightness. Comparing the apparent brightness of the star to the true brightness allows the astronomer to calculate the distance to the star. This method has been used to find the distances to many globular clusters. Red shift is another trick, and it is used to measure the distances to really far away objects such as other galaxies.

By parallax, what we do is snap a photo of the starfield, say in January. Then we do it again in July, as the earth has swung halfway around the sun. Knowing that the earth is 93 million miles from the sun gives us the base of a triangle about 186 million miles long. Trivially small, in comparison to the distance to the nearest star, but you can get a reasonably fair estimate this way.

For example, be estimated the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud. By the 1980s we had improved our accuracy and we estimated the cloud o be between 150 and 200 thousand light years. Then  a supernova of the star Sanduleak -69 202 within the Magellanic Cloud. After it blew, it lit up a surrounding ring six light months away. Well, now we have a triangle with a base and an angle (we could measure the degrees between the star and ring). The distance pops out to 170 light years.

Knowing accurately how far away that is, we get better numbers for Andromeda (2.5 million ly), and everything else.

Standard candles like cepheid variables and redshifts are still necessary for distant galaxies, but those distance estimates are based on accurate close measurements.

Another trick for "nearby" stars is to know the distance between orbitting binaries. You can measure angles that way as well
...population who believe in globularism solely on the basis of having been told so?

#### Trekky0623

• Official Member
• 10061
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2007, 06:21:46 PM »
Animation:

Notice how the line decreases at an exponential rate.

?

#### GG-Xtreme

• 119
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2007, 06:29:05 PM »
Tom Bishop is a complete moron, he has no grasp of any scientific theories bar his own unique version of FE theory, not even the other FE believe him. We know the distance of stars from a variety of methods

Spectroscopy can provide a good indicator of a star's distance. Super giants have very different spectra from a normal hydrogen fusing star of the same spectral type. White dwarfs have very different spectra than either a giant, super giant or hydrogen fusing, also called Main Sequence stars. Each stage in a star's life stamps certain distinct traits in their light astronomers can find in spectra, and thus retrieve information on it's brightness, size and distance from Earth.

For stars that are relatively close, they use parallax to calculate the distance. I have to say, it never ceases to amaze me that this method actually works, since it requires measuring extremely small angles - we are talking arc-seconds, which are 1/3600 of a degree. To give you an idea how small an arc-second is, it is the angle the sun moves in 1/15 of a second due to the Earth's rotation. So, take a look at the sun for 1/15 of the second and let me know how much movement you notice.

To measure distances beyond 100 light-years, one method is to use Cepheid variable stars. These stars change in brightness over time, which allows astronomers to figure out the true brightness. Comparing the apparent brightness of the star to the true brightness allows the astronomer to calculate the distance to the star. This method has been used to find the distances to many globular clusters. Red shift is another trick, and it is used to measure the distances to really far away objects such as other galaxies.

By parallax, what we do is snap a photo of the starfield, say in January. Then we do it again in July, as the earth has swung halfway around the sun. Knowing that the earth is 93 million miles from the sun gives us the base of a triangle about 186 million miles long. Trivially small, in comparison to the distance to the nearest star, but you can get a reasonably fair estimate this way.

For example, be estimated the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud. By the 1980s we had improved our accuracy and we estimated the cloud o be between 150 and 200 thousand light years. Then  a supernova of the star Sanduleak -69 202 within the Magellanic Cloud. After it blew, it lit up a surrounding ring six light months away. Well, now we have a triangle with a base and an angle (we could measure the degrees between the star and ring). The distance pops out to 170 light years.

Knowing accurately how far away that is, we get better numbers for Andromeda (2.5 million ly), and everything else.

Standard candles like cepheid variables and redshifts are still necessary for distant galaxies, but those distance estimates are based on accurate close measurements.

Another trick for "nearby" stars is to know the distance between orbitting binaries. You can measure angles that way as well

Don't you remember Tom Bishop's explanation? The strata of the atmosphere, changed by government-controlled gas outlets, causes the spectra's wavelength to change and the distance to be totally different. You can confirm this by observing the speed of the celestial gears.

#### Max Fagin

• 695
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2007, 06:38:37 PM »
Tom Bishop is a complete moron, he has no grasp of any scientific theories bar his own unique version of FE theory, not even the other FE believe him. We know the distance of stars from a variety of methods

Spectroscopy can provide a good indicator of a star's distance. Super giants have very different spectra from a normal hydrogen fusing star of the same spectral type. White dwarfs have very different spectra than either a giant, super giant or hydrogen fusing, also called Main Sequence stars. Each stage in a star's life stamps certain distinct traits in their light astronomers can find in spectra, and thus retrieve information on it's brightness, size and distance from Earth.

For stars that are relatively close, they use parallax to calculate the distance. I have to say, it never ceases to amaze me that this method actually works, since it requires measuring extremely small angles - we are talking arc-seconds, which are 1/3600 of a degree. To give you an idea how small an arc-second is, it is the angle the sun moves in 1/15 of a second due to the Earth's rotation. So, take a look at the sun for 1/15 of the second and let me know how much movement you notice.

To measure distances beyond 100 light-years, one method is to use Cepheid variable stars. These stars change in brightness over time, which allows astronomers to figure out the true brightness. Comparing the apparent brightness of the star to the true brightness allows the astronomer to calculate the distance to the star. This method has been used to find the distances to many globular clusters. Red shift is another trick, and it is used to measure the distances to really far away objects such as other galaxies.

By parallax, what we do is snap a photo of the starfield, say in January. Then we do it again in July, as the earth has swung halfway around the sun. Knowing that the earth is 93 million miles from the sun gives us the base of a triangle about 186 million miles long. Trivially small, in comparison to the distance to the nearest star, but you can get a reasonably fair estimate this way.

For example, be estimated the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud. By the 1980s we had improved our accuracy and we estimated the cloud o be between 150 and 200 thousand light years. Then  a supernova of the star Sanduleak -69 202 within the Magellanic Cloud. After it blew, it lit up a surrounding ring six light months away. Well, now we have a triangle with a base and an angle (we could measure the degrees between the star and ring). The distance pops out to 170 light years.

Knowing accurately how far away that is, we get better numbers for Andromeda (2.5 million ly), and everything else.

Standard candles like cepheid variables and redshifts are still necessary for distant galaxies, but those distance estimates are based on accurate close measurements.

Another trick for "nearby" stars is to know the distance between orbitting binaries. You can measure angles that way as well

I tried this already, Quarrior.  You are completelly correct, but this won't work on FE'ers because FE'ers don't think that stars are objects similar to the sun.
"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: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2007, 06:44:18 PM »
correct, because the sun has the spectral emission lines of burning coal.

?

#### Richard Kilgore

• 115
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2007, 10:05:01 PM »
I agree that the angle will never actually reach 0. But there will presumably come a point at which the powers of resolution of the human eye are too limited to distinguish it from the situation when the angle has actually become 0. That is when the sun reaches its apparent vanishing point, on the Bishop-Rowbotham model

Rowbotham (I think in chapter 14 of his book) says that the angle at which the apparent vanishing point is reached is 1 minute of one degree i.e. 1/60th of a degree. In my initial post, I show that the only way that such an angle could be reached, if the sun is 3,000 miles in the sky above the plane surface of the earth, is if the sun is 10,000,0000 miles away from the observer. This is simple trigonometry. Rowbotham's model thus leads to an absurd result.

To put the matter another way: the 32-mile wide sun will be too small for the eye to see a long time before it has any hope in hell of being perceived to reach the horizon. Hence, you are right, in that on a flat earth of the kind being put forward here, the sun will never be perceived to touch the horizon. But the sun is perceived to do this each and ever day. Hence, the flat earth model is just flat out wrong

Another victory for globularism!

Animation:

Notice how the line decreases at an exponential rate.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2007, 10:16:00 PM by Richard Kilgore »

#### Trekky0623

• Official Member
• 10061
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2007, 10:20:37 PM »
The whole error with Rowbotham is that the sun will shrink, not sink.

?

#### Richard Kilgore

• 115
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2007, 10:28:20 PM »
The whole error with Rowbotham is that the sun will shrink, not sink.

That's right. (Alternatively: it will shrink to nothing long before it seems to sink to the horizon.)

?

#### tommo

• 505
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2007, 05:52:07 AM »
That's an excellent animation. Right to the point. Tom is defeated, again.

and FET no ?
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

?

#### cpt_bthimes

• 553
• exposer of lies
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2007, 08:07:45 AM »
The whole error with Rowbotham is that the sun will shrink, not sink.

another excellent visualization made or provided by trekky.  he deserves an award.

one small error in the text: the relationship between the angle and distance is an inverse power, rather than exponential.  but i don't think anyone would mistake the meaning.

just think if bishop put as much thought and effort into demonstrating his assertions with clear visualizations as trekky did.  (rather than copy/pasting rowbotham, or rambling on with "thought experiments" that only work in his "special" brain.)  we might all be believing in a flat earth, and he could have invested far les time in total on this site, while leaving a legacy as well.  well actually, he would have just shut himself up long ago with the sheer absurdity of his claims...

#### Trekky0623

• Official Member
• 10061
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2007, 09:34:42 AM »
Sorry.  I just thought "curve" and thought "exponential".

?

#### cpt_bthimes

• 553
• exposer of lies
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2007, 09:58:58 AM »
Sorry.  I just thought "curve" and thought "exponential".

and so would most people, part of why it's a trivial error.  if you stated it the other way around (sun getting closer rather than farther), it would be exponential...semantics being the other part of the reason it was a trivial error...

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17538
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2007, 10:38:08 AM »
Quote
Rowbotham (I think in chapter 14 of his book) says that the angle at which the apparent vanishing point is reached is 1 minute of one degree i.e. 1/60th of a degree. In my initial post, I show that the only way that such an angle could be reached, if the sun is 3,000 miles in the sky above the plane surface of the earth, is if the sun is 10,000,0000 miles away from the observer. This is simple trigonometry. Rowbotham's model thus leads to an absurd result.

To put the matter another way: the 32-mile wide sun will be too small for the eye to see a long time before it has any hope in hell of being perceived to reach the horizon. Hence, you are right, in that on a flat earth of the kind being put forward here, the sun will never be perceived to touch the horizon. But the sun is perceived to do this each and ever day. Hence, the flat earth model is just flat out wrong  Smiley

Another victory for globularism!

That's all well and good, but according to Robotham, while the sun is 3,000 miles above the surface of the earth, the sun's image is appearing on the strata of the atmosphere - an altitude much much lower. This is the sun which is visible to all observers. The true the sun would not be seen until the observer leaves the atmosphere.

This image of the sun upon the atmosphere allows the sun to stay at a relatively constant size. As the true sun shrinks into the distance, the sun's image grows in diameter, equaling out for all intents and purposes.

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.

The next time you observe the sunset notice how the sun is much hazier, diluted, and less intense than it is overhead at noonday. The lower intensity of the sun is a telltale sign that its rays are passing through a thick atmosphere, much like the light rays from a distant street lamp on a foggy night. As the sun recedes from the observer, the rays of light will continue to spread outwards and cause the sun to be come less distinct, causing the sun to become hazy during sunset.

And since the sun is always an image projected upon the atmosphere it will be the image of the sun which is lost to perspective. The true sun is never seen - all of its light manifests as a magnification upon the atmosphere. Therefore, in order for your math to work, the equations would need to be fixed to reflect not the true height of the sun, but the height of the sun's image.

The manifestation of the sun's image upon the atmosphere is a physical one, not a trick of the eye nor an optical illusion of human psychology.

See Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 10:48:24 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### cpt_bthimes

• 553
• exposer of lies
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2007, 10:59:27 AM »
Quote
Rowbotham (I think in chapter 14 of his book) says that the angle at which the apparent vanishing point is reached is 1 minute of one degree i.e. 1/60th of a degree. In my initial post, I show that the only way that such an angle could be reached, if the sun is 3,000 miles in the sky above the plane surface of the earth, is if the sun is 10,000,0000 miles away from the observer. This is simple trigonometry. Rowbotham's model thus leads to an absurd result.

To put the matter another way: the 32-mile wide sun will be too small for the eye to see a long time before it has any hope in hell of being perceived to reach the horizon. Hence, you are right, in that on a flat earth of the kind being put forward here, the sun will never be perceived to touch the horizon. But the sun is perceived to do this each and ever day. Hence, the flat earth model is just flat out wrong  Smiley

Another victory for globularism!

That's all well and good, but according to Robotham, while the sun is 3,000 miles above the surface of the earth, the sun's image is appearing on the strata of the atmosphere - an altitude much much lower. This is the sun which is visible to all observers. The true the sun would not be seen until the observer leaves the atmosphere.

This image of the sun upon the atmosphere allows the sun to stay at a relatively constant size. As the true sun shrinks into the distance, the sun's image grows in diameter, equaling out for all intents and purposes.

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.

The next time you observe the sunset notice how the sun is much hazier, diluted, and less intense than it is overhead at noonday. The lower intensity of the sun is a telltale sign that its rays are passing through a thick atmosphere, much like the light rays from a distant street lamp on a foggy night. As the sun recedes from the observer, the rays of light will continue to spread outwards and cause the sun to be come less distinct, causing the sun to become hazy during sunset.

And since the sun is always an image projected upon the atmosphere it will be the image of the sun which is lost to perspective. The true sun is never seen - all of its light manifests as a magnification upon the atmosphere. Therefore, in order for your math to work, the equations would need to be fixed to reflect not the true height of the sun, but the height of the sun's image.

The manifestation of the sun's image upon the atmosphere is a physical one, not a trick of the eye nor an optical illusion of human psychology.

See Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

rowbotham.  got it.

?

#### Richard Kilgore

• 115
##### Re: How Far is the Sun When It Vanishes At the Horizon? A Disproof of FE
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2007, 02:12:19 PM »
Concerning this:

That's all well and good, but according to Robotham, while the sun is 3,000 miles above the surface of the earth, the sun's image is appearing on the strata of the atmosphere - an altitude much much lower. This is the sun which is visible to all observers. The true the sun would not be seen until the observer leaves the atmosphere.

This image of the sun upon the atmosphere allows the sun to stay at a relatively constant size. As the true sun shrinks into the distance, the sun's image grows in diameter, equaling out for all intents and purposes.

<snip>

The manifestation of the sun's image upon the atmosphere is a physical one, not a trick of the eye nor an optical illusion of human psychology.

See Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

The distance from the earth to the sun is calculated using the visible sun. Hence, the visible sun is 3,000 miles up according to the flat earth model. There is thus no room for claiming that the visible sun is merely an atmospheric image at a much lower height, while the real sun is above it.

And my calculation above shows that this visible sun would have to be 10,000,000 miles away before it could be perceived to sink into the horizon. This is absurd, and hence the flat earth model stands decisively refuted.

(Addendum: Even if the visible sun were only 12 miles above the surface of the earth, it would have to be 40,000 miles away before the illusion of sinking into the horizon could appear, using the same calculation. Since the diameter of the earth is 24,900 miles, according to the Flat Earth model, the sun would have to leave its claimed orbit.)
« Last Edit: December 18, 2007, 02:16:02 PM by Richard Kilgore »