What would be an excellent experiment would be to send up a high-altitude balloon with a camera and record both one of the huge sunsets from ground level right below it and then watch what it looks like from way high up, and compare the two. At about 120,000 feet you're going to get very little moisture, refraction, etc.
There are two types of sunsets recorded from the ground ...
1) where it seems to shrink very little and
2) where it shrinks very noticeably
So which of these is the reality?
That's a good proposal actually.
Moisture in the atmosphere makes things seem bigger. What would cause the sun to appear smaller when it really wasn't? I've never seen a glober answer that question. They merely show an alternative picture where it doesn't get smaller. That's dishonestly just looking at one side of the issue, which the globers are famous for. I've noticed that the videos where the sun shrinks the most are in low-humidity environments, like in a desert or above the clouds, but the big sunsets tend to be over the ocean (with lots of humidity).
Isn't that third statement a bit ignorant? Light scatters when traveling through a dense medium (or rather the complex mixture of gases that the atmosphere is). In the atmosphere, light is scattered in mutliple ways, e.g. by Raleigh scattering, Mie scattering or general dispersion/attenuation through different particles (i.e. fog, low visibility). This diminishes the intensity of light by scattering its rays, which is why the Sun shrinks when its light travels through many air masses at sunrise or sunset.
So it all depends on visibility. Dense fog will greatly scatter the sunlight so it will appear to shrink when sinking. On clear days, especially over the ocean, not much of this scattering will go on and you'll see the Sun at its actual angular size.
Which is still way too big for it to disappear in the distance as FE claims.
So again, with a picture/video taken of the same object from the same place, if one is cut off and the other in full view (when it shouldn't be due to curvature math), then there are two possibilities.
1) atmospheric conditions sometimes block the bottoms of objects that would otherwise be fully visible
2) atmospheric conditions refract light over the curve of the earth to the viewer
I find #2 totally unconvincing, especially when you have photographs of mountains from over 200 miles away that should be hidden under a few miles of curvature. To me that's absurd. I've seen hundreds of such videos, and I find it ridiculous that refraction would magically bend light exactly parallel with the curve of the earth.
Argument from personal incredulity. The atmosphere changes day-by-day, so depending on temperature, visibility, humidity etc., refraction will be more or less severe.
The atmosphere follows an exponential pressure gradient along the surface of Earth with densest layers at the bottom. So the light traveling there will bend towards the denser medium, which perfectly follows the curvature. It's not hard to grasp.
Then you add to it tests like what the "convex earth" group from Latin America did, all kinds of absurdities regarding the alleged rotation of the earth, globe earth doesn't have a leg to stand on.
This docuмentary was quite pseudoscientific actually. I appreciate the effort they took, actually going out there with radio, GPS and geodetic surveying equipment, but they had many systematic errors (e.g. using GPS to measure building orientations - this is not what GPS does).
Did you skim this refutation of it I posted earlier:
https://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/852-convex-earth-debunked-dakila-research-ctz-zigurats-technology-center-urandir-fernandes-de-oliveiraI'm not sure which is more ridiculous - convex Earth or flat Earth. Both theories have (mostly completely non-scientific) proponents. There's also torus Earth theory, so Donut shaped
.
Speaking of legs to stand on, why is there no scientific work being done on flat Earth since centuries? No research papers, no studies, no peer review, no serious books, no reputable scientists. What do FEs have to show for their conviction, apart from vague videos? No serious scientists has ever been convinced of FE by FEs. I wonder why
Topic: Flat Earth-curious (Read 6959 times)