Sun/(Moon) Significantly Above the Horizon

So what has this thread accomplished? Is this sufficient to disprove a flat earth? What might be an error in this argument?

So what has this thread accomplished?

Nothing. 

Quote from: Splox on February 22, 2007, 08:44:44 PM

So what has this thread accomplished?

Nothing. 

Rick_James could you tell me what might be wrong with my argument? How is it we can't see the sun ~12 hours a day?

its all an illusion, the world lies

Quote from: Rick_James on February 22, 2007, 08:54:08 PM

Quote from: Splox on February 22, 2007, 08:44:44 PM

So what has this thread accomplished?

Nothing. 

Rick_James could you tell me what might be wrong with my argument? How is it we can't see the sun ~12 hours a day?

Beast has already engaged you in converation about this - why don't you finish up with him before seeking new opponents.

If we assume the telescope is pointed at the horizon, the refraction shown in the picture would cause us to be able to see below the horizon.  The telescope points toward the horizon (or image of star close to the horizon), but is able to see the star which is below the horizon.

I'm going to update my formula for a specific time of the year, maybe that will help.  Lets say it is an equinox.  This means that the sun is exactly over the equator.  Lets suppose you are on the equator at about midnight, a time where we might suspect the sun to be as far away from you as possible during the night (about Sqrt((24900/2)^2+3000^2) or 12806.3 miles away).

To find the angle above the earth in relation to the horizon, we notice the sun is 12450 miles away from you horizontally, and 3000 miles above you vertically.  Use (angle of inclination in degrees)=arctan(opp/adj), so angle=arctan(3000/12450), which is about 13 degrees 33 minutes.  This is a ratio of about 4.15:1.  Back to my analogy using the eiffel tower, at this ratio it is similar to saying that you would not be able to see the top of the tower (or the tower at all for that matter) one mile away because it would have smashed into the earth.  As long as the ratio is preserved (which it is) distance has little to do with the argument (your argument seems to show distance only helps).  The sun is about 13 degrees from the horizon (at its very lowest), but is supposed to be out of sight for about 12 hours.

This argument only gets worse if we show where the sun should be when it "sets".  At a 90 degree angle from where we are in relation to where the sun sets (which should appear directly west, but...it wouldn't, it would be directly northwest)) the sun would be (24900/4)*sqrt(2) miles away horizontally, or about 8803.5 miles, and still 3000 miles above us.  The angle the sun would be at here is arctan(3000/8803.5) or about 18 degrees 50 minutes.  This is hardly smashing into the earth at this point.  The sun would rise at directly northeast at the same angle.

I hope that last post is understood

I understood it.  Good post.

The lack of response proves it was well understood

I understood it.  Good post.

Thank You, I'm glad someone noticed.

Quote from: beast on February 21, 2007, 05:20:17 PM

If we assume the telescope is pointed at the horizon, the refraction shown in the picture would cause us to be able to see below the horizon.  The telescope points toward the horizon (or image of star close to the horizon), but is able to see the star which is below the horizon.

I'm going to update my formula for a specific time of the year, maybe that will help.  Lets say it is an equinox.  This means that the sun is exactly over the equator.  Lets suppose you are on the equator at about midnight, a time where we might suspect the sun to be as far away from you as possible during the night (about Sqrt((24900/2)^2+3000^2) or 12806.3 miles away).

To find the angle above the earth in relation to the horizon, we notice the sun is 12450 miles away from you horizontally, and 3000 miles above you vertically.  Use (angle of inclination in degrees)=arctan(opp/adj), so angle=arctan(3000/12450), which is about 13 degrees 33 minutes.  This is a ratio of about 4.15:1.  Back to my analogy using the eiffel tower, at this ratio it is similar to saying that you would not be able to see the top of the tower (or the tower at all for that matter) because it would have smashed into the earth.  As long as the ratio is preserved (which it is) distance has little to do with the argument (your argument seems to show distance only helps).  The sun is about 13 degrees from the horizon (at its very lowest), but is supposed to be out of sight for about 12 hours.

This argument only gets worse if we show where the sun should be when it "sets".  At a 90 degree angle from where we are in relation to where the sun sets (which should appear directly west, but...it wouldn't, it would be directly northwest)) the sun would be (24900/4)*sqrt(2) miles away horizontally, or about 8803.5 miles, and still 3000 miles above us.  The angle the sun would be at here is arctan(3000/8803.5) or about 18 degrees 50 minutes.  This is hardly smashing into the earth at this point.  The sun would rise at directly northeast at the same angle.

de_stroyed

earths round, QQ

I'd like to hear from Tom about this one

FE'ers seem stubborn in their ways but some seem to annouce that they would believe in a RE provided there was sufficient evidence.  Although "sufficient" is extremely subjective, I'd like one to provide a [good/well documented] reason why this reason doesn't qualify.

Come on. Why are there no good rebuttals for this excellent point???

Where are all the FE'ers?

That makes perfect sense, i would like to read a reply from a FE'er on that one.

That makes perfect sense, i would like to read a reply from a FE'er on that one.

Or at least admitting they don't know, that would be a step in the right direction.

Quote from: Splox on February 22, 2007, 10:15:58 PM

Quote from: beast on February 21, 2007, 05:20:17 PM

If we assume the telescope is pointed at the horizon, the refraction shown in the picture would cause us to be able to see below the horizon.  The telescope points toward the horizon (or image of star close to the horizon), but is able to see the star which is below the horizon.

I'm going to update my formula for a specific time of the year, maybe that will help.  Lets say it is an equinox.  This means that the sun is exactly over the equator.  Lets suppose you are on the equator at about midnight, a time where we might suspect the sun to be as far away from you as possible during the night (about Sqrt((24900/2)^2+3000^2) or 12806.3 miles away).

To find the angle above the earth in relation to the horizon, we notice the sun is 12450 miles away from you horizontally, and 3000 miles above you vertically.  Use (angle of inclination in degrees)=arctan(opp/adj), so angle=arctan(3000/12450), which is about 13 degrees 33 minutes.  This is a ratio of about 4.15:1.  Back to my analogy using the eiffel tower, at this ratio it is similar to saying that you would not be able to see the top of the tower (or the tower at all for that matter) because it would have smashed into the earth.  As long as the ratio is preserved (which it is) distance has little to do with the argument (your argument seems to show distance only helps).  The sun is about 13 degrees from the horizon (at its very lowest), but is supposed to be out of sight for about 12 hours.

This argument only gets worse if we show where the sun should be when it "sets".  At a 90 degree angle from where we are in relation to where the sun sets (which should appear directly west, but...it wouldn't, it would be directly northwest)) the sun would be (24900/4)*sqrt(2) miles away horizontally, or about 8803.5 miles, and still 3000 miles above us.  The angle the sun would be at here is arctan(3000/8803.5) or about 18 degrees 50 minutes.  This is hardly smashing into the earth at this point.  The sun would rise at directly northeast at the same angle.

de_stroyed

earths round, QQ

You only have 9 posts and understand nothing.
Refer to the FAQ and read Earth: Not a Globe before saying anything ever again.

You only have 9 posts and understand nothing.
Refer to the FAQ and read Earth: Not a Globe before saying anything ever again.

You're going to have to shut up.  The number of posts gives no indication of how much some user has read on this site (or actually used the search button).  I'm not saying his post was intelligent or had content, but you certainly didn't do otherwise. 

Mr. Astronomy, you used to have at least some content and point to your posts, what happened?  And why are you now wasting your time with this drivel? 

Splox, have you seen EricTheRed's thread on light curvature and how it can explain the observable sun, moon, and sinking of ships over the horizon? 

Quote from: astronomy101 on March 06, 2007, 05:17:19 AM

You only have 9 posts and understand nothing.
Refer to the FAQ and read Earth: Not a Globe before saying anything ever again.

You're going to have to shut up.  The number of posts gives no indication of how much some user has read on this site (or actually used the search button).  I'm not saying his post was intelligent or had content, but you certainly didn't do otherwise. 

Mr. Astronomy, you used to have at least some content and point to your posts, what happened?  And why are you now wasting your time with this drivel? 

Splox, have you seen EricTheRed's thread on light curvature and how it can explain the observable sun, moon, and sinking of ships over the horizon? 

I become delusioned by the Flat Earth hypothesis and TOm Bishop's rants.

Post count is the single most important thing on the internet though.

Post count is the single most important thing on the internet though.

Yes it is. You may talk. You have over 500. I am a weakling

Splox, have you seen EricTheRed's thread on light curvature and how it can explain the observable sun, moon, and sinking of ships over the horizon? 

Yes, I have.  It doesn't make sense because when light passes between areas of different density, the light refracts toward the more dense.

I hope people will come back to this thread to discuss something that puzzles me:

What exactly is the nature of the sun in FE theory? If its a sphere then surely describing it as having a spotlight effect doesn't work.

Think about an actual spotlight at a stadium. They aren't spheres. They direct their light in one direction. But someone not stood in the pool of light being cast can still see the spotlight. They might not be bathed in its light but they can still see the lights as they drive or walk by. And, like I said, spotlights tend not to be spheres.

Isnt there an enormous difference between being bathed in the light being emitted from an object like the sun and being able to see the object itself? The issue here is that we experience total darkness at night.

If spotlights were spheres - or street lights for that matter - then surely we would see them from even further away and there would be less of a spotlight effect in the first place. If you can see street lights when you're miles from a town at a higher elevation and they're not even pointing at you (drive through Wales at night and see how points of light in towns at the bottom of valleys are visible from miles away on roads at the top of valleys) then surely you'd see the sun in the distance given the previous calculations in this thread. And, again, there's surely a huge difference between seeing a point of light in the distance vs being bathed in that light and being able to read thanks to it. Doesn't FE theory have to explain total darkness in light of this?

I'm genuinely interested at what people think about this question/issue. I bring no scientific training to the table beyond what I learned in school but the question seems fair to me.

Quote

I am curious how the sunsets can be explained as "too far to see" or an "optical illusion"

Explained in Chapter 9 of the book Earth Not a Globe:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm

It states that the sun which supposedly moves parallel to the surface of the Earth in a circle, appears to set because a distancing object will do such as a law of perspective. While this is true, this would require the velocity of the sun to dramatically increase in speed the closer to the horizon it is in order to look as if it were in fact setting. Moving straight at a constant speed would make it look slower the further away it is.

Just to indulge this little overlooked implication, people the sun is passing over don't notice the sun speeding up but in fact see the opposite: slowing down on this straight line. The only explanation is that the sun actually sets. Besides, if the sun was that small, going such a distance would make it appear to shrink.

I also would like to mention for the Flat Sun theorists, a circle viewed at an angle looks like an oval. If you don't believe me, draw a circle on a peice of paper and tilt it. Ooooh! Its an ellipse now!

Quote

Also, the shape of the sun and moon should appear to change as they move over the FE.

The sun is a sphere. Its light is limited to a spotlight.

Ummm... Dude, light is how we SEE stuff. If the sun was spherical but only emits light like a spot light, than we would still see the oval effect.

Quote

Basically, earthlings would be able to see the sun from anywhere on a flat earth.. even if the sun wasn't shinning directly on them.

The sun is very small and very close to the earth. This allows the sun to only light one section of the world at a time.

[/quote]

Which is why moving that far towards the horizon would make it appear to shrink massively. Only a very large object would appear to remain constant when moving that far away.

These issues were not covered in your "sacred texts". 

Ummm... Dude, light is how we SEE stuff. If the sun was spherical but only emits light like a spot light, than we would still see the oval effect.

After a certain point the remaining light from the distant sun would be obscured by air density.

Which is why moving that far towards the horizon would make it appear to shrink massively. Only a very large object would appear to remain constant when moving that far away.

These issues were not covered in your "sacred texts".

That part is covered in Chapter 10.

Quote

Ummm... Dude, light is how we SEE stuff. If the sun was spherical but only emits light like a spot light, than we would still see the oval effect.

After a certain point the remaining light from the distant sun would be obscured by air density.

Please explain. The lack of clarity is somewhat annoying. As far as I can tell, this is just a regurgitation of the 'reason' the sun appears to set. Air density keeping you from seeing it from far away eludes the point I was making. Before the sun reaches this distance, and is still visible at an angle it would look like an oval.

Quote

Which is why moving that far towards the horizon would make it appear to shrink massively. Only a very large object would appear to remain constant when moving that far away.

These issues were not covered in your "sacred texts".

That part is covered in Chapter 10.

A concept of a possible explanation is presented. Summarized: "the refraction of the light makes the sun look big." This would imply, that the sun reached the distance necessary to appear to touch the horizon and yet hasn't accelerated to reach this distance. (I noticed you ignored this point while attempting to answer the others.)

Furthermore, the sun is very bright and intense on the horizon. Then it cuts off at the bottom. It doesn't fade out as air gradually blocks our view of it. Billions of people witness this day after day.

One more problem, as the distance of the sun gets larger, the angle of sight for the sun decreases asymptotically to zero degrees. Since the human eye is not absolutely perfect, we will be overly generous in our experiment and say that a one degree angle over this vast difference wouldn't be seen. Suppose we also generously let the suns distance reach its maximum of the diameter of the Earth continuing to favor your side. 24,900 miles long 3,000 miles high makes the angle to see the sun as 6.86999 degrees. This would make the sun seem to approach the horizon but not get close enough to mistake it for setting. Keep in mind, that this also used a distance much greater than your theory allows with timezones.

Something else to consider: at sunrise, clouds are clearly illuminated from the east, before the surface of the earth receives direct sunlight. This is because the sun is shining over the horizon at an indirect angle, as such:


A spotlight that was shining "down" onto the Earth, such as the one in the FE model, would actually cause the land to be illuminated before the clouds overhead, because spotlights create a cone of light that expands as it shines downwards. This is easily observed by standing near a spotlight in the street that is pointing straight down. The light would project a cone, like so:


Raise your hand directly above your head and it will be out of direct light, while your feet will be illuminated. This phenomenon does not occur on Earth. That is - a cloud is never outside of direct sunlight while the ground below is in direct sunlight.

Quote

If light is a sphere, why is it a spotlight then? This is nonsense.

The sun is very small and very close to the earth. This allows the sun to only light one section of the world at a time. Hence, the spotlight effect.

So then what the feck illuminates the other planets in our solar system? The light from the sun can reach the other planets yet not the entire surface of a "flat Earth" at the same time? Dude, seriously.

Quote

Ummm... Dude, light is how we SEE stuff. If the sun was spherical but only emits light like a spot light, than we would still see the oval effect.

After a certain point the remaining light from the distant sun would be obscured by air density.

Quote

Which is why moving that far towards the horizon would make it appear to shrink massively. Only a very large object would appear to remain constant when moving that far away.

These issues were not covered in your "sacred texts".

That part is covered in Chapter 10.

EARTH TO TOM!!!!

How does moving in a giant circle above the world make the sun go in a giant arc across the sky from one horizon to the other? Wouldn't it just slowly appear on one side of the sky, move accros, and then slowly diseappear on the other without going anywhere near the horizon?

Honestly Tom, think about stuff before you type, and at least offer a little more explanantion than saying "Go to the holy bible of FE, Chapter STFU."

Something else to consider: at sunrise, clouds are clearly illuminated from the east, before the surface of the earth receives direct sunlight. This is because the sun is shining over the horizon at an indirect angle, as such:


A spotlight that was shining "down" onto the Earth, such as the one in the FE model, would actually cause the land to be illuminated before the clouds overhead, because spotlights create a cone of light that expands as it shines downwards. This is easily observed by standing near a spotlight in the street that is pointing straight down. The light would project a cone, like so:


Raise your hand directly above your head and it will be out of direct light, while your feet will be illuminated. This phenomenon does not occur on Earth. That is - a cloud is never outside of direct sunlight while the ground below is in direct sunlight.

Good point, I would like to see them explain that.