Angle of Sun in the sky
« on: June 10, 2018, 09:47:41 PM »
How would any flat earth model account for the fact the sun moves across the sky at a constant angle? If the Earth was flat, the sun would fade in (not rise), the angle would slowly change, accelerate midday, decelerate in the evening, and fade out (not set).

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2018, 01:45:24 AM »
What evidence is there for the Ancient Greek model of perspective which asserts that the perspective lines recede for infinity?

If you cannot present any evidence for this concept then any perspective explanation is as good as another.

Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2018, 02:05:17 AM »
What evidence is there for the Ancient Greek model of perspective which asserts that the perspective lines recede for infinity?

If you cannot present any evidence for this concept then any perspective explanation is as good as another.
As has been mentioned before, you're mixing terms/models. Your sentence is essentially garbage.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2018, 02:11:54 AM »
What evidence is there for the Ancient Greek model of perspective which asserts that the perspective lines recede for infinity?

If you cannot present any evidence for this concept then any perspective explanation is as good as another.
As has been mentioned before, you're mixing terms/models. Your sentence is essentially garbage.

The Ancient Greek depiction of perspective has perspective lines which approach each other for infinity. If you cannot provide evidence for this concept then it is easily disregarded, as so many of their other teachings have been disregarded.

Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2018, 02:24:49 AM »
What evidence is there for the Ancient Greek model of perspective which asserts that the perspective lines recede for infinity?

If you cannot present any evidence for this concept then any perspective explanation is as good as another.
As has been mentioned before, you're mixing terms/models. Your sentence is essentially garbage.

The Ancient Greek depiction of perspective has perspective lines which approach each other for infinity. If you cannot provide evidence for this concept then it is easily disregarded, as so many of their other teachings have been disregarded.
Parallel lines will never meet. This is the definition of parallel. Perspective lines will 'touch' at infinity, but 'appear to touch' much sooner, which can be seen in action in any basic art class. Any video games programming is a testament to this as well. Evidence of this concept is provided in both of these locations. If you wish to know more, take a class on optics or perspective in art. Both have bases in basic geometry, which again can be shown to work at every testable distance. Your claim is it breaks down at an unknown distance, for unknown reasons. YOU are the one making a claim and must provide evidence for it.

Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2018, 02:32:27 AM »
What evidence is there for the Ancient Greek model of perspective which asserts that the perspective lines recede for infinity?

If you cannot present any evidence for this concept then any perspective explanation is as good as another.

I don't believe I ever claimed anything of the sort. How does that relate to my argument in specific terms?

Honestly, I'm not really sure what you are talking about. Can you provide an alternative, or explanation of what you mean?

Quick Edit: I know lines go on infinitely by definition. I'm not sure what a 'perspective' line and why this would not be infinite.

2nd Edit: Stuff appears smaller when it's further away. Does that suffice as evidence?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 02:49:07 AM by BlueMachine »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2018, 05:46:24 AM »
Parallel lines will never meet. This is the definition of parallel. Perspective lines will 'touch' at infinity, but 'appear to touch' much sooner

Prove it.

Quote
which can be seen in action in any basic art class. Any video games programming is a testament to this as well. Evidence of this concept is provided in both of these locations.

Neither a painting, nor a programmed video game, is evidence of how perspective works in our material world.

Quote
If you wish to know more, take a class on optics or perspective in art. Both have bases in basic geometry, which again can be shown to work at every testable distance. Your claim is it breaks down at an unknown distance, for unknown reasons. YOU are the one making a claim and must provide evidence for it.

Ancient Greek knowledge isn't the base knowledge of the universe which must be proven wrong. In these conversations you are claiming that the Ancient Greek view of reality is true, and therefore you need to demonstrate your claim.

You can't simply tell us "it is impossible to the sun to set" and expect your words to carry any weight without evidence that your assumed model is true.

You will need to provide evidence that your model is true.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 05:51:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2018, 06:08:55 AM »
I don't believe I ever claimed anything of the sort. How does that relate to my argument in specific terms?

You are claiming that is is impossible for the sun to set. You are making claims for how objects should behave into the distance without any real evidence for those assumptions. You are using the Ancient Greek model of perspective as truth, when that truth first needs to be corroborated with evidence.

Using the hypothesis of perspective lines which approach each other for infinity as a "proof" that something is impossible is pretty unreasonable. There are a number of assumptions there. You should provide some kind of evidence for those assumptions for them to be taken seriously.

We have been asking for evidence for your model for many years, to no avail. We are given quotes by Ancient Greek scholars along the lines of of "therefore... therefore... therefore..." That is not empirical evidence. It is rationalism.

At this point I would go as far as saying that since this theory is given without evidence, that it can be disregarded without evidence.

Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2018, 06:10:31 AM »
The original post was merely asking how the sun can move across the sky at a constant speed of 15 degrees per hour. How does perspective weirdness explain that? The slowing of motion across the sky is exactly cancelled out by magic perspective and just coincidentally appears as if the earth were rotating at a constant angular speed?

It seems really weird to demand proof of basic geometry when you are willing to make all kinds of crazy assumptions about perspective without any evidence whatsoever.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2018, 06:16:25 AM »
The original post was merely asking how the sun can move across the sky at a constant speed of 15 degrees per hour. How does perspective weirdness explain that? The slowing of motion across the sky is exactly cancelled out by magic perspective and just coincidentally appears as if the earth were rotating at a constant angular speed?

It seems really weird to demand proof of basic geometry when you are willing to make all kinds of crazy assumptions about perspective without any evidence whatsoever.

What are you talking about? All of our evidence is derived empirically. Consider our example here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

Quote
It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 300 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

We gave an example where bodies move more consistently across the sky the higher they are.

Where is your example of the opposite?

As the Ancient Greek theory is one that is thousands of years old, it should be a given that you have mountains of evidence for us for how bodies behave at extreme ranges.

Where is it?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 06:20:58 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2018, 06:22:38 AM »
What are you talking about? All of our evidence is derived empirically.

Is it? Cool!
How are your horizon dip experiments coming along now you have been proven wrong about that?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2018, 06:43:36 AM »
What are you talking about? All of our evidence is derived empirically.

Is it? Cool!
How are your horizon dip experiments coming along now you have been proven wrong about that?

The horizon dips at higher altitudes because of atmosphere or inaccurate methods, but that doesn't deal with the subject of this thread at all. Trying to change the subject is a diversionary tactic. In fact, your comment is a tacit admission that you have no evidence.

Why do you keep asking us to disprove your *no evidence theory*? Don't you see how insufficient that sounds?

If you have something to say about how reality behaves, then you need to do something to prove your own self right. Without evidence for your Ancient Greek interpretation, then one explanation is as valid as another.

Who saw these infinite perspective lines?

What experiments did the Ancient Greeks perform to make these conclusions?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 07:03:12 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2018, 06:49:52 AM »
Asking people to do experiments over infinite distances is also a diversionary tactic. But I see above you admit you have done no experiments yourself. This is a Religion, Rowbotham is your prophet whose writings cannot be questioned, anything which shows them to be bunk must be wrong.

You say above that the angular rate of a high plane would slow as it approaches the horizon but a the amount it slows would be more gradual than a low plane. Actually correct, simple geometry shows that. But the point is it does still slow. Th I sun’s angular velocity doesn’t slow at all. Because the earth is rotating at a constant rate, that cannot be explained by a sun receding into the distance. Not can the constant size unless we are to believe that there is some magnification effect which randomly exactly compensates for the distance and doesn’t work on any other object than the sun.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2018, 07:23:38 AM »
Asking people to do experiments over infinite distances is also a diversionary tactic. But I see above you admit you have done no experiments yourself. This is a Religion, Rowbotham is your prophet whose writings cannot be questioned, anything which shows them to be bunk must be wrong.

If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that Rowbotham does experiment with objects in the distance to come up with his explanation of perspective. Rowbotham explains his perspective here, here and here.

We see that Rowbotham does perform observations and trials on distant objects to come up with his explanations and conclusions accordingly.

Now, what experiments did the Ancient Greeks perform for their theory of perspective? None?

If none, and it is all interpreted and assumed, then that makes Rowbotham the scientist and it makes the Ancient Greeks the pseudoscientists.

You believe in the Ancient Greek theory without evidence. I believe in the Rowbotham theory based on evidence. Who of us is following "a religion" and who is not?

Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2018, 07:41:44 AM »
Asking people to do experiments over infinite distances is also a diversionary tactic. But I see above you admit you have done no experiments yourself. This is a Religion, Rowbotham is your prophet whose writings cannot be questioned, anything which shows them to be bunk must be wrong.

If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that Rowbotham does experiment with objects in the distance to come up with his explanation of perspective. Rowbotham explains his perspective here, here and here.

We see that Rowbotham does perform observations and trials on distant objects to come up with his explanations and conclusions accordingly.

Now, what experiments did the Ancient Greeks perform for their theory of perspective? None?

If none, and it is all interpreted and assumed, then that makes Rowbotham the scientist and it makes the Ancient Greeks the pseudoscientists.

You believe in the Ancient Greek theory without evidence. I believe in the Rowbotham theory based on evidence. Who of us is following "a religion" and who is not?
Details of these experiments being repeated recently to prove them please.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2018, 08:09:13 AM »
Details of these experiments being repeated recently to prove them please.

The evidence is right there in Earth Not a Globe. Various trials from the book were reproduced in various Flat Earth books and literature after Rowbotham. Read the Flat Earth authors who published after Rowbotham. It all builds onto his original work with their own studies.

Details of the Ancient Greek experiments please.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2018, 08:13:04 AM »
Asking people to do experiments over infinite distances is also a diversionary tactic. But I see above you admit you have done no experiments yourself. This is a Religion, Rowbotham is your prophet whose writings cannot be questioned, anything which shows them to be bunk must be wrong.

If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that Rowbotham does experiment with objects in the distance to come up with his explanation of perspective. Rowbotham explains his perspective here, here and here.

We see that Rowbotham does perform observations and trials on distant objects to come up with his explanations and conclusions accordingly.
So basically your argument is an appeal to authority, something routinely said to be a fallacy on here.
And, worse, your "authority" is someone whose ideas have not been taken seriously by science and who has been rightly been mostly forgotten by history.
His "experiments" are him just saying "this is what I saw" and then doing a little drawing. Laughable.
What experiments have YOU done? You're an empiricist, right? Why are you taking Rowbotham's word for it?

The consistent angular speed and size of the sun can be explained by a globe earth. There is no flat earth explanation for the angular velocity, and the only way to explain the size is to make up some "atmospheric magnification" effect which by amazing coincidence exactly counteracts the increasing distance of the sun and only works on the sun. It's rationalisation.

Rowbotham's perspective model is bunk. If your flat earth sun makes tighter circles in the northern hemisphere summer and bigger ones in the southern hemisphere summer as outlined in the Wiki then it would mean the sun "sets" at a much closer distance in the northern hemisphere than in the southern one. Makes no sense at all. Unless you are going to go with a bi-polar model in which case I have no idea how your sun moves. I doubt you do either.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2018, 08:14:00 AM »
You believe in the Ancient Greek theory without evidence.
Euclid's theory is based on rigorous argumentation from five core assumptions, plus definitions. He defines parallel lines as lines which are always the same distance from one another. If Rowbotham found lines that did meet one another, then by definition they couldn't have been parallel lines.

I gave the example earlier of 'bachelor'. This by definition is an unmarried man. Would you ask me for 'proof' or 'evidence' that all bachelors that have been and ever will be are unmarried? Is that your point?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2018, 08:16:30 AM »
Asking people to do experiments over infinite distances is also a diversionary tactic. But I see above you admit you have done no experiments yourself. This is a Religion, Rowbotham is your prophet whose writings cannot be questioned, anything which shows them to be bunk must be wrong.

If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that Rowbotham does experiment with objects in the distance to come up with his explanation of perspective. Rowbotham explains his perspective here, here and here.

We see that Rowbotham does perform observations and trials on distant objects to come up with his explanations and conclusions accordingly.
So basically your argument is an appeal to authority, something routinely said to be a fallacy on here.
And, worse, your "authority" is someone whose ideas have not been taken seriously by science and who has been rightly been mostly forgotten by history.
His "experiments" are him just saying "this is what I saw" and then doing a little drawing. Laughable.
What experiments have YOU done? You're an empiricist, right? Why are you taking Rowbotham's word for it?

The consistent angular speed and size of the sun can be explained by a globe earth. There is no flat earth explanation for the angular velocity, and the only way to explain the size is to make up some "atmospheric magnification" effect which by amazing coincidence exactly counteracts the increasing distance of the sun and only works on the sun. It's rationalisation.

Rowbotham's perspective model is bunk. If your flat earth sun makes tighter circles in the northern hemisphere summer and bigger ones in the southern hemisphere summer as outlined in the Wiki then it would mean the sun "sets" at a much closer distance in the northern hemisphere than in the southern one. Makes no sense at all. Unless you are going to go with a bi-polar model in which case I have no idea how your sun moves. I doubt you do either.

You have no evidence for your own perspective model.

That makes anything you have to say about how things "should" work as being without merit.

Rowbotham's interpretation is as good as any other. In fact, I see that he attempts to study the matter while the Ancient Greeks did not make any attempt at all.

You believe in the Ancient Greek theory without evidence.
Euclid's theory is based on rigorous argumentation from five core assumptions, plus definitions. He defines parallel lines as lines which are always the same distance from one another. If Rowbotham found lines that did meet one another, then by definition they couldn't have been parallel lines.

I gave the example earlier of 'bachelor'. This by definition is an unmarried man. Would you ask me for 'proof' or 'evidence' that all bachelors that have been and ever will be are unmarried? Is that your point?

"He defined" is not proof of how things occur and appear in the real world. We need evidence.

Your example of the definition of bachelor is not valid in this matter, and pretty childish.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 08:23:56 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2018, 08:18:00 AM »
What evidence is there for the Ancient Greek model of perspective which asserts that the perspective lines recede for infinity?

If you cannot present any evidence for this concept then any perspective explanation is as good as another.
Which Greek model of perspective are you referring to. The Optics? Provide a citation please.