The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Novarus on April 09, 2017, 09:19:51 PM
-
In the Bi-Polar model the sun makes North-South and South-North movements between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. It would be circling the Northern Hemiplane for part of the year when it is warm in the North and cold in the South, and then it would switch gears and circle the Southern Hemiplane for the remainder of the year when it is cold in the North and warm in the South. The figure 8 takes place over the course of the year, just like in the sun's analemma.
So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.
Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.
It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively
I would very much like to hear the explanation if this from the proponents of the bipolar model. I would like to have continued this discussion in the thread in question, but I thought it would be better to start a new topic dedicated to this very special area of study.
Does this represent the beliefs of the flat earth proponents? If not, what are the competing models?
-
Firstly, this isn't "The Bishop Model". This is the Bipolar model. Please change the name of the thread. The Bipolar model is introduced in "The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Zetetes (1918). A pdf may be found in our library (http://library.tfes.org/library/Sea-Earth%20Globe.pdf). The movement of the sun is described starting on page 30.
After the South Pole was discovered and more of the world was explored the Flat Earth model was updated with this information to include two poles and two celestial systems. The Bipolar model replaced the Monopole model in the Flat Earth Society of the early 1900's (then called the Universal Zetetic Society). The author of Sea Earth Globe was the also primary editor of Earth Not a Globe Review, the Flat Earth research journal that continued Rowbotham's research. The Universal Zetetic Society died off during World War I and subsequent reboots of the society were based on Rowbotham's original Earth Not a Globe. Few copies of Sea Earth Globe or ENAG Review were available. It is only relatively recently that those other works were found in an obscure section of a British library and digitized online.
Most people still use the old model, but that is just because they are unaware of the research that happened after Rowbotham.
So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.
It's not rotating over a localized point for half the year. Remember, besides making circles around the North Pole or South Pole, the sun is constantly traveling North-South between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. When the sun gets to the equator it switches gears into the opposite system.
Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.
Why would it stop? Does a point following the path of a figure 8 stop?
It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"
The sun isn't overhead when it is winter in northern latitudes. The idea that the sun goes overhead every day is fiction, and every middle school student should know this.
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively
I don't know what you are trying to say here.
-
So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.
It's not rotating over a localized point for half the year. Remember, the sun is constantly traveling North-South between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. When the sun gets to the equator it switches gears into the opposite system.
The "switching gears" is a problem - what determines the switch? Is it on a timer, or does it just happen? And you'll have to clarify what you mean by "traveling North-South" too - what is its periodicity? What makes it stop and turn back? Is it on a track?
Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.
Why would it stop? Does a point following the path of a figure 8 stop?
Read it again - in a figure 8, an object makes one circle around a point clockwise, then chicanes and circles the other point anti-clockwise. This comment here was an alternative to that: if we want to maintain the direction of the sun around each point (i.e. if it circles each point in the same direction), it has to stop at the point where one circle meets the other and reverse apparent direction.
Look at it this way - put two clocks side by side: the hands when pointing at the 3 go "down" towards the 6 and "up" towards the 12. They are rotating in the same direction but to jump from the 3 on one clock to the 9 on the other, you have to change apparent direction at that point.
Unless the sun circles each point int he same direction, it would go east to west in the north and west to east in the south. This is not the case.
It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"
The sun isn't overhead when it is winter in northern latitudes. The idea that the sun goes overhead every day is fiction, and every middle school student should know this.
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively
I don't know what you are trying to say here.
[/quote]
Obviously.
From an observer on the ground witnessing the Flat Earth sun making these circles around one point and then the other, it would describe flat ellipses centered over said point over the horizon. Any observer not on the line directly between the poles would see these ellipses traced in corners of the sky, as opposed to the circular arcs we actually observe.
What's more, when the sun "changes gears", they would start going around in the opposite direction.
I don't know about you, but I have never seen the sun go backwards in the sky.
None of your cited sources explain this - none of your sacred texts account for this - none of your own theories do anything but propose more models that don't match what is actually seen.
The sun goes from east to west at all latitudes, tracing arcs of a circle - the same circle - varying only in its relative angle to the horizon.
No gear changing, no reversals.
This model does not work.
-
The "switching gears" is a problem - what determines the switch? Is it on a timer, or does it just happen?
The particular mechanism of movement is unknown to us, but the movement is visible.
And you'll have to clarify what you mean by "traveling North-South" too - what is its periodicity? What makes it stop and turn back? Is it on a track?
Let me go over some middle school for you: In addition to moving Eastward and Westward the sun is also moving Northward and Southward. Throughout the year it is it moving between the Topic of Cancer in the Northern Hemisphere and the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern Hemisphere. This happens in the Round Earth model and it is happening in the Bipolar model.
The periodicity is that it reaches the Tropic of Cancer in the North on June 21st and it reaches the Tropic of Capricorn in the South on December 21st. The location of the sun at different celestial latitudes is also, as an aside, why people born on those dates have either Cancer (June 20 – July 22) or Capricorn (December 21 – January 19) Zodiac Signs. The sun moves over the equator on March 21st and on September 21st.
Under the Bipolar model, when the sun moves over the equator it moves into the opposing celestial system, which are rotating in opposite directions from each other over their respective poles and grinding against each other like a set of interlocked gears spinning in opposite directions. The sun goes with the flow, and moves in the same direction as the stars are.
The moon and stars are also moving North-South over the year, but this is less observable than the sun.
Read it again - in a figure 8, an object makes one circle around a point clockwise, then chicanes and circles the other point anti-clockwise. This comment here was an alternative to that: if we want to maintain the direction of the sun around each point (i.e. if it circles each point in the same direction), it has to stop at the point where one circle meets the other and reverse apparent direction.
Look at it this way - put two clocks side by side: the hands when pointing at the 3 go "down" towards the 6 and "up" towards the 12. They are rotating in the same direction but to jump from the 3 on one clock to the 9 on the other, you have to change apparent direction at that point.
Unless the sun circles each point int he same direction, it would go east to west in the north and west to east in the south. This is not the case.
The sun does change direction from where it rises in the morning. In the Northern Hemiplane it usually rises from the North East or the South East, depending on what time of the year it is. It changes directions from North to South.
From an observer on the ground witnessing the Flat Earth sun making these circles around one point and then the other, it would describe flat ellipses centered over said point over the horizon.
There is another mechanism which pushes the sun lower than it actually is, and limits its total visibility, and is a separate topic from this thread, and which there is evidence for. If this mechanism did not exist day and night could not exist, and the sun would be at all times above the surface of the earth.
What's more, when the sun "changes gears", they would start going around in the opposite direction.
I don't know about you, but I have never seen the sun go backwards in the sky.
In the Round Earth model the stars in the Northern Hemisphere and the stars in the Southern Hemisphere are also rotating in opposite directions around their centers. When the sun is in the Southern Hemisphere it follows the stars. And the sun doesn't go "backwards" does it?
The change of direction is perceived as a North-South change rather than East-West.
-
The "switching gears" is a problem - what determines the switch? Is it on a timer, or does it just happen?
The particular mechanism of movement is unknown to us, but the movement is visible.
To summarise - "we don't know why we are right bu you're wrong." Once again, go back and read again - the switching either demands that (a) the sun goes from rotating clockwise to anticlockwise as it "changes gears" or (b) it stops and changes local direction to continue going clockwise around a different circle. Neither of these things are "visible" in the least.
And you'll have to clarify what you mean by "traveling North-South" too - what is its periodicity? What makes it stop and turn back? Is it on a track?
Let me go over some middle school for you: In addition to moving Eastward and Westward the sun is also moving Northward and Southward. Throughout the year it is it moving between the Topic of Cancer in the Northern Hemisphere and the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern Hemisphere. This happens in the Round Earth model, this happens in the Monopole model, and it is happening in the Bipolar model.
The periodicity is that it reaches the Tropic of Cancer in the North on June 21st and it reaches the Tropic of Capricorn in the South on December 21st. The location of the sun at different celestial latitudes is also, as an aside, why people born on those dates have either Cancer (June 20 – July 22) or Capricorn (December 21 – January 19) Zodiac Signs.
Under the Bipolar model, when the sun moves over the equator it moves into the opposite celestial system, which are rotating in opposite directions from each other and grinding against each other like a set of interlocked gears spinning in opposite directions.
The moon and stars are also moving North-South over the year, but this is less observable than the sun.
[/quote]
The middle school explanation is that the tilt of the earth's axis of rotation makes it drift between the tropics. The period of this drift is incompatible with your gear-switching model, particularly because, once again, if the sun were jumping to a "gear" rotating in the opposite direction, then its path in the sky would reverse and it would rise in the west and set in the east. This is not the case.
Read it again - in a figure 8, an object makes one circle around a point clockwise, then chicanes and circles the other point anti-clockwise. This comment here was an alternative to that: if we want to maintain the direction of the sun around each point (i.e. if it circles each point in the same direction), it has to stop at the point where one circle meets the other and reverse apparent direction.
Look at it this way - put two clocks side by side: the hands when pointing at the 3 go "down" towards the 6 and "up" towards the 12. They are rotating in the same direction but to jump from the 3 on one clock to the 9 on the other, you have to change apparent direction at that point.
Unless the sun circles each point int he same direction, it would go east to west in the north and west to east in the south. This is not the case.
The sun does change direction from where it rises in the morning. In the Northern Hemiplane it usually rises from the North East or the South East, depending on what time of the year it is. It changes directions from North to South.
Your response it toally unrelated to the problem - the Northeast and Southeast observation is true, but if your model were correct, then it would rise in the west in winter in the northern hemisphere. Think very carefully about the implications of your model. You may find it useful to actually make a model and observe what it looks like from the inside. You clearly have a very developed imagination, so put it to use - what would it actually look like from the surface if the sun switched direction? Where would it rise and set?
Hint: when you "switch direction", the rising and setting points switch too.
From an observer on the ground witnessing the Flat Earth sun making these circles around one point and then the other, it would describe flat ellipses centered over said point over the horizon.
There is another mechanism which pushes the sun lower than it actually is, and limits its visibility, and is a separate topic. If this mechanism did not exist day and night could not exist, and the sun would be at all times above the surface of the earth.
The topic of this discussion is the movement of the sun - it is not a separate topic - and a "mechanism that pushes [an object] lower than it actually is" is a contradiction in terms - it either is where it is or it isn't.
As well, the sun being above the Earth is a basic precept of the Flat earth Model - of ALL Flat Earth models that account for the fact that it is always day somewhere on the disc - so if that is not the case, then you need to go back and dismantle every assertion made about the height and movement of the sun in any Flat Earth Model.
What's more, when the sun "changes gears", they would start going around in the opposite direction.
I don't know about you, but I have never seen the sun go backwards in the sky.
The stars in the Northern Hemisphere and the stars in the Southern Hemisphere rotate in opposite directions. When the sun is in the South it follows the stars. This happens in the Round Earth model, too.
Are you actually saying that the stars rise in the west in the southern hemisphere?
No, no seriously - is that the assertion you just made?
-
To summarise - "we don't know why we are right bu you're wrong." Once again, go back and read again - the switching either demands that (a) the sun goes from rotating clockwise to anticlockwise as it "changes gears" or (b) it stops and changes local direction to continue going clockwise around a different circle. Neither of these things are "visible" in the least.
Sure it's visible. Look at the sun's analemma. The Analemma of the Sun is made by taking a picture of the sun at the same place and time every day for a year, which shows the displacement of its movement. The image below displays the following:
- The sun rotates clockwise over the North Pole and counter-clockwise over the South Pole.
- The sun is moving North to South (top-right is Northward, bottom-left is Southward)
- The sun reaches the Tropic of Cancer on June 21st (top most position)
- The sun reaches the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21st (bottom most position)
- The sun passes over the Equator twice, on March 21st and Sept 21st (where the lines intersect).
(http://i.imgur.com/RRg7n.jpg)
-
The middle school explanation is that the tilt of the earth's axis of rotation makes it drift between the tropics. The period of this drift is incompatible with your gear-switching model, particularly because, once again, if the sun were jumping to a "gear" rotating in the opposite direction, then its path in the sky would reverse and it would rise in the west and set in the east. This is not the case.
There is a perceived change of direction of the sun, but again, it is perceived as a North-South change rather than an East-West change. If the sun suddenly started rotating in an opposite direction in today's local rotation over us, it is logical to say that it would rise in the West rather than in the East.
But the sun is not directly over us when it changes rotation. The sun is further South rather than North.
This is perfectly explainable if we consider what is being seen. Here is a quick illustration. We should make a better one for inclusion into the Wiki or the new Earth Not a Globe book, however.
(http://i.imgur.com/MyIXKRK.png)
-
Are you actually saying that the stars rise in the west in the southern hemisphere?
No, no seriously - is that the assertion you just made?
Yes, the stars rotate in an opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere. No, as explained in the post immediately preceding this one, they are not perceived as rising from the West.
We can see that the stars do seem to converge and then spread apart, and rotate in opposite directions around their celestial systems. Look at star trails from the equator:
(http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2007/12/08/0001225009/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpg)
-
Here is another startrail:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Mother-Nature/Sky-at-Night/i-C2DbCWv/0/S/March%2004%202011%20startrail2_web-S.jpg)
If the stars are many lights years away from us as the Round Earth theory asserts, how it is possible that they are so visibly spreading away from each other and approaching one another in star trails the night sky? It should be impossible for the stars to ever be at varying distances from each other specially over that amount of time. Are the stars moving many light years away from each other through the universe every day?
This in itself brings the entire model into question.
-
The Sun rises in the West but it doesn't look like it does, the analemma is a diagram of the Sun's whole path through the year and the Sun isn't directly over "us" when it switches gears.
I don't even know where to begin with this.
Let's start with the stars rotating in the opposite direction.
I mean... really? No seriously, really? Would you like to take a little jaunt down to a southern hemisphere nation - any of them - and take a look at which direction they are going?
They are going east to west. And asserting that they're not going from east to west because it doesn't fit your theory is not just false, it's frightening. Do you know why it doesn't look like they're rising in the West?
Because they DON'T.
And your little diagram up there serves absolutely no purpose in explaining this.
Even in a flat model, I don't know how this is supposed to do so.
You have also completely neglected the fact that over the course of two days, before and after the equinox, anyone that isn't under the sun would observe a change in direction - based on your assertion that it changes direction.
It doesn't change direction - it cannot change direction and no amount of filibuster will be able to prove that it ever changes direction.
Nobody has ever seen it change direction and you cannot prove it changes direction.
And even if it isn't directly above "us", that "us" cannot include the hundreds of millions of people that live on or around the equator and between the tropics who would all see it happen.
The analemma supports the spherical earth view that the world spins on a tilted axis - you may not understand what it actually represents but you cannot skew it to show that the sun races a figure 8 on its yearly path - it represents the difference in position because of the wobble on the Earth's axis. You cannot spin this to support your theory any more than you could post a picture of a pebble and call it a mountain. This is unutterably absurd and you really need to check your sources before posting anything like this.
And you still haven't addressed the fact that you have gone against one of the core concepts of the Flat Earth theory - that the sun is always above the earth - and then tried to defend a theory that states that the sun is always above the earth.
Explain yourself.
-
Here is another startrail:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Mother-Nature/Sky-at-Night/i-C2DbCWv/0/S/March%2004%202011%20startrail2_web-S.jpg)
If the stars are many lights years away from us as the Round Earth theory asserts, how it is possible that they are so visibly spreading away from each other and approaching one another in star trails the night sky? It should be impossible for the stars to ever be at varying distances from each other specially over that amount of time. Are the stars moving many light years away from each other through the universe every day?
This in itself brings the entire model into question.
This is a panoramic shot. If you don't understand what that means, then you can't use it to prove your point.
Do you just take every photo you see at face value?
If so, then how can you refute any picture from space?
Unbelievable. Completely and utterly unbelievable.
-
The Sun rises in the West but it doesn't look like it does, the analemma is a diagram of the Sun's whole path through the year and the Sun isn't directly over "us" when it switches gears.
I don't even know where to begin with this.
Let's start with the stars rotating in the opposite direction.
I mean... really? No seriously, really? Would you like to take a little jaunt down to a southern hemisphere nation - any of them - and take a look at which direction they are going?
They are going east to west. And asserting that they're not going from east to west because it doesn't fit your theory is not just false, it's frightening. Do you know why it doesn't look like they're rising in the West?
Because they DON'T.
And your little diagram up there serves absolutely no purpose in explaining this.
Even in a flat model, I don't know how this is supposed to do so.
The stars rotate in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere. I encourage you to research the matter more.
You have also completely neglected the fact that over the course of two days, before and after the equinox, anyone that isn't under the sun would observe a change in direction - based on your assertion that it changes direction.
It doesn't change direction - it cannot change direction and no amount of filibuster will be able to prove that it ever changes direction.
Nobody has ever seen it change direction and you cannot prove it changes direction.
I just drew you an illustration (http://i.imgur.com/MyIXKRK.png) of what the change of direction looks like. This illustration shows how the sun can rotate clockwise and counterclockwise and still rise from the East. If you do some research you will find that this is what the sunrise looks like.
And even if it isn't directly above "us", that "us" cannot include the hundreds of millions of people that live on or around the equator and between the tropics who would all see it happen.
They would see something similar to the illustration I made.
The analemma supports the spherical earth view that the world spins on a tilted axis - you may not understand what it actually represents but you cannot skew it to show that the sun races a figure 8 on its yearly path - it represents the difference in position because of the wobble on the Earth's axis. You cannot spin this to support your theory any more than you could post a picture of a pebble and call it a mountain. This is unutterably absurd and you really need to check your sources before posting anything like this.
The analemma makes it pretty clear what is happening to the sun. It rotates in the opposite direction in the South.
Again, if you did just a little bit of research you would find that the stars do rotate oppositely in the South.
And you still haven't addressed the fact that you have gone against one of the core concepts of the Flat Earth theory - that the sun is always above the earth - and then tried to defend a theory that states that the sun is always above the earth.
Explain yourself.
We have claimed the same things for a long time. I don't know what you are speaking of.
-
This is a panoramic shot. If you don't understand what that means, then you can't use it to prove your point.
Do you just take every photo you see at face value?
If so, then how can you refute any picture from space?
Unbelievable. Completely and utterly unbelievable.
All startrails show that the stars spread out or approaching each other where the equator is, and they all show that the stars are moving in opposite directions in the North and South. Do a little googling. Are all startrails shot with weird camera lenses?
-
This is a panoramic shot. If you don't understand what that means, then you can't use it to prove your point.
Do you just take every photo you see at face value?
If so, then how can you refute any picture from space?
Unbelievable. Completely and utterly unbelievable.
All startrails show that the stars spread out or approaching each other where the equator is, and they all show that the stars are moving in opposite directions in the North and South. Are all startrails shot with weird camera lenses?
Most of them are, yes, at least the ones that support your theory. For the rest of us who know how astronomy works, we understand that the stars trace circles across the sky - circles with their centres at the centre of the earth. This is literally the only explanation there is for the motion of the stars
And I suggest you think very carefully before you try and tell me what happens in a place that I have lived for most of my life, because there are countries full of people in the southern hemisphere that know that your theory doesn't stand up to observation.
Don't insult me or your society by making statements that are not only baseless but utterly offensive to any scientist in Australia or any other nation below the equator.
-
And the claims of the sun not being above the earth at all times are in direct contradiction with all cosmological models proposed, with your own sacred texts and the wiki and faq that every member likes to refer people to when they can't be bothered defending their own theories.
Without the sun being always above the earth, there is no explanation of only half the earth being illuminated. None.
-
Most of them are, yes, at least the ones that support your theory. For the rest of us who know how astronomy works, we understand that the stars trace circles across the sky - circles with their centres at the centre of the earth. This is literally the only explanation there is for the motion of the stars
And I suggest you think very carefully before you try and tell me what happens in a place that I have lived for most of my life, because there are countries full of people in the southern hemisphere that know that your theory doesn't stand up to observation.
Don't insult me or your society by making statements that are not only baseless but utterly offensive to any scientist in Australia or any other nation below the equator.
If you are at the equator and see one star moving in one circle around the NP and another star moving in a circle around the SP, how can you say that the circles are parallel to each other and never spread apart or change spacial distance from each other? That is ridiculous.
-
Most of them are, yes, at least the ones that support your theory. For the rest of us who know how astronomy works, we understand that the stars trace circles across the sky - circles with their centres at the centre of the earth. This is literally the only explanation there is for the motion of the stars
And I suggest you think very carefully before you try and tell me what happens in a place that I have lived for most of my life, because there are countries full of people in the southern hemisphere that know that your theory doesn't stand up to observation.
Don't insult me or your society by making statements that are not only baseless but utterly offensive to any scientist in Australia or any other nation below the equator.
If you are at the equator and see one star moving in one circle around the NP and another star moving in a circle around the SP, how can you say that the circles are parallel to each other and never spread apart or change spacial distance from each other? That is ridiculous.
No, it isn't - they describe equidistant circles on a rotating sphere.
That's basic geometry.
-
And the claims of the sun not being above the earth at all times are in direct contradiction with all cosmological models proposed, with your own sacred texts and the wiki and faq that every member likes to refer people to when they can't be bothered defending their own theories.
Without the sun being always above the earth, there is no explanation of only half the earth being illuminated. None.
We generally consider this to be a different topic and would appreciate a separate thread on this if you wish to discuss further.
-
And the claims of the sun not being above the earth at all times are in direct contradiction with all cosmological models proposed, with your own sacred texts and the wiki and faq that every member likes to refer people to when they can't be bothered defending their own theories.
Without the sun being always above the earth, there is no explanation of only half the earth being illuminated. None.
We generally consider this to be a different topic and would appreciate a separate thread on this if you wish to discuss further.
No, I wouldn't - you can defend yourself right here because this a a huge hole in this theory that undermines every other theory your compatriotes have proposed about the world - we are discussing the motion of the sun and you maintain in this theory that is above the surface at all times. That is what the bipolar theory states.
You cannot have it both ways.
-
No, I wouldn't - you can defend yourself right here because this a a huge hole in this theory that undermines every other theory your compatriotes have proposed about the world - we are discussing the motion of the sun and you maintain in this theory that is above the surface at all times. That is what the bipolar theory states.
You cannot have it both ways.
On a globe earth spinning about its axis, a point on the equator experience would a centripetal acceleration of 0.033 7 m/s2 (extremely small), whereas a point at the poles experiences no centripetal acceleration.
So tell me, how is a water world experiencing no centripetal acceleration at the poles supposed to have flattened poles?
I thought you didn't want to diverge - we were talking about the sun.
Plus, the fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
As an aside, I'm more on the centrifugal side than the centripetal, and both are equally irrelevant to this discussion
Now stop deflecting and explain yourself.
-
This is a panoramic shot. If you don't understand what that means, then you can't use it to prove your point.
Do you know what a panoramic shot is?
-
This is a panoramic shot. If you don't understand what that means, then you can't use it to prove your point.
Do you know what a panoramic shot is?
Yes, and since the camera here is at a fixed point taking a wide angle shot, it is expressing a curved view on a flat surface - the edges of the image experience more distortion than the centre - you can see this by the slight bump in the land at the bottom of the picture.
It's the same tactic he tried to use when posting pictures of soligraphs claiming they were conventional photos - it didn't work then and it won't work now.
Would you like to step in and defend the theory?
-
Look at star trails from the equator:
(http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2007/12/08/0001225009/2007_09_14-orion_vanGorp800.jpg)
Your photo was not taken at the equator. If it had been, the star trails would be perpendicular to the horizon.
-
Here is another startrail:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Mother-Nature/Sky-at-Night/i-C2DbCWv/0/S/March%2004%202011%20startrail2_web-S.jpg)
Fine, lets compare your two star-trail photos. Notice that the stars in both photos appear to converge as they move toward a certain place in the frame, and diverge as they move away? Notice where that spot is in both photos? Center of frame. Did your two photos point at the same place in the sky? The changing scenery says NO. That means the phenomena you claim is happening in the sky is actually happening in the camera. Which everyone knows. If it were happening in the sky, constellations would distort as they crossed the sky, but that doesn't happen.
Honestly, I wonder sometimes if you've ever even seen the sky.
-
This perspective matches what you would see of you were inside a ball with stripes on it.
These pictures support the spherical model, not the Flat Earth theory.
-
This perspective matches what you would see of you were inside a ball with stripes on it.
These pictures support the spherical model, not the Flat Earth theory.
Are you proposing that there is an invisible pane of glass around the round earth with the stars painted on it?
-
This perspective matches what you would see of you were inside a ball with stripes on it.
These pictures support the spherical model, not the Flat Earth theory.
Are you proposing that there is an invisible pane of glass around the round earth with the stars painted on it?
It's a visualisation called the celestial sphere - it's not meant to be taken literally, but from our frame of reference the effect is much the same.
What I am proposing is that you need to defend your theory that is still disintegrating while you leap on the slightest thing you think you can take as a victory.
Explain yourself.
-
There is another equally difficult to explain problem with the bipolar map which I present here in a new thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.0
In short, there are times when the areas of daylight on the bipolar map form a complete circle surrounding the area of nighttime darkness on the bipolar map. There is no path the sun can take over the flat earth represented in the bipolar map that would leave an area of darkness in the center of the earth while simultaneously lighting up the entire perimeter.
-
On another thread Tom Bishop says:
"Without experiments on the universe to tell us whether the underlying theories are true, you are just observing and interpreting. Astronomy is not a real science. Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation. The practice is a disgrace and really no better than Astrology."
and:
"Astronomers were certainly not putting the universe under controlled conditions when coming up with their theories. Chemists can put their subject matter under controlled experimentation to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomers cannot. That is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.
It is said that Astronomy is an "observing science," but an observing science is not really a science at all. We need actual experiments that demonstrate theories to be true. Otherwise they are just stories, no different than the stories African tribes have for the nature of the stars above them."
So Tom, why then are you posting astronomical observations in this thread to support the flat earth theory? How are your astronomical observations of the sun and stars, and your interpretations of those observations in this thread different from the observations and interpretations that astronomers report? How are they different from the stories African tribes have to explain what they see in the sky? Do your demanding standards for what qualifies as proper scientific methods and evidence only apply to evidence presented by those who believe in a round earth? And therefore, are you exempt from your own standards for what makes evidence trustworthy?
-
And to add to that, observation = fact. Interpretation and theory = explanation, the "why" and "how" if you will. Experimentation = Confirming/refuting the explanation of "why" and "how".
I don't see how your methodology is any different than those utilized by the different scientific fields. The difference is how easy all of the flat earth theories are to refute at their current state.
-
yeah. no models for flat Earth (that i have seen) hold water to scrutiny...
I would think you need to focus on integrating a workable model before you dismiss the working model that we have in the globe.
the bipolar model has a point on the equator circling the flat Earth (the equatorial point at 180 longitude)
the unipolar model has what would be the point of the south pole circling the Flat Earth
neither works because they create the need for the sun to circle the perimeter whilst not giving light in the middle at certain times of year..
-
I look at the bipolar map as shown in the attachment below, and if I imagine the sun making a circle around the south pole as it is proposed that it does in the winter in the bipolar model described further up in this thread, there is a point on Dec. 21st when the sun is on the opposite side of the south pole from all of the continents in the northern hemisphere. At that distance, and again according to this model where the sun's light only reaches a certain distance on the flat earth (as described by Tom Bishop: "There is another mechanism which pushes the sun lower than it actually is, and limits its total visibility, and is a separate topic from this thread, and which there is evidence for. If this mechanism did not exist day and night could not exist, and the sun would be at all times above the surface of the earth."), then it would seem that none of the light would reach the northern hemisphere. Again in circling the south pole, the sun would be on the other side of the pole from all of the continents in the north, as shown in position B for at least part of every 24 hour day/night cycle.
This would result in the entire northern hemisphere being dark at the same time. That never happens even in the dead of winter. It is dark at the north pole for months at a time, but if you plot the positions of the sun as it circles the south pole, then at its closest position to the north pole, it would be at point A in the version of the map that is attached below. At its furthest position from the north pole it would be at position B, again in the attached image.
If at point A, the north pole is in total darkness, then at point B, all of the northern hemisphere (and even actually most of the land masses in the southern hemisphere would all be in darkness at the same time. This does not ever happen. It is never nighttime in the entire northern hemisphere at the same time.
To check this compare the distance from point A to the north pole, with the distances from all of the continents to point B. If the sun at point A does not light up the north pole, then the sun at point B would not light up most of the land masses on earth with the exception of the southern tips of South America, Africa and Australia. Everything else would be dark at that time of the day.
When has it ever been dark at the same time of the day in every city of North America, Europe, Asia and northern Africa and northern South America? Really? Nighttime in Honolulu, Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Cairo, New Delhi, Bangkok, Beijing, Tokyo and everywhere in between all at the same moment in time? That simply does not happen, ever. These cities span 18 time zones! When is it ever dark across 18 time zones at the temperate latitudes and also at the equator?
There is no path of the sun over a bipolar flat earth that can match the simplest patterns of daylight we observe every day in the winter in the northern hemisphere, where it is always daylight somewhere in the northern hemisphere, and is never simultaneously dark everywhere above the equator.
-
The flip side is also true. All of these same problems appear in the Southern Hemisphere when the sun circles the north pole in the bipolar model on June 21st.
And to top it all off, if the sun does not light up the north pole on Dec.21st at position A, then most of the west coast of America, and Japan and the Koreas would all be in a constant 24 hours of darkness on Dec. 21st. Again if the sunlight does not reach the north pole, then the same north/south dimensions of sunlight would mean these areas never receive daylight in the depth of winter as the sun moves along the path of the tropic of Capricorn as represented in the bipolar map. After all, Alaska is farther from the equator on this map than the north pole!
Now it has been said that the bipolar map is just an approximation and does not really represent the surface of the earth. But in order for the problem with all areas north of the equator receiving no light at position B to not occur, there would need to be areas of the northern hemisphere on the opposite side of Antarctica along with the sun at position B, so that as the sun reached position B it would still light up some areas of the northern hemisphere (it is always daylight somewhere in the northern hemisphere during the entire day on Dec. 21st...Anchorage, Reykjavik, Stockholm, Moscow and the Kamchatka Peninsula in northeast Russia all receive several hours of daylight on Dec. 21st, just at different times of the day.). Conversely, you would also need to put some land masses in the Southern Hemisphere on the opposite side of the north pole to take care of the daylight patterns in the south in June. There is no way to have the land masses in the north be located on both sides of the south pole and the land masses in the south be on both sides of the north pole, and still have all of the northern hemisphere continents be in the northern hemisphere, and also still have all of the southern hemisphere continents be in the south.....at least not on a bipolar flat earth map.
If you disagree, just show us how the map would look so that some areas in the north were in daylight when the sun is in position B. If you claim the area lit up by the sun in position B changes enough to light up some areas in the north due to changes in the height of the sun or the properties of the atmosphere, then those changes would mean that the area of daylight would have to also be lighting up the entire southern hemisphere, and also many of the areas in the north that are illuminated when the sun is at position A. Neither of those could be true, as it is never daylight simultaneously in the entire southern hemisphere. Also position B is 12 hours or so ahead or behind of position A and there are no areas in the north where daylight lasts more than 12 hours on Dec. 21st, and no areas in the north receive two separate periods of daylight in a single day.
It is easy to arrange the continents on a globe to account for observed patterns of daylight, which is why the areas of daylight on the globe appear just as they are predicted to and there are none of these insurmountable discrepancies in how daylight comes and goes that the flat earth model creates, no matter what flat earth map is referenced.
-
Another question arose on a different thread. If the sun is circling the north pole in the northern summer, then location B on the map would be in perpetual darkness just like the south pole, and in fact would be in darkness for even longer each year. The reverse would be true in the northern winter: the area above the north pole would be in perpetual darkness.
If this was true, then it would seem that those areas would experience the formation of sea ice during the respective periods of total darkness lasting 6 months or more. Since when has there been any sea ice along the Tropic of Cancer or the Tropic of Capricorn? This is another unexplained flaw in the bipolar map that would still be a flaw no matter where you place the continents on the map.