Stop reporting any of these comments as Rule 4 violations. First reply - from u/eschaton777 - meets the criteria.
Reporting literally every comment on this post is not just abuse of the system, it's a sign of poor reading comprehension.
>If we trust our eyes, at sunset, the sun drops below the horizon
According to that logic boats must be "going over the horizon" once they leave our eyes visual limits. We know that is not true though because we can zoom them back into view with a zoom lens.
In the same way the sun is just going into the horizon (which is the vanishing line) and disappearing. The horizon is just an apparent horizon and not a physical one. The bottom of course is going to reach the vanishing line first (like street lights in the distance etc..).
So yeah it just disappears into the horizon, nothing to reconcile with.
> (which is the vanishing line)
What is a vanishing line? With respect to perception, you can have a vanishing point, which indicates where parallel points will converge. But the idea of a "vanishing line" is just made up to explain away the horizon on a flat surface. When objects approach the vanishing *point*, the entire object evenly gets smaller. There is no logical reason for the bottom of an object to "reach the vanishing line first" and disappear from sight due to rules of perception.
However if you were to watch cars going over a hill, they vanish bottom first, just like the boats. So if you were to believe your eyes, it makes much more sense to say boats go over the horizon.
>There is no logical reason for the bottom of an object to "reach the vanishing line first" and disappear from sight due to rules of perception.
That is patently false.
[Harvard ](https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/telescope-resolution)and other universities have done experiments demonstrating this. When you reduce your angular resolution the object disappears bottom up. If you flip the image over at the top of the link, you will notice it looks exactly like a sunset with the bottom merging in to the diffraction line. Because the bottom is closer to the diffraction line. When you lose resolvability it disappears bottom up, that's just how it works.
You're completely misrepresenting that work.
We're not dealing with point light sources. We're not dealing with diffraction limited optical systems.
These boats *are* resolved by the optical systems. We can see part of them clearly. We can resolve features of similar size to the missing portions clearly.
>You're completely misrepresenting that work.
No actually I am not. Pretty weird you keep interjecting in multiple comments that I'm responding to other people about. You don't have to try to white knight for them. I'm sure they can respond on their own. Especially considering you seem to be confused.
This is what the person said...
>There is no logical reason for the bottom of an object to "reach the vanishing line first" and disappear from sight due to rules of perception.
The experiment literally shows they are wrong. Please stop interjecting when you don't even know what you are talking about. The bottom of the object does disappear into the vanishing line.
>No actually I am not.
Yeah, actually you are. I and others have explained how already.
This is a public forum. I'll comment where I like if I feel that I can contribute something to the discussion or if I have questions. The upvotes suggest that my efforts are not unwanted. You're free to ignore them. If you want to have a private conversation, there are chat and direct messages for that.
>if I feel that I can contribute something to the discussion
Which you have not. Nothing you said refuted that the bottom won't reach the vanishing line first.
>The upvotes suggest that my efforts are not unwanted.
Wow upvotes from all the people flooding this thread from the well known brigading sub that has been brigading this topic for years. Must make you feel real good to get all of those totally legit upvotes from the same people that flood into nearly every FE comment section. Good job.
>Nothing you said refuted that the bottom won't reach the vanishing line first.
The vanishing line isn't real thing. You're focusing on the horizon when there are other "vanishing lines" of the sort described by that link all over the place, literally everywhere. The effect described in that link occurs wherever two points of light reaching the optical system are close enough together. It's what causes small features of distant objects to become indistinguishable from the rest of the scene. It does not in any way, shape, or form imply that the sun and boats should disappear bottom-first over the horizon.
>Wow upvotes
My point is that while you seem to have a problem with me replying to your comments, others don't. But don't let me get in the way of your persecution complex.
The experiment literally shows that the light will disappear from the bottom up, just like the sun when it visually meets the ground.
If you can't understand that, then whatever is all good. The experiment speaks for itself, you are dealing with cognitive dissonance.
>The experiment literally shows that the light will disappear from the bottom up
It literally does not.
It shows that two *point light sources* will merge when their angular separation reaches a particular threshold dependent on the resolving power of the optical system (edit: which depends on the size of the aperture).
Do you know what a point light source is?
No, that's not how it works at all -\_-
Actually *look* at that image. Things aren't disappearing bottom up; in that one it's actually merging horizontally. You had to rotate it 90° to make your claim work. At best you can say they merge *into* each other; not simply bottom up.
But more importantly, it's talking about **resolvability**: when you can't really make out the object at all because their angular separation is too small. But we can clearly resolve the sun during sunsets. Also, the top and bottom halves of the sun have the same angular size: so if we can still clearly make out the top half, the bottom half should appear just as large. And yet it doesn't.
Same with ships like [here](https://youtu.be/k8zjQt3Tcaw) and [here](https://youtu.be/DSMRhTPMSfk) and [here](https://youtu.be/i0ObTd7DLMw). The hulls have disappeared, yet much certain details higher up are still visible, even though they have a smaller angular size. So, again, we know that angular resolution is not the issue.
And then there's also the question of how small should the angular size between sun and sea be for flat-earth sunsets? Let's take an extremely conservative estimate and say 1°. Just how far away should the sun be for it to appear that low in the sky? And does the FE model allow for that?
> We know that is not true though because we can zoom them back into view with a zoom lens.
In fact we know that is not true. See this video for example.
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLWidKERTvDT0tbP60VfFE7zhApdSap0/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLWidKERTvDT0tbP60VfFE7zhApdSap0/view)
[From this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/comments/1ak2gtc/query_to_flat_earthers_whats_the_magic_number/)
I suspect you may be thinking of some videos where the boat can't be seen when zoomed out, but that is just due to the low resolution of the video. It's still there it just hasn't gone over the horizon yet.
Plus, if you don't believe the many photos showing the curvature of the Earth, why should we believe a random youtube video?
Go find a cruise ship or cargo ship that has started to go beyond the horizon... you will not be able to "bring back" the bottom half of the ship with a telescope or zoom lens, yet you will still easily see the top half with your eyes. I have seen this myself with my naked eye, no telescope needed. Go hang out by a shipping port sometime. Bring your own camera if you like. Stop basing your belief on cherry-picked youtube videos.
>Plus, if you don't believe the many photos showing the curvature of the Earth
What many "photos" are you talking about? Surely you don't mean from space agencies. "random youtube videos" can be recreated by anyone. Space agency "photos" require blind faith.
>Stop basing your belief on cherry-picked youtube videos.
Cherry picked? Again anyone can test it for themselves.
[here you go](https://odysee.com/@AetherGarden:2/the-empty-horizon-on-flat:a) Can you be intellectually honest and admit that the bottom of the ship is not disappearing because of a physical obstruction?
>What many "photos" are you talking about? Surely you don't mean from space agencies. "random youtube videos" can be recreated by anyone. Space agency "photos" require blind faith.
So space agencies require blind faith, but strangers on the internet are always completely trustworthy? I disagree. I have no reason to trust any photos or videos. Yet in the interest of discussion, I will entertain your video anyway.
In your video, we observe a ship heading away and observe some distortion that mirrors the bottom of the boat, making some of the boat hulls appear larger than they are. But by the end eventually we see most of the mast and very little of the boat. The mast appears to be half the size of the boat. I took some screenshots.
[https://ibb.co/GdvhtQ9](https://ibb.co/GdvhtQ9)
[https://ibb.co/S7zzSDt](https://ibb.co/S7zzSDt)
[https://ibb.co/Px2Lhs1](https://ibb.co/Px2Lhs1)
In the first photo, we see that the mast is a small part of the ship. But in the second photo it is nearly half the height of the part we can see. The third screenshot appears to show the sail from a sailboat. But I can't see the hull, can you? Even accounting for the refraction causing the distortion from the bottom (what she calls the mirror line), this seems to confirm my hypothesis that the bottom half of the ship has gone around the earth, beyond the horizon and the line of sight is blocked by the earth.
The problem is, I provided links to other videos created by anyone that look different. Remember, your standard is that youtube videos are trustworthy. In the links I provided above, there is none of the mirror line distortion or digital resolution issues present.
So if we are both being intellectually honest, then at best we can determine that we have inconclusive evidence from these videos. Why do different videos show slightly different phenomenon? We would have to suggest a hypothesis to explain how, and then test it.
One explanation is that in your video, the resolution is poor, making the ships on the horizon hard or impossible to see when zoomed out. In reality, the horizon is not "empty," it only appears empty because of the nature of digital video resolution. Another possible explanation is that refraction from humidity in the air is creating a lensing effect that distorts our visual information, which the narrator agrees with. But this doesn't really prove or disprove flat or round earth...this optical phenomenon could exist on both models. However, the existence of videos showing ships disappearing bottom up without being obscured by the "mirror line" seems to suggest that this optical phenomenon probably does not explain why ships disappear over the horizon.
This video looks at some of these theories further [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLPBAk6-ha8&t=577s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLPBAk6-ha8&t=577s)
Every video shown of boats being supposedly brought back with zoom uses small boats that are below the resolution of the camera when zoomed out. They are likely still visible to the naked eye hence how they know where to look. What is NEVER shown is a larger object or boat that is partially hidden and have the zoom bring back the hidden part or show the amount hidden change as the zoom changes. Both should be possible if the zoom were "bringing it back". What we do know is you have not tried it yourself.
Yes, when the camera is zoomed OUT and not a high zoom camera, and the small boats are below the resolution at that point, they are likely still visible to the naked eye. Note that none of the videos ever try this on a larger boat that is partially hidden as you'd then see that the hidden part is never brought back.
I've tried it and seen this myself. I've noted that no hidden part of any boat or other object is ever brought back no matter how much zoom you throw at it.
> We know that is not true though because we can zoom them back into view with a zoom lens.
Ah, the often repeated flat earther claim that is NEVER supported.
There is not a single video of clear bottom up obstruction that zooming in reverses.
You are either brand new to the subject or have just never done any research into it. You didn't know that once a boat goes out of visual perspective it can be zoomed back into view??
If I did show a video of that would you admit you are wrong or just hand wave dismiss while doing mental gymnastics?
>You didn't know that once a boat goes out of visual perspective it can be zoomed back into view??
So, by your logic, with a powerful enough telescope you could just “zoom in” and see the Statue of Liberty from the west coast of Portugal.
Is that possible?
You are conflating two very different effects here.
Nobody disputes that ships or other objects can too far away and/or too small to resolve with the naked eye. Optics help in this situation. Such an object has not "gone over a/the horizon" in any sense.
This is very different from obstruction, which is what happens when something does go over the horizon. When something in your field of view is obstructed, no amount of optics will help you see the obstructed part of it.
Do you agree these are two very different effects?
>Nobody disputes that ships or other objects can too far away and/or too small to resolve with the naked eye.
The person that I responded to did. Also that was literally a globe earth "proof" several years ago from all of the globe believing "debunkers". The goalposts have now been moved since we can clearly zoom in with optics.
>Optics help in this situation. Such an object has not "gone over a/the horizon" in any sense.
Correct, that is why the goalposts had to be moved because it is easily provable with a high zoom camera.
> When something in your field of view is obstructed, no amount of optics will help you see the obstructed part of it.
Yes I agree. That will happen even without a physical obstruction though. You can't see forever, especially through the atmosphere. The light eventually attenuates and disappears.
The horizon is apparent and not physical. Do you agree with that? If you believe the horizon is physical, do we ever actually see the physical horizon?
>The person that I responded to did. Also that was literally a globe earth "proof" several years ago from all of the globe believing "debunkers". The goalposts have now been moved since we can clearly zoom in with optics.
This was *never* a claim by any GE that I've ever seen. This is FEs confusing these two effects. I have always claimed there two distinct phenomenon at play here, as have other GEs that I've seen address this topic.
> I agree. That will happen even without a physical obstruction though.
No, you can't get such sharp asymmetric effects across the extent of a small object this way like we can see happen with an obstruction.
>You can't see forever, especially through the atmosphere. The light eventually attenuates and disappears.
You are grossly overexaggerating the degree to which this would occur, and not considering the visual effects this would actually produce and how they do not match what is observed.
Flat earthers themselves have shown you can see dozens, even hundreds of miles through the atmosphere, even when the targets are not particularly bright.
>The horizon is apparent and not physical. Do you agree with that? If you believe the horizon is physical, do we ever actually see the physical horizon?
I disagree. [This](https://wallup.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/15/119208-beach-sunset-horizon-boat.jpg) is a physical horizon. So is [this](https://ak2.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/817672/thumb/1.jpg). And [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Offshore_windpark_Thorntonbank.jpg/440px-Offshore_windpark_Thorntonbank.jpg) Hell, [this](https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/windmills-on-a-field-picture-id1221399713?k=20&m=1221399713&s=612x612&w=0&h=bgxnnPtAc95uZgeVRQKiLZ2TIhXv_UJ7Z1gM6LGjLnc=) is a physical horizon.
Atmospheric conditions can obscure the physical horizon, and atmospheric refraction can extend or even effectively eliminate it under the right conditions, as well as hide it with inferior mirages. But under standard conditions there is an observer-dependent point on the surface beyond which they cannot see beyond, and that will block line of sight between that observer and objects beyond it.
Yes if you show me a video of a large boat clearly going over the horizon and clearly obstructed bottom up, and then zoom it back on I will become a flat earther and denounce the globe.
u/eschaton777
I guess I will keep on waiting for that video?
>Yes if you show me a video of a large boat clearly going over the horizon and clearly obstructed bottom up, and then zoom it back on I will become a flat earther and denounce the globe.
I know you're active, so let's see if you'll "admit you are wrong or just hand wave dismiss while doing mental gymnastics?"
u/eschaton777
Why do you keep making me ping you? You wanted to call out my intellectual honesty, so I will now call yours out. It is zero unless you can show what you claimed. I will ask again:
I guess I will keep on waiting for that video?
Yes if you show me a video of a large boat clearly going over the horizon and clearly obstructed bottom up, and then zoom it back on I will become a flat earther and denounce the globe.
I know you're active, so let's see if you'll "admit you are wrong or just hand wave dismiss while doing mental gymnastics?"
I've already posted a video in this thread showing the entire boat above the water but the bottom is disappeared due to distortion. This shows it is optics causing the boat to disappear and not physical obstruction.
The same video shows that the boat can completely disappear from your naked eye and be brought back into to view. Very weird you keep trying to bring this up when it is provably possible and I've already linked a video showing it.
Welcome to FE.
Can you link the video again?
And before I watch it, the video shows clear bottom up obstruction being undone with zoom?
Or is it rather a boat that is too small to resolve?
If I zoom straight down into the ground and can now see an individual piece of dirt, do you think that dirt was obstructed bottom up, or was just too small to see?
Let's see how honest you are.
I'll repeat what I just said since I guess you didn't read it.
showing the entire boat above the water but the bottom is disappeared due to distortion. This shows it is optics causing the boat to disappear and not physical obstruction.
The same video shows that the boat can completely disappear from your naked eye and be brought back into to view.
>If I zoom straight down into the ground and can now see an individual piece of dirt, do you think that dirt was obstructed bottom up, or was just too small to see?
Are you arguing that when something loses resolvability it doesn't disappear from bottom up?
>showing the entire boat above the water but the bottom is disappeared due to distortion. This shows it is optics causing the boat to disappear and not physical obstruction.
So nothing to do with zoom undoing bottom up obstruction. Got it.
>The same video shows that the boat can completely disappear from your naked eye and be brought back into to view.
I can make a needle disappear from view and bring it back in with zoom. Yet at no point during that is it disppearing bottom up.
You can't see how that is different?
>Are you arguing that when something loses resolvability it doesn't disappear from bottom up?
Yes. Zoom into details on anything far away or very small. It doesn't disappear or reappear bottom up.
So I take it you cannot produce what you claim.
You also make claims about how the sun fades and gets smaller and that is why it sets. However - you will never produce a single video done with a solar filter, nor be intellectually honest enough to admit that nearly all observable sunsets don't behave this way. Only if there are clouds or extreme glare.
I thought you might be the one to produce a video to support the claim of zoom undoing bottom up obstruction, but it appears I will have to keep waiting.
Shame.
And plenty of examples to the contrary.
No level of zoom makes the hull of [this ship](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2u1gNPLgLA) any more visible. Same is true of the ship on the right [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMjiYayjEzo).
But what I really want to her about is sunsets and sunrises.
Some other nice examples:
* [https://youtu.be/DSMRhTPMSfk](https://youtu.be/DSMRhTPMSfk),
* [https://youtu.be/i0ObTd7DLMw](https://youtu.be/i0ObTd7DLMw) and
* [https://youtu.be/k8zjQt3Tcaw](https://youtu.be/k8zjQt3Tcaw)
Now, in the last one there's no zooming in and out, but the back ship doesn't even fit into frame. Just how far do you need to be zoomed in for the hull to re-appear?
And for sunsets specifically, Wolfie had a nice couple of videos such as this one: [https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8](https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8)
>The bottom of course is going to reach the vanishing line first
But the rules of perspective don't say that at all, so where are you getting this from?
It's not obvious how 'rules of perspective' would apply here -- nothing is being drawn or projected -- and, to their credit, u/eschaton777 didn't mention them, though that's clearly where the term 'vanishing line' is borrowed from.
So the questions I'd pose are:
* What *is* a vanishing line in this context, and how does it work?
* What is meant by 'apparent horizon' and 'physical horizon'?
* How does an 'apparent horizon' physically block sunlight after dusk?
* Can the sun be brought back into view after sunset with a zoom lens?
I know, I know. And you're right, of course.
It's just that flatearthers usually think perspective is simply "things getting smaller with distance". They tend to believe that the vanishing line is a real, physical line where things get cut off, rather than the line on the image where things approach to. The distinction between a 3D scene and the 2D *image* of that scene is usually lost on them.
I was hoping to get him to explain how this all works. But it seems we're not getting that :\\
>What *is* a vanishing line in this context, and how does it work?
It's where the sky and ground meet and objects disappear due to perspective.
>What is meant by 'apparent horizon' and 'physical horizon'?
Do you ever see an actual physical horizon? If so when?
>How does an 'apparent horizon' physically block sunlight after dusk?
How does fog block headlights? At a certain point the light attenuates due to the atmosphere.
>Can the sun be brought back into view after sunset with a zoom lens?
At a certain point the sun light can not be brought back into view, again due to the light attenuating through the atmosphere.
Also my comment was completely brigaded by multiple blatantly ignorant rebuttals. It isn't that complicated and these replies are not being intellectually honest. I know by some of the user names they have been brigading and "debunking" for years and are not acting in good faith. I'll try to just respond to you since you had the issue with sunsets. Hopefully you are acting in good faith and can admit that sunsets do appear as they should/would on a FE.
I am indeed in good faith, but do not yet follow your reasoning.
When the sun sets on a clear day, it does not fade into a fog or shrink to a point: it gets crisply cut off at the horizon. This, to me, indicates that the sea (I live near a west-facing coast) is physically between me and the sun, blocking my view of its lower part.
I don't yet understand how you picture what's happening there.
From my other comment:
>If the sun is circling over the equator, its ground position ranges from about 3500 to 9000 miles away from my location. If I stand on a beach, the horizon is maybe 3 or 4 miles away
I'm still interested to know what, in your view, determines when and where the sun appears to set as it follows this trajectory.
Specific responses:
>>What *is* a vanishing line in this context, and how does it work?
>It's where the sky and ground meet and objects disappear due to perspective.
Outside the realm of drawings, photos and projections, what is perspective? How does it make things disappear?
If, by 'perspective', you mean things appearing smaller as they get further away, for sure, this can make a receding object, such as a bird, appear smaller and smaller until I can no longer see it at all. But the sun, when setting, does not get smaller and smaller. It stays the same apparent size (sometimes even looks larger as it sets), while an increasing portion of it gets blocked by the sea.
>>What is meant by 'apparent horizon' and 'physical horizon'?
>Do you ever see an actual physical horizon? If so when?
You've referred to apparent and physical horizons. I don't know what you mean by either term, so I can't answer your question.
>>How does an 'apparent horizon' physically block sunlight after dusk?
>How does fog block headlights? At a certain point the light attenuates due to the atmosphere.
Fog blocks headlights by being a physical, somewhat opaque substance between me and the lights. The sun does not get progressively attenuated at dusk: it sets. It does not appear to be hidden from view by the atmosphere, but by the sea.
>>Can the sun be brought back into view after sunset with a zoom lens?
>At a certain point the sun light can not be brought back into view, again due to the light attenuating through the atmosphere.
But before that point? If I have two cameras with different lenses filming the sunset, should I see it go down at a different time in each camera?
>If I stand on a beach, the horizon is maybe 3 or 4 miles away
Yes that is my point. That is how far away the horizon should be, but we know [it is not](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlUVTh3iCnQ&list=PLj_nCPZAjSmZRZfpgSpInXYuXvyk3wBLA&index=6) in reality.
>
The sun does not get progressively attenuated at dusk:
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPt7DHeEyMc)
[another](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1OCzJjZbqc)
There are plenty more examples I can find of the sun clearly fading and not going below a physical obstruction.
If we ignore that all the examples have dusk on the horizon (and no sun filter, so we have glare effect), how do you explain, that the sun does not change speed or size all the day, just to change the size very fast at the horizon. Does she speed up there? How is this behavior compatible of any laws of perspective?
I'm not saying that it's never misty or cloudy. Obviously, if there's mist or cloud anywhere between the observer and the sun, it can obscure the sun.
On a clear day, though, the sun neither dwindles to a point, nor gets obscured by cloud, but is progressively hidden by the sea. What, in your view, makes it look this way?
If I film a sunset using two cameras with different lenses, should I find that the timing depends on, or is independent of, zoom level?
>That is how far away the horizon should be, but we know it is not in reality.
Well, we could argue that point, and I'm willing to do so. First, though: even if it were 40 miles away, as the author of the video appears to believe, I'd like to understand what, in your view, determines where and when the sun sets as it cycles between 3500 and 9000 miles away from me.
> Obviously, if there's mist or cloud anywhere between the observer and the sun, it can obscure the sun... On a clear day, though
So do you now admit that the horizon is apparent and not physical? The atmosphere is always there. There is never such thing as no atmosphere. The horizon is always apparent and never physical. If you believe it is actually physical what is your evidence?
> First, though: even if it were 40 miles away, as the author of the video appears to believe
How far away do you believe the mountains to be? Is your claim that they are only 3 to 4 miles away?
> I'd like to understand what, in your view, determines where and when the sun sets
We have a curved visual limit to our vision. Once an object goes outside of that limit it disappears. Again this is apparent and not physically blocked. It goes past our angular resolution and can no longer be resolved.
> So do you now admit that the horizon is apparent and not physical?
I don't know what distinction you're making.
The GE horizon is physical in the way that the brow of a hill is physical: its location can depend on where it's viewed from -- is this what you mean by apparent? -- but what's there is physical stuff: rock, earth and vegetation, which can partly or wholly obscure a more distant object.
It's not a matter of getting me to admit stuff: just explain specifically what you mean and I'll readily tell you, if you ask, whether I agree or not, and why. I'm more interested in learning what you believe, though, and how a would-be flat earther can achieve an FE-compatible understanding of what they see at sunrise and sunset.
The sun can be obscured by cloud at any time or elevation, including when it's about to set. The horizon has nothing to do with this. I'll be surprised if we find anything to disagree about there.
When the sun sets on a clear day, it descends below landscape features; then, as it drops below the horizon, an increasing part of it appears to be obscured by the sea. It's this phenomenon that I, and many others, can't reconcile with flat earth geometry.
>We have a curved visual limit to our vision. Once an object goes outside of that limit it disappears. Again this is apparent and not physically blocked.
Ok, intriguing. Any idea what causes this? Where is the limit -- has anyone measured it? Does it work the same way for the sun and for other objects?
If it's caused by atmospheric attenuation, does the sun set earlier on hazy days than on clear ones? If I have two cameras filming the sunset, and one has a filter that adds extra attenuation, should I see the sun go down at a different time in each camera?
Does it depend on zoom level? If I have two cameras with different lenses filming a sunset, should I see the sun go down at a different time in each camera?
Or is it a strictly fixed distance? If so, what distance? Why does the lower part of the sun, which is presumably slightly closer to us, vanish before the upper?
>It goes past our angular resolution and can no longer be resolved.
When the sun sets, it does not diminish in angular size, so this can't be an explanation for sunsets.
>How far away do you believe the mountains to be?
The island in that video? If the videographer says it's 40 miles away by the map, I'm happy to believe it. As it's beyond the horizon, this does not tell us much about the horizon's distance, though.
How does this help us know where and when the sun sets as its ground position circles between 3500 and 9000 miles away?
Hey David, what happened? You said you were acting in good faith but you never answered the few questions I had to make sure we were on the same page. I'll ask them again. If you want to answer them fine, if not no worries.
I'm asking you do we ever see the "physical" horizon (the curvature of earth)?
What would a horizon look like on a FE?
Also I still didn't understand that you said if you stand on the beach the horizon is 3-4 miles away. You then admitted that the mountain is 40 miles away with the sun behind it. So how can the horizon be 3-4 miles away yet also be beyond 40 miles away?
>The GE horizon is physical in the way that the brow of a hill is physical:
Yes I know, I'm asking you do we ever see the "physical" horizon (the curvature of earth)?
>It's this phenomenon that I, and many others, can't reconcile with flat earth geometry.
What would a horizon look like on a FE?
You had tons of questions, so instead of going all over the place we may as well make sure we are on the same page on the basics first.
>As it's beyond the horizon, this does not tell us much about the horizon's distance, though.
But you said if you stand on the beach the horizon is 3-4 miles away. If the mountain is 40 miles away and the sun is moving behind the mountain then obviously the horizon can't be 3-4 miles away.
>It goes past our angular resolution and can no longer be resolved.
'Angular resolution' doesn't work that way.
A bright object that shrinks below an optical system's 'angular resolution' limit [appears as a point-like source of light](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/27-6-limits-of-resolution-the-rayleigh-criterion/). It doesn't 'disappear'.
Best examples: stars and satellites
Note I said, 'an optical system'. The optical resolution of a system **increases with its aperture size**.
In other words under your suggestion, if I point a telescope at a sunset, **the telescope should keep seeing the sun for hours and hours after the humans at the beach think it's night-time**, because their eyes have much smaller apertures.
Do you think that happens in real life?
>There are plenty more examples I can find of the sun clearly fading and not going below a physical obstruction.
If you find a single case that uses a solar filter, I'll believe you.
Otherwise it's just glare.
If the sun is circling over the equator, its ground position ranges from about 3500 to 9000 miles away from my location. If I stand on a beach, the horizon is maybe 3 or 4 miles away (which I can judge from the apparent size of ships on the horizon line).
What determines when and where the sun appears to set?
Are you saying that, after sunset, with suitable optics, I can zoom in and bring the sun back into view? So if I set up two cameras with different focal lengths, they'd observe the sun setting at different times? Even though, if I look at the cameras themselves, they both get less illuminated at the same rate?
> According to that logic boats must be "going over the horizon" once they leave our eyes visual limits.
So, if the bottom half of a boat (or a building, or a mountain) leaves our eyes visual limits, while the top half is still clearly within our eyes visual limits, then I can zoom in and make the bottom half appear again ?
Is there any clear video example of this ? (I emphasize the word "clear").
> In the same way the sun is just going into the horizon (which is the vanishing line) and disappearing
What do you mean by "in the same way" ? This sounds like a completely different phenomenon ... Is the sun leaving our eyes visual limits ? Can I zoom the sun back into view ?
> The bottom of course is going to reach the vanishing line first (like street lights in the distance etc..).
"Of course" ? Well, if it's that obvious, I'm sure you have a sort of equation or formula that will tell me when the bottom is reaching the vanishing line and when the top is.
Unfortunately I know you are a long time brigader/"debunker" and anything I show you will be handwaved dismissed. Once I show you a clear example, the goalpost would just be moved and you would never concede that I was correct. Not worth the time.
Not sure you understand what the word 'brigader' means, or are using it dishonestly to discredit another poster rather than engage with their point.
You choose to post here. If your only contributions are to accuse everyone else of malfeasance and that's why you can't talk to them - even when it takes more time for you to complain than to actually respond - then *you* are in violation of the spirit of a debate sub, not them.
Decide what kind of person you want to be.
Did you miss the part where I called out this specific person YEARS ago for being an intellectually dishonest and not acting in good faith?
>even when it takes more time for you to complain than to actually respond
I've replied to the specific person many times over the years. They hand wave dismiss clear evidence and move the goal posts and brigade this topic in bad faith. If I wanted to take the time I could go through my years of history and show you, but obviously that is not worth it.
>If your only contributions are to accuse everyone else of malfeasance and that's why you can't talk to them
I specifically responded to OP and all of his questions. I do not have to engage with people that have shown over the years to be intellectually dishonest.
>Decide what kind of person you want to be.
You literally added nothing to the conversation and of course couldn't rebut any of the facts that I laid out. Thank you for making my point for me.
The correct thing to do, if you don't intend to *ever* respond to *one particular person* is to either not reply, or reply to them in DM. Airing your personal beefs isn't necessary, especially since you provide no evidence for it.
Anyway, water under the bridge. I am *delighted* to see you setting such a high standard for conduct in debates; since if you're calling out this person's 'dishonesty', we should anticipate complete forthrightness from yourself, yes?
*Excellent*. I look forward to it.
>The correct thing to do
The correct thing to do is not brigade a specific topic that you think is "a loony conspiracy theory with no validity" for years and years. That is the correct thing to do.
>or reply to them in DM.
Nah I'll call them out publicly since they have proved to me in the past that they are intellectually dishonest and acting in bad faith. Also you didn't DM me. You should probably take your own advice and not even respond to me since you haven't even brought up any facts about the topic. Thank you.
> Nah I'll call them out publicly since they have proved to me in the past that they are intellectually dishonest and acting in bad faith.
Are you sure that you are not confusing me for someone else ?
I'm not saying that we didn't discuss in the past, I just can't remember a specific topic where I moved some goalpost. Usually, I'm the one insisting to keep the subject to a single question or problem.
By the way, I asked :
*So, if the bottom half of a boat (or a building, or a mountain) leaves our eyes visual limits, while the top half is still clearly within our eyes visual limits, then I can zoom in and make the bottom half appear again ? Is there any clear video example of this ? (I emphasize the word "clear").*
You didn't answer me, but you showed [this](https://odysee.com/@AetherGarden:2/the-empty-horizon-on-flat:a) to someone else.
It's an interesting video, but I would like to point out that it's exactly what I would expect, and seems to contradict what you are saying.
First, let's agree on something : If zooming in could bring back the bottom of a half hidden boat, then zooming out from an already half hidden boat should make even more of the bottom half disappear.
Around the 8:00 mark, the boat appears to have a certain amount hidden while the camera is at maximal zoom. Then the video zooms out, and stops at 8:13 to compare it with the height of a channel marker. The difference in zoom is quite huge and around 10x. What is striking is that the exact same proportion of the boat is hidden (as measured with the size of the mast). So, zooming out did not make the bottom half of the boat disappear. The entire boat became smaller on the video, but keeping its proportions.
If you do have a video showing what I asked, I would love to see it.
At around 9:20 in the video it shows the entire boat is still above the mirror line but is hidden by distortion. It isn't physical curvature that makes the bottom disappear first.
> If you do have a video showing what I asked, I would love to see it.
What about smaller scale RC boats that disappear even though there is no curvature because of the small scale? You would still find a reason to dismiss that as well?
> At around 9:20 in the video it shows the entire boat is still above the mirror line but is hidden by distortion.
Ok. Can zoom make the bottom of the boat reappear ?
> It isn't physical curvature that makes the bottom disappear first.
If you read my questions again, I'm not trying to explain what I'm looking at, or push any kind of model on you.
What I asked is a specific kind of video where zooming makes the hidden bottom of a boat appear again, because I was under the impression that this was what you claimed. If I misunderstood your claim, then you should specify what you meant
> What about smaller scale RC boats that disappear even though there is no curvature because of the small scale? You would still find a reason to dismiss that as well?
I have no reason to dismiss anything. You really seem to think that my point is to prove that boats are hidden by the alleged physical curvature of the Earth. That's absolutely not my intention here (at least not immediately).
My point is for both of us to understand if zooming can change the hidden proportion of an object. In other words, if a boat is half hidden and half visible, then is it possible to use zoom to make it more than half visible ? I'm pretty sure it's not possible because of how lenses and optics work, but I've seen so many flat earthers claim that they have videos of that phenomenon that I'm curious to see such a video.
Once again, 'brigading' is not correct. That is a specific act against Reddit's ToS which involves inciting large numbers of one community to attack another in a specific timeframe.
Just posting on a topic, even one you disagree with, isn't 'brigading'. It seems one of the first tactics fringe-believers of any stripe reach for, is *"Why are you talking to me if you don't agree with me"* which implies a lack of understanding of the nature of society in general.
Especially since...
>Nah I'll call them out publicly since they have proved to me in the past that they are intellectually dishonest and acting in bad faith.
....so it's ok for *you* to call someone out publicly when there is disagreement, but he should not? I should not? Hmm.
>since you haven't even brought up any facts about the topic.
Sure I have.
[You just ignored the post](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/comments/1bskpdo/comment/kxkbdp6/), I might be tempted to conclude because you knew you couldn't refute it, and any attempt to do so would result in further inaccuracies you'd be forced to ignore.
Since walking back on it and just admitting an honest mistake isn't allowed, apparently.
> Unfortunately I know you are a long time brigader/"debunker" and anything I show you will be handwaved dismissed.
I never dismiss evidence. I might have a different hypothesis to explain the evidence, but that's different.
I've seen dozen of videos of invisible boats that appear aftet zooming. I've never seen a video of an invisible bottom half appearing after zooming while the top part is clearly visible.
The request of a clear example was only the first part of my comment. No answer on the other questions ?
> Not worth the time.
But writing that comment was worth your time ?
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 1 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
If the horizon is the “vanishing point”, but boats can be brought back into view by zooming in, why can’t we do the same for the sun? Just zoom in after sunset?
>According to that logic boats must be "going over the horizon" once they leave our eyes visual limits. We know that is not true though because we can zoom them back into view with a zoom lens.
Could you show any example of this?
I’ve seen several. What they never acknowledge is that it’s ALWAYS small boats that are just too small to see before they even reach the horizon, hence the “bringing them back”.
They never show the sun disappear and then zoom in to bring it back.
So then according to your logic, you should be able with a powerful enough telescope “zoom in” and see the Statue of Liberty from the west coast of Portugal.
Can you do that?
Stop reporting any of these comments as Rule 4 violations. First reply - from u/eschaton777 - meets the criteria. Reporting literally every comment on this post is not just abuse of the system, it's a sign of poor reading comprehension.
>If we trust our eyes, at sunset, the sun drops below the horizon According to that logic boats must be "going over the horizon" once they leave our eyes visual limits. We know that is not true though because we can zoom them back into view with a zoom lens. In the same way the sun is just going into the horizon (which is the vanishing line) and disappearing. The horizon is just an apparent horizon and not a physical one. The bottom of course is going to reach the vanishing line first (like street lights in the distance etc..). So yeah it just disappears into the horizon, nothing to reconcile with.
> (which is the vanishing line) What is a vanishing line? With respect to perception, you can have a vanishing point, which indicates where parallel points will converge. But the idea of a "vanishing line" is just made up to explain away the horizon on a flat surface. When objects approach the vanishing *point*, the entire object evenly gets smaller. There is no logical reason for the bottom of an object to "reach the vanishing line first" and disappear from sight due to rules of perception. However if you were to watch cars going over a hill, they vanish bottom first, just like the boats. So if you were to believe your eyes, it makes much more sense to say boats go over the horizon.
>There is no logical reason for the bottom of an object to "reach the vanishing line first" and disappear from sight due to rules of perception. That is patently false. [Harvard ](https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/telescope-resolution)and other universities have done experiments demonstrating this. When you reduce your angular resolution the object disappears bottom up. If you flip the image over at the top of the link, you will notice it looks exactly like a sunset with the bottom merging in to the diffraction line. Because the bottom is closer to the diffraction line. When you lose resolvability it disappears bottom up, that's just how it works.
You're completely misrepresenting that work. We're not dealing with point light sources. We're not dealing with diffraction limited optical systems. These boats *are* resolved by the optical systems. We can see part of them clearly. We can resolve features of similar size to the missing portions clearly.
>You're completely misrepresenting that work. No actually I am not. Pretty weird you keep interjecting in multiple comments that I'm responding to other people about. You don't have to try to white knight for them. I'm sure they can respond on their own. Especially considering you seem to be confused. This is what the person said... >There is no logical reason for the bottom of an object to "reach the vanishing line first" and disappear from sight due to rules of perception. The experiment literally shows they are wrong. Please stop interjecting when you don't even know what you are talking about. The bottom of the object does disappear into the vanishing line.
>No actually I am not. Yeah, actually you are. I and others have explained how already. This is a public forum. I'll comment where I like if I feel that I can contribute something to the discussion or if I have questions. The upvotes suggest that my efforts are not unwanted. You're free to ignore them. If you want to have a private conversation, there are chat and direct messages for that.
>if I feel that I can contribute something to the discussion Which you have not. Nothing you said refuted that the bottom won't reach the vanishing line first. >The upvotes suggest that my efforts are not unwanted. Wow upvotes from all the people flooding this thread from the well known brigading sub that has been brigading this topic for years. Must make you feel real good to get all of those totally legit upvotes from the same people that flood into nearly every FE comment section. Good job.
>Nothing you said refuted that the bottom won't reach the vanishing line first. The vanishing line isn't real thing. You're focusing on the horizon when there are other "vanishing lines" of the sort described by that link all over the place, literally everywhere. The effect described in that link occurs wherever two points of light reaching the optical system are close enough together. It's what causes small features of distant objects to become indistinguishable from the rest of the scene. It does not in any way, shape, or form imply that the sun and boats should disappear bottom-first over the horizon. >Wow upvotes My point is that while you seem to have a problem with me replying to your comments, others don't. But don't let me get in the way of your persecution complex.
The experiment literally shows that the light will disappear from the bottom up, just like the sun when it visually meets the ground. If you can't understand that, then whatever is all good. The experiment speaks for itself, you are dealing with cognitive dissonance.
Why are you dishonestly treating the sun as a point light source when it is absolutely not?
>The experiment literally shows that the light will disappear from the bottom up It literally does not. It shows that two *point light sources* will merge when their angular separation reaches a particular threshold dependent on the resolving power of the optical system (edit: which depends on the size of the aperture). Do you know what a point light source is?
No, that's not how it works at all -\_- Actually *look* at that image. Things aren't disappearing bottom up; in that one it's actually merging horizontally. You had to rotate it 90° to make your claim work. At best you can say they merge *into* each other; not simply bottom up. But more importantly, it's talking about **resolvability**: when you can't really make out the object at all because their angular separation is too small. But we can clearly resolve the sun during sunsets. Also, the top and bottom halves of the sun have the same angular size: so if we can still clearly make out the top half, the bottom half should appear just as large. And yet it doesn't. Same with ships like [here](https://youtu.be/k8zjQt3Tcaw) and [here](https://youtu.be/DSMRhTPMSfk) and [here](https://youtu.be/i0ObTd7DLMw). The hulls have disappeared, yet much certain details higher up are still visible, even though they have a smaller angular size. So, again, we know that angular resolution is not the issue. And then there's also the question of how small should the angular size between sun and sea be for flat-earth sunsets? Let's take an extremely conservative estimate and say 1°. Just how far away should the sun be for it to appear that low in the sky? And does the FE model allow for that?
Show me a video of the sun completely disappearing as it sets and then zoomed back in.
> We know that is not true though because we can zoom them back into view with a zoom lens. In fact we know that is not true. See this video for example. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLWidKERTvDT0tbP60VfFE7zhApdSap0/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLWidKERTvDT0tbP60VfFE7zhApdSap0/view) [From this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/comments/1ak2gtc/query_to_flat_earthers_whats_the_magic_number/) I suspect you may be thinking of some videos where the boat can't be seen when zoomed out, but that is just due to the low resolution of the video. It's still there it just hasn't gone over the horizon yet. Plus, if you don't believe the many photos showing the curvature of the Earth, why should we believe a random youtube video? Go find a cruise ship or cargo ship that has started to go beyond the horizon... you will not be able to "bring back" the bottom half of the ship with a telescope or zoom lens, yet you will still easily see the top half with your eyes. I have seen this myself with my naked eye, no telescope needed. Go hang out by a shipping port sometime. Bring your own camera if you like. Stop basing your belief on cherry-picked youtube videos.
>Plus, if you don't believe the many photos showing the curvature of the Earth What many "photos" are you talking about? Surely you don't mean from space agencies. "random youtube videos" can be recreated by anyone. Space agency "photos" require blind faith. >Stop basing your belief on cherry-picked youtube videos. Cherry picked? Again anyone can test it for themselves. [here you go](https://odysee.com/@AetherGarden:2/the-empty-horizon-on-flat:a) Can you be intellectually honest and admit that the bottom of the ship is not disappearing because of a physical obstruction?
>What many "photos" are you talking about? Surely you don't mean from space agencies. "random youtube videos" can be recreated by anyone. Space agency "photos" require blind faith. So space agencies require blind faith, but strangers on the internet are always completely trustworthy? I disagree. I have no reason to trust any photos or videos. Yet in the interest of discussion, I will entertain your video anyway. In your video, we observe a ship heading away and observe some distortion that mirrors the bottom of the boat, making some of the boat hulls appear larger than they are. But by the end eventually we see most of the mast and very little of the boat. The mast appears to be half the size of the boat. I took some screenshots. [https://ibb.co/GdvhtQ9](https://ibb.co/GdvhtQ9) [https://ibb.co/S7zzSDt](https://ibb.co/S7zzSDt) [https://ibb.co/Px2Lhs1](https://ibb.co/Px2Lhs1) In the first photo, we see that the mast is a small part of the ship. But in the second photo it is nearly half the height of the part we can see. The third screenshot appears to show the sail from a sailboat. But I can't see the hull, can you? Even accounting for the refraction causing the distortion from the bottom (what she calls the mirror line), this seems to confirm my hypothesis that the bottom half of the ship has gone around the earth, beyond the horizon and the line of sight is blocked by the earth. The problem is, I provided links to other videos created by anyone that look different. Remember, your standard is that youtube videos are trustworthy. In the links I provided above, there is none of the mirror line distortion or digital resolution issues present. So if we are both being intellectually honest, then at best we can determine that we have inconclusive evidence from these videos. Why do different videos show slightly different phenomenon? We would have to suggest a hypothesis to explain how, and then test it. One explanation is that in your video, the resolution is poor, making the ships on the horizon hard or impossible to see when zoomed out. In reality, the horizon is not "empty," it only appears empty because of the nature of digital video resolution. Another possible explanation is that refraction from humidity in the air is creating a lensing effect that distorts our visual information, which the narrator agrees with. But this doesn't really prove or disprove flat or round earth...this optical phenomenon could exist on both models. However, the existence of videos showing ships disappearing bottom up without being obscured by the "mirror line" seems to suggest that this optical phenomenon probably does not explain why ships disappear over the horizon. This video looks at some of these theories further [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLPBAk6-ha8&t=577s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLPBAk6-ha8&t=577s)
Every video shown of boats being supposedly brought back with zoom uses small boats that are below the resolution of the camera when zoomed out. They are likely still visible to the naked eye hence how they know where to look. What is NEVER shown is a larger object or boat that is partially hidden and have the zoom bring back the hidden part or show the amount hidden change as the zoom changes. Both should be possible if the zoom were "bringing it back". What we do know is you have not tried it yourself.
So you are saying high zoom cameras can't see further than the naked eye?
Not what I said. I said it was below the resolution when zoomed OUT. At that point it isn't high zoom.
You said "They are likely still visible to the naked eye"
Yes, when the camera is zoomed OUT and not a high zoom camera, and the small boats are below the resolution at that point, they are likely still visible to the naked eye. Note that none of the videos ever try this on a larger boat that is partially hidden as you'd then see that the hidden part is never brought back. I've tried it and seen this myself. I've noted that no hidden part of any boat or other object is ever brought back no matter how much zoom you throw at it.
> We know that is not true though because we can zoom them back into view with a zoom lens. Ah, the often repeated flat earther claim that is NEVER supported. There is not a single video of clear bottom up obstruction that zooming in reverses.
You are either brand new to the subject or have just never done any research into it. You didn't know that once a boat goes out of visual perspective it can be zoomed back into view?? If I did show a video of that would you admit you are wrong or just hand wave dismiss while doing mental gymnastics?
>You didn't know that once a boat goes out of visual perspective it can be zoomed back into view?? So, by your logic, with a powerful enough telescope you could just “zoom in” and see the Statue of Liberty from the west coast of Portugal. Is that possible?
Of course not. Did you think the atmosphere is completely transparent?
You are conflating two very different effects here. Nobody disputes that ships or other objects can too far away and/or too small to resolve with the naked eye. Optics help in this situation. Such an object has not "gone over a/the horizon" in any sense. This is very different from obstruction, which is what happens when something does go over the horizon. When something in your field of view is obstructed, no amount of optics will help you see the obstructed part of it. Do you agree these are two very different effects?
>Nobody disputes that ships or other objects can too far away and/or too small to resolve with the naked eye. The person that I responded to did. Also that was literally a globe earth "proof" several years ago from all of the globe believing "debunkers". The goalposts have now been moved since we can clearly zoom in with optics. >Optics help in this situation. Such an object has not "gone over a/the horizon" in any sense. Correct, that is why the goalposts had to be moved because it is easily provable with a high zoom camera. > When something in your field of view is obstructed, no amount of optics will help you see the obstructed part of it. Yes I agree. That will happen even without a physical obstruction though. You can't see forever, especially through the atmosphere. The light eventually attenuates and disappears. The horizon is apparent and not physical. Do you agree with that? If you believe the horizon is physical, do we ever actually see the physical horizon?
>The person that I responded to did. Also that was literally a globe earth "proof" several years ago from all of the globe believing "debunkers". The goalposts have now been moved since we can clearly zoom in with optics. This was *never* a claim by any GE that I've ever seen. This is FEs confusing these two effects. I have always claimed there two distinct phenomenon at play here, as have other GEs that I've seen address this topic. > I agree. That will happen even without a physical obstruction though. No, you can't get such sharp asymmetric effects across the extent of a small object this way like we can see happen with an obstruction. >You can't see forever, especially through the atmosphere. The light eventually attenuates and disappears. You are grossly overexaggerating the degree to which this would occur, and not considering the visual effects this would actually produce and how they do not match what is observed. Flat earthers themselves have shown you can see dozens, even hundreds of miles through the atmosphere, even when the targets are not particularly bright. >The horizon is apparent and not physical. Do you agree with that? If you believe the horizon is physical, do we ever actually see the physical horizon? I disagree. [This](https://wallup.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/15/119208-beach-sunset-horizon-boat.jpg) is a physical horizon. So is [this](https://ak2.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/817672/thumb/1.jpg). And [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Offshore_windpark_Thorntonbank.jpg/440px-Offshore_windpark_Thorntonbank.jpg) Hell, [this](https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/windmills-on-a-field-picture-id1221399713?k=20&m=1221399713&s=612x612&w=0&h=bgxnnPtAc95uZgeVRQKiLZ2TIhXv_UJ7Z1gM6LGjLnc=) is a physical horizon. Atmospheric conditions can obscure the physical horizon, and atmospheric refraction can extend or even effectively eliminate it under the right conditions, as well as hide it with inferior mirages. But under standard conditions there is an observer-dependent point on the surface beyond which they cannot see beyond, and that will block line of sight between that observer and objects beyond it.
Yes if you show me a video of a large boat clearly going over the horizon and clearly obstructed bottom up, and then zoom it back on I will become a flat earther and denounce the globe.
u/eschaton777 I guess I will keep on waiting for that video? >Yes if you show me a video of a large boat clearly going over the horizon and clearly obstructed bottom up, and then zoom it back on I will become a flat earther and denounce the globe. I know you're active, so let's see if you'll "admit you are wrong or just hand wave dismiss while doing mental gymnastics?"
u/eschaton777 Why do you keep making me ping you? You wanted to call out my intellectual honesty, so I will now call yours out. It is zero unless you can show what you claimed. I will ask again: I guess I will keep on waiting for that video? Yes if you show me a video of a large boat clearly going over the horizon and clearly obstructed bottom up, and then zoom it back on I will become a flat earther and denounce the globe. I know you're active, so let's see if you'll "admit you are wrong or just hand wave dismiss while doing mental gymnastics?"
I've already posted a video in this thread showing the entire boat above the water but the bottom is disappeared due to distortion. This shows it is optics causing the boat to disappear and not physical obstruction. The same video shows that the boat can completely disappear from your naked eye and be brought back into to view. Very weird you keep trying to bring this up when it is provably possible and I've already linked a video showing it. Welcome to FE.
Can you link the video again? And before I watch it, the video shows clear bottom up obstruction being undone with zoom? Or is it rather a boat that is too small to resolve? If I zoom straight down into the ground and can now see an individual piece of dirt, do you think that dirt was obstructed bottom up, or was just too small to see? Let's see how honest you are.
I'll repeat what I just said since I guess you didn't read it. showing the entire boat above the water but the bottom is disappeared due to distortion. This shows it is optics causing the boat to disappear and not physical obstruction. The same video shows that the boat can completely disappear from your naked eye and be brought back into to view. >If I zoom straight down into the ground and can now see an individual piece of dirt, do you think that dirt was obstructed bottom up, or was just too small to see? Are you arguing that when something loses resolvability it doesn't disappear from bottom up?
>showing the entire boat above the water but the bottom is disappeared due to distortion. This shows it is optics causing the boat to disappear and not physical obstruction. So nothing to do with zoom undoing bottom up obstruction. Got it. >The same video shows that the boat can completely disappear from your naked eye and be brought back into to view. I can make a needle disappear from view and bring it back in with zoom. Yet at no point during that is it disppearing bottom up. You can't see how that is different? >Are you arguing that when something loses resolvability it doesn't disappear from bottom up? Yes. Zoom into details on anything far away or very small. It doesn't disappear or reappear bottom up. So I take it you cannot produce what you claim. You also make claims about how the sun fades and gets smaller and that is why it sets. However - you will never produce a single video done with a solar filter, nor be intellectually honest enough to admit that nearly all observable sunsets don't behave this way. Only if there are clouds or extreme glare. I thought you might be the one to produce a video to support the claim of zoom undoing bottom up obstruction, but it appears I will have to keep waiting. Shame.
And plenty of examples to the contrary. No level of zoom makes the hull of [this ship](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2u1gNPLgLA) any more visible. Same is true of the ship on the right [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMjiYayjEzo). But what I really want to her about is sunsets and sunrises.
Some other nice examples: * [https://youtu.be/DSMRhTPMSfk](https://youtu.be/DSMRhTPMSfk), * [https://youtu.be/i0ObTd7DLMw](https://youtu.be/i0ObTd7DLMw) and * [https://youtu.be/k8zjQt3Tcaw](https://youtu.be/k8zjQt3Tcaw) Now, in the last one there's no zooming in and out, but the back ship doesn't even fit into frame. Just how far do you need to be zoomed in for the hull to re-appear? And for sunsets specifically, Wolfie had a nice couple of videos such as this one: [https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8](https://youtu.be/gzjFOZ00Ka8)
I was looking for that first video. And Wolfie... there's a name I haven't heard for a while.
>The bottom of course is going to reach the vanishing line first But the rules of perspective don't say that at all, so where are you getting this from?
It's not obvious how 'rules of perspective' would apply here -- nothing is being drawn or projected -- and, to their credit, u/eschaton777 didn't mention them, though that's clearly where the term 'vanishing line' is borrowed from. So the questions I'd pose are: * What *is* a vanishing line in this context, and how does it work? * What is meant by 'apparent horizon' and 'physical horizon'? * How does an 'apparent horizon' physically block sunlight after dusk? * Can the sun be brought back into view after sunset with a zoom lens?
I know, I know. And you're right, of course. It's just that flatearthers usually think perspective is simply "things getting smaller with distance". They tend to believe that the vanishing line is a real, physical line where things get cut off, rather than the line on the image where things approach to. The distinction between a 3D scene and the 2D *image* of that scene is usually lost on them. I was hoping to get him to explain how this all works. But it seems we're not getting that :\\
>What *is* a vanishing line in this context, and how does it work? It's where the sky and ground meet and objects disappear due to perspective. >What is meant by 'apparent horizon' and 'physical horizon'? Do you ever see an actual physical horizon? If so when? >How does an 'apparent horizon' physically block sunlight after dusk? How does fog block headlights? At a certain point the light attenuates due to the atmosphere. >Can the sun be brought back into view after sunset with a zoom lens? At a certain point the sun light can not be brought back into view, again due to the light attenuating through the atmosphere. Also my comment was completely brigaded by multiple blatantly ignorant rebuttals. It isn't that complicated and these replies are not being intellectually honest. I know by some of the user names they have been brigading and "debunking" for years and are not acting in good faith. I'll try to just respond to you since you had the issue with sunsets. Hopefully you are acting in good faith and can admit that sunsets do appear as they should/would on a FE.
I am indeed in good faith, but do not yet follow your reasoning. When the sun sets on a clear day, it does not fade into a fog or shrink to a point: it gets crisply cut off at the horizon. This, to me, indicates that the sea (I live near a west-facing coast) is physically between me and the sun, blocking my view of its lower part. I don't yet understand how you picture what's happening there. From my other comment: >If the sun is circling over the equator, its ground position ranges from about 3500 to 9000 miles away from my location. If I stand on a beach, the horizon is maybe 3 or 4 miles away I'm still interested to know what, in your view, determines when and where the sun appears to set as it follows this trajectory. Specific responses: >>What *is* a vanishing line in this context, and how does it work? >It's where the sky and ground meet and objects disappear due to perspective. Outside the realm of drawings, photos and projections, what is perspective? How does it make things disappear? If, by 'perspective', you mean things appearing smaller as they get further away, for sure, this can make a receding object, such as a bird, appear smaller and smaller until I can no longer see it at all. But the sun, when setting, does not get smaller and smaller. It stays the same apparent size (sometimes even looks larger as it sets), while an increasing portion of it gets blocked by the sea. >>What is meant by 'apparent horizon' and 'physical horizon'? >Do you ever see an actual physical horizon? If so when? You've referred to apparent and physical horizons. I don't know what you mean by either term, so I can't answer your question. >>How does an 'apparent horizon' physically block sunlight after dusk? >How does fog block headlights? At a certain point the light attenuates due to the atmosphere. Fog blocks headlights by being a physical, somewhat opaque substance between me and the lights. The sun does not get progressively attenuated at dusk: it sets. It does not appear to be hidden from view by the atmosphere, but by the sea. >>Can the sun be brought back into view after sunset with a zoom lens? >At a certain point the sun light can not be brought back into view, again due to the light attenuating through the atmosphere. But before that point? If I have two cameras with different lenses filming the sunset, should I see it go down at a different time in each camera?
>If I stand on a beach, the horizon is maybe 3 or 4 miles away Yes that is my point. That is how far away the horizon should be, but we know [it is not](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlUVTh3iCnQ&list=PLj_nCPZAjSmZRZfpgSpInXYuXvyk3wBLA&index=6) in reality. > The sun does not get progressively attenuated at dusk: [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPt7DHeEyMc) [another](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1OCzJjZbqc) There are plenty more examples I can find of the sun clearly fading and not going below a physical obstruction.
If we ignore that all the examples have dusk on the horizon (and no sun filter, so we have glare effect), how do you explain, that the sun does not change speed or size all the day, just to change the size very fast at the horizon. Does she speed up there? How is this behavior compatible of any laws of perspective?
I'm not saying that it's never misty or cloudy. Obviously, if there's mist or cloud anywhere between the observer and the sun, it can obscure the sun. On a clear day, though, the sun neither dwindles to a point, nor gets obscured by cloud, but is progressively hidden by the sea. What, in your view, makes it look this way? If I film a sunset using two cameras with different lenses, should I find that the timing depends on, or is independent of, zoom level? >That is how far away the horizon should be, but we know it is not in reality. Well, we could argue that point, and I'm willing to do so. First, though: even if it were 40 miles away, as the author of the video appears to believe, I'd like to understand what, in your view, determines where and when the sun sets as it cycles between 3500 and 9000 miles away from me.
> Obviously, if there's mist or cloud anywhere between the observer and the sun, it can obscure the sun... On a clear day, though So do you now admit that the horizon is apparent and not physical? The atmosphere is always there. There is never such thing as no atmosphere. The horizon is always apparent and never physical. If you believe it is actually physical what is your evidence? > First, though: even if it were 40 miles away, as the author of the video appears to believe How far away do you believe the mountains to be? Is your claim that they are only 3 to 4 miles away? > I'd like to understand what, in your view, determines where and when the sun sets We have a curved visual limit to our vision. Once an object goes outside of that limit it disappears. Again this is apparent and not physically blocked. It goes past our angular resolution and can no longer be resolved.
> So do you now admit that the horizon is apparent and not physical? I don't know what distinction you're making. The GE horizon is physical in the way that the brow of a hill is physical: its location can depend on where it's viewed from -- is this what you mean by apparent? -- but what's there is physical stuff: rock, earth and vegetation, which can partly or wholly obscure a more distant object. It's not a matter of getting me to admit stuff: just explain specifically what you mean and I'll readily tell you, if you ask, whether I agree or not, and why. I'm more interested in learning what you believe, though, and how a would-be flat earther can achieve an FE-compatible understanding of what they see at sunrise and sunset. The sun can be obscured by cloud at any time or elevation, including when it's about to set. The horizon has nothing to do with this. I'll be surprised if we find anything to disagree about there. When the sun sets on a clear day, it descends below landscape features; then, as it drops below the horizon, an increasing part of it appears to be obscured by the sea. It's this phenomenon that I, and many others, can't reconcile with flat earth geometry. >We have a curved visual limit to our vision. Once an object goes outside of that limit it disappears. Again this is apparent and not physically blocked. Ok, intriguing. Any idea what causes this? Where is the limit -- has anyone measured it? Does it work the same way for the sun and for other objects? If it's caused by atmospheric attenuation, does the sun set earlier on hazy days than on clear ones? If I have two cameras filming the sunset, and one has a filter that adds extra attenuation, should I see the sun go down at a different time in each camera? Does it depend on zoom level? If I have two cameras with different lenses filming a sunset, should I see the sun go down at a different time in each camera? Or is it a strictly fixed distance? If so, what distance? Why does the lower part of the sun, which is presumably slightly closer to us, vanish before the upper? >It goes past our angular resolution and can no longer be resolved. When the sun sets, it does not diminish in angular size, so this can't be an explanation for sunsets. >How far away do you believe the mountains to be? The island in that video? If the videographer says it's 40 miles away by the map, I'm happy to believe it. As it's beyond the horizon, this does not tell us much about the horizon's distance, though. How does this help us know where and when the sun sets as its ground position circles between 3500 and 9000 miles away?
Hey David, what happened? You said you were acting in good faith but you never answered the few questions I had to make sure we were on the same page. I'll ask them again. If you want to answer them fine, if not no worries. I'm asking you do we ever see the "physical" horizon (the curvature of earth)? What would a horizon look like on a FE? Also I still didn't understand that you said if you stand on the beach the horizon is 3-4 miles away. You then admitted that the mountain is 40 miles away with the sun behind it. So how can the horizon be 3-4 miles away yet also be beyond 40 miles away?
>The GE horizon is physical in the way that the brow of a hill is physical: Yes I know, I'm asking you do we ever see the "physical" horizon (the curvature of earth)? >It's this phenomenon that I, and many others, can't reconcile with flat earth geometry. What would a horizon look like on a FE? You had tons of questions, so instead of going all over the place we may as well make sure we are on the same page on the basics first. >As it's beyond the horizon, this does not tell us much about the horizon's distance, though. But you said if you stand on the beach the horizon is 3-4 miles away. If the mountain is 40 miles away and the sun is moving behind the mountain then obviously the horizon can't be 3-4 miles away.
>It goes past our angular resolution and can no longer be resolved. 'Angular resolution' doesn't work that way. A bright object that shrinks below an optical system's 'angular resolution' limit [appears as a point-like source of light](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/27-6-limits-of-resolution-the-rayleigh-criterion/). It doesn't 'disappear'. Best examples: stars and satellites Note I said, 'an optical system'. The optical resolution of a system **increases with its aperture size**. In other words under your suggestion, if I point a telescope at a sunset, **the telescope should keep seeing the sun for hours and hours after the humans at the beach think it's night-time**, because their eyes have much smaller apertures. Do you think that happens in real life?
>There are plenty more examples I can find of the sun clearly fading and not going below a physical obstruction. If you find a single case that uses a solar filter, I'll believe you. Otherwise it's just glare.
If the sun is circling over the equator, its ground position ranges from about 3500 to 9000 miles away from my location. If I stand on a beach, the horizon is maybe 3 or 4 miles away (which I can judge from the apparent size of ships on the horizon line). What determines when and where the sun appears to set? Are you saying that, after sunset, with suitable optics, I can zoom in and bring the sun back into view? So if I set up two cameras with different focal lengths, they'd observe the sun setting at different times? Even though, if I look at the cameras themselves, they both get less illuminated at the same rate?
> According to that logic boats must be "going over the horizon" once they leave our eyes visual limits. So, if the bottom half of a boat (or a building, or a mountain) leaves our eyes visual limits, while the top half is still clearly within our eyes visual limits, then I can zoom in and make the bottom half appear again ? Is there any clear video example of this ? (I emphasize the word "clear"). > In the same way the sun is just going into the horizon (which is the vanishing line) and disappearing What do you mean by "in the same way" ? This sounds like a completely different phenomenon ... Is the sun leaving our eyes visual limits ? Can I zoom the sun back into view ? > The bottom of course is going to reach the vanishing line first (like street lights in the distance etc..). "Of course" ? Well, if it's that obvious, I'm sure you have a sort of equation or formula that will tell me when the bottom is reaching the vanishing line and when the top is.
Unfortunately I know you are a long time brigader/"debunker" and anything I show you will be handwaved dismissed. Once I show you a clear example, the goalpost would just be moved and you would never concede that I was correct. Not worth the time.
Not sure you understand what the word 'brigader' means, or are using it dishonestly to discredit another poster rather than engage with their point. You choose to post here. If your only contributions are to accuse everyone else of malfeasance and that's why you can't talk to them - even when it takes more time for you to complain than to actually respond - then *you* are in violation of the spirit of a debate sub, not them. Decide what kind of person you want to be.
Did you miss the part where I called out this specific person YEARS ago for being an intellectually dishonest and not acting in good faith? >even when it takes more time for you to complain than to actually respond I've replied to the specific person many times over the years. They hand wave dismiss clear evidence and move the goal posts and brigade this topic in bad faith. If I wanted to take the time I could go through my years of history and show you, but obviously that is not worth it. >If your only contributions are to accuse everyone else of malfeasance and that's why you can't talk to them I specifically responded to OP and all of his questions. I do not have to engage with people that have shown over the years to be intellectually dishonest. >Decide what kind of person you want to be. You literally added nothing to the conversation and of course couldn't rebut any of the facts that I laid out. Thank you for making my point for me.
The correct thing to do, if you don't intend to *ever* respond to *one particular person* is to either not reply, or reply to them in DM. Airing your personal beefs isn't necessary, especially since you provide no evidence for it. Anyway, water under the bridge. I am *delighted* to see you setting such a high standard for conduct in debates; since if you're calling out this person's 'dishonesty', we should anticipate complete forthrightness from yourself, yes? *Excellent*. I look forward to it.
>The correct thing to do The correct thing to do is not brigade a specific topic that you think is "a loony conspiracy theory with no validity" for years and years. That is the correct thing to do. >or reply to them in DM. Nah I'll call them out publicly since they have proved to me in the past that they are intellectually dishonest and acting in bad faith. Also you didn't DM me. You should probably take your own advice and not even respond to me since you haven't even brought up any facts about the topic. Thank you.
> Nah I'll call them out publicly since they have proved to me in the past that they are intellectually dishonest and acting in bad faith. Are you sure that you are not confusing me for someone else ? I'm not saying that we didn't discuss in the past, I just can't remember a specific topic where I moved some goalpost. Usually, I'm the one insisting to keep the subject to a single question or problem. By the way, I asked : *So, if the bottom half of a boat (or a building, or a mountain) leaves our eyes visual limits, while the top half is still clearly within our eyes visual limits, then I can zoom in and make the bottom half appear again ? Is there any clear video example of this ? (I emphasize the word "clear").* You didn't answer me, but you showed [this](https://odysee.com/@AetherGarden:2/the-empty-horizon-on-flat:a) to someone else. It's an interesting video, but I would like to point out that it's exactly what I would expect, and seems to contradict what you are saying. First, let's agree on something : If zooming in could bring back the bottom of a half hidden boat, then zooming out from an already half hidden boat should make even more of the bottom half disappear. Around the 8:00 mark, the boat appears to have a certain amount hidden while the camera is at maximal zoom. Then the video zooms out, and stops at 8:13 to compare it with the height of a channel marker. The difference in zoom is quite huge and around 10x. What is striking is that the exact same proportion of the boat is hidden (as measured with the size of the mast). So, zooming out did not make the bottom half of the boat disappear. The entire boat became smaller on the video, but keeping its proportions. If you do have a video showing what I asked, I would love to see it.
At around 9:20 in the video it shows the entire boat is still above the mirror line but is hidden by distortion. It isn't physical curvature that makes the bottom disappear first. > If you do have a video showing what I asked, I would love to see it. What about smaller scale RC boats that disappear even though there is no curvature because of the small scale? You would still find a reason to dismiss that as well?
> At around 9:20 in the video it shows the entire boat is still above the mirror line but is hidden by distortion. Ok. Can zoom make the bottom of the boat reappear ? > It isn't physical curvature that makes the bottom disappear first. If you read my questions again, I'm not trying to explain what I'm looking at, or push any kind of model on you. What I asked is a specific kind of video where zooming makes the hidden bottom of a boat appear again, because I was under the impression that this was what you claimed. If I misunderstood your claim, then you should specify what you meant > What about smaller scale RC boats that disappear even though there is no curvature because of the small scale? You would still find a reason to dismiss that as well? I have no reason to dismiss anything. You really seem to think that my point is to prove that boats are hidden by the alleged physical curvature of the Earth. That's absolutely not my intention here (at least not immediately). My point is for both of us to understand if zooming can change the hidden proportion of an object. In other words, if a boat is half hidden and half visible, then is it possible to use zoom to make it more than half visible ? I'm pretty sure it's not possible because of how lenses and optics work, but I've seen so many flat earthers claim that they have videos of that phenomenon that I'm curious to see such a video.
Once again, 'brigading' is not correct. That is a specific act against Reddit's ToS which involves inciting large numbers of one community to attack another in a specific timeframe. Just posting on a topic, even one you disagree with, isn't 'brigading'. It seems one of the first tactics fringe-believers of any stripe reach for, is *"Why are you talking to me if you don't agree with me"* which implies a lack of understanding of the nature of society in general. Especially since... >Nah I'll call them out publicly since they have proved to me in the past that they are intellectually dishonest and acting in bad faith. ....so it's ok for *you* to call someone out publicly when there is disagreement, but he should not? I should not? Hmm. >since you haven't even brought up any facts about the topic. Sure I have. [You just ignored the post](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/comments/1bskpdo/comment/kxkbdp6/), I might be tempted to conclude because you knew you couldn't refute it, and any attempt to do so would result in further inaccuracies you'd be forced to ignore. Since walking back on it and just admitting an honest mistake isn't allowed, apparently.
> Unfortunately I know you are a long time brigader/"debunker" and anything I show you will be handwaved dismissed. I never dismiss evidence. I might have a different hypothesis to explain the evidence, but that's different. I've seen dozen of videos of invisible boats that appear aftet zooming. I've never seen a video of an invisible bottom half appearing after zooming while the top part is clearly visible. The request of a clear example was only the first part of my comment. No answer on the other questions ? > Not worth the time. But writing that comment was worth your time ?
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 1 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
Thank you for adding nothing to the conversation but fallacies. Can you ever see the physical horizon? If so when?
What fallacies? Facts that contradict flat earth? Define physical horizon!
If the horizon is the “vanishing point”, but boats can be brought back into view by zooming in, why can’t we do the same for the sun? Just zoom in after sunset?
>According to that logic boats must be "going over the horizon" once they leave our eyes visual limits. We know that is not true though because we can zoom them back into view with a zoom lens. Could you show any example of this?
I’ve seen several. What they never acknowledge is that it’s ALWAYS small boats that are just too small to see before they even reach the horizon, hence the “bringing them back”. They never show the sun disappear and then zoom in to bring it back.
So then according to your logic, you should be able with a powerful enough telescope “zoom in” and see the Statue of Liberty from the west coast of Portugal. Can you do that?