hollow earth

Not to be rude, I'm actually at work, I'll give my thoughts on this later. In the mean time (if you want to preempt my answer) have a look into;
# Aerial perspective
# Convergence
# Horizon line and the vanishing point
# Atmospheric refraction

 

I am familiar enough with the above to claim those as unsatisfactory (though i am looking them up to make sure i am not glossing over any points)

Why?

Well i believe the inverse square law comes into effect here, double the distance, half the size/brightness. Atmospheric refraction seems to be due do the atmo- being a -sphere, which has a lensing effect, which I wouldnt immediately assume would be predicted on an FE model, though i suppose it depends where the sun is in or above the atmosphere.

Aerial perspective is described as objects appearing more faint and blue... Well that doesnt happen with the sunsets, but rather more red/orange.

And the vanishing point was what I raised above with the rise/set effect.

At least now you can directly address my view point.

Regards

 

"There are fossils in granite 6,700 meters below the surface. How'd that happen?"

Thats fascinating. That suggests to me the Earths geologic history is one hell of a lot more dynamic than is usually assumed (and i tend toward the cataclysmic geologic history, possibly massive splits in the Earth from seismic activity coupled with flood waters dragging shit down?)

Ill look that up

 

Well the ocean is over 11,000 meters deep in some spot.... Sooo... Sink and you're suddenly 11,000 m below everyone else. But no it would make more sense if hell was oozing out demon fossils

 

What if, brother...... We are still the same gullible people that used to burn our own for being witches?
We are vulnerable to information that we, ourselves cannot prove. So we look to our establishment for these answers. Can we trust the morality of the elite few at the top of this hierarchal chain? Do you know the process for getting peer reviewed status for a theory?

 

Too much thinking, too much logic. Whats wrong with you? This is a pot site, arent all pot heads dumb lazy stoners who dont know anything?

 

Right I owe you a better response than the video.
I asked you to look up or refresh your memory with these subjects, that was to avoid a whole lot of explaining of the phenomenon that contribute to the appearance of a disappearing sun.
In aerial perspective, you will find evidence to the fact that atmosphere limits objects at distance and can inhibit light by up to 90% even at noon when the sun is directly above us (think fog). Continuing with perspective I also nodded toward the subject of convergence. This image might demonstrate what I am implying clearer;



When viewing objects on, or at the horizon, laws of perspective come into play.
The image is split into four by our eyes, upper and lower left and right. Left and right converge to a point and upper and lower converge to the same point.
The atmosphere distorts light. At the horizon line is a band of refracted distorted light. At the convergence points the image disappears, this is the vanishing point.
At this vanishing point the angles of light point at each other and does not travel towards our eyes.
We postulate that the sun is local (meaning not 92 million miles), crepuscular rays are one of a number of evidences to this. We also advocate a limited light. As the sun recedes toward the vanishing point, it simply moves away from us to a point that atmosphere and the above phenomenon, to where it disappears from view.

 

Thanks for that.

If we look at the setting or rising sun progression, it does not not follow the inverse square law as would be expected on a FE model. We wouldnt expect it on the traditional model because the sun isnt moving toward or away from us, the only difference is a couple thousand miles at most, which compared to the supposed distance isnt going to be noticeable (let us say 3,000miles compared to 93M mi or 1/31,000).



And the assumption that atmospheric phenomenon would work the same on an FE model as the traditional model is, as far as i know, unjustified.

The optical properties of curved surfaces/mediums is a lot different that flat surfaces/mediums. The atmospheric phenomenon being cited in support of the FE model create the effects they do because of the curve.

I am by no means a traditionalist when it comes to science, i expose myself to various opinions and models that are counter to the current dogma.

Have you ever considered how the sun and moon revolve on the FE model? We know that objects dont change acceleration (direction x velocity) without a force acting upon them. What force is constantly doing work on the sun and moon (because orbits require constant change in acceleration, usually in direction not in velocity)?

I dont want to convince you the sphere model is correct, just want to raise some of my personal objections to the FE model for you to consider in your own time.

 

I forgot to comment on the picture i posted above.

As you can see the sun is not vanishing in the manner one would expect for an object becoming hidden because it has moved too far away. The size appears to remain constant but disappears under the horizon.

If it was disappearing in the way FE predicts, the path would look like a vanishing railroad, or like this.



You notice the inverse square law in effect, as the airplanes distance doubles the apparent size is 1/2. And in as you double the distance the number of snapshots per inch also doubles, which was my point that the sun should appear to approach for a long time, increasingly quick, then pass overhead quickly and receed increasingly slowly.



The difference between the airplane time lapse and the sun is/should be a big hint that the motions are not related.

 

I'm pretty confident the earth is round (it's not a perfect circle) and I'm not a mathematician. Here's something I don't understand and perhaps someone can shed light on it.

The earth rotates from west to east at ~1000 mph. Passenger aircraft fly at ~500 mph depending on altitude. If I'm flying nonstop from LA to NY it takes ~5 hours (excluding gate time, speed to altitude, etc.). How do I ever arrive in NY if the earth is spinning twice as fast as that I'm flying? If the answer is upper atmosphere air current speed then conversely how am I able to fly east to west to get back to LA from NY if I'm flying into a headwind moving at ~1000 mph?

Is this a question better asked to Marilyn vos Savant (Ask Marilyn...Parade magazine....Sunday paper insert)

 

Very simple, thought the explanation is a little more in depth.

Doing the dishes, ill respond when im done if someone else hasnt.

 

Okay.

The atmosphere is moving with the earth. If there are winds, that means the atmosphere is moving slower or faster than 1,000mph (at the equator)

So the airplane movement is relative, it is as embedded in the atmosphere as a car is to the ground. You dont get somewhere any faster going with or against the rotation.

If the Earth suddenly stopped rotating, and the atmosphere continued rotating, we would experience 1,000mph winds, but since they travel almost in lockstep, there is little relative movement.

Make sense?

If not, just really challenge yourself to visualize it, thats what I did because i had the same question as you at one point.

 

This might help drive the point home.

The confusion seems to be that since the atmosphere is a gas it is somehow different.

Consider someone trying to drill a tunnel one going east and one going west. Would the one going against the rotation be able to go faster and make the tunnel longer than the one going with it or vice versa?

 

Excellent reply with some well thought out counters. But you have chucked a couple of your biases in to the mix and more questions, which although are still sun related, involve a more thorough answer (with regards to objects maintaining a constant velocity without an external force acting apron them and also how the atmosphere acting like a lens, supports heliocentric dogma. Think a billion little lenses....)
A widely contested observation is that atmosphere (the sphere part being a play on words) has a magnifying effect. The accepted answer is that the atmosphere plays no part in magnification, it postulates that magnification is solely the result of an optical illusion, caused by our own brain. When the image is photographed or viewed through a telescope, the subject reduces in size. But when observing this phenomena over a period of time during different atmospheric conditions you will note differences in size, which is contrary to the accepted 'atmosphere plays no part in size premise'.




When looking at the top picture you might mistakenly believe that this image is the result of lense flare. What can actually be seen is a projection on our atmosphere. Inverse refraction of the source can be observed from specific angles, but the projection when viewed from certain trajectories, can be that of transverse magnification. I failed to elaborate in entirety on my earlier explanation and when reading it back I can understand why it still leaves questions to be answered.
My difficulty at explaining is twofold. Whilst my command of English is lacking (insert long winded excuse) the truth of the matter is that actual terminology to explain exactly what we observe is missing, my attempt at it, is as follows.
I explained that there is a band of distorted light, above and below the horizon line. To elaborate further, this band is the determinating factor in why the sun disappears. The upper band reflects a portion of the lower image above the horizon line, so what is thought to be the horizon line is not. The actual horizon line is lower and this band draws light and the image of it up to create a false horizon line. I'll continue this later...

 

Brilliant! Now. If the flat earth folks can visualize what you've stated that should lay the flat earth theory to rest. It should connote that the Earth has to be a sphere-like object.

 

The problem is there's always an excuse