Offline SiDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Hello, I believe it is not up for debate that "as an object gets further away, it's perspective/apparent height above the horizon decreases". It's been said (and it follows) that the reason the sun sets on the flat earth (i.e. moves towards the horizon, and then appears to go below the horizon) is "due to perspective". It is also said that the sun circles closest to northern countries in the northern summertime, and it circles closest to southern countries in southern summertime. And in the time in between, it slowly changes from one to another in a spiral. The sun makes one rotation every 24 hours at a constant speed, so it follows that it travels half way around the circle in 12 hours, a quarter in 6 hours etc. Any time during the day can be easily translated in to a position on that 24 hour rotation.

So accepting all of that as true, then can you please explain the image below? In Durango, the sun sets around 9pm on June 21 each year, and the sun is overhead at mid day because Durango sits more or less along the path that the sun takes. "Length N" shows the horizontal distance between where the sun was above the observer at 2pm, and where the sun is at 9pm when it disappears due to perspective. So that Length N, should be the same distance the sun sets EVERYWHERE on the earth yes? If the sun is that far away from you horizontally, then it will disappear below the horizon at sun set. But from Rockhampton on Dec 21 (i.e. a point where the sun will be above the observer at mid day, for a fair comparison with Durango), using that same distance (Length N), the sun SHOULD set at around 3:45pm in the middle of summer? So the explanation that the sun travels in a larger diameter path for southern summer compared to northern is in conflict with the time the sun sets (and rises), by around a factor of two in this example.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 11:13:40 PM by SiDawg »

Offline SiDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2018, 06:52:28 AM »
As a follow up: this from "Earth not a globe" http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_120

Quote
In the Cook's Strait Almanack for 1848, it is said:

"At Wellington, New Zealand, December 21st, sun rises 4 h. 31 m., and sets at 7 h. 29 m., the day being 14 hours 58 minutes. June 21st, sun rises at 7 h. 29 m., and sets at 4 h.

Obviously that section is completely out of context of what we're discussing above: but it is showing how Rowbotham accepts that the length of a day in the southern hemisphere is greater than 12 hours in the summer

And on page 125, he describes the common flat earth alternative for perspective, but indeed draws a diagram showing from the side the distance to the sun setting. He does not make any mention of how that distance can be different at different points of the earth.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm#page_125
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 06:59:17 AM by SiDawg »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2018, 07:04:04 AM »
EnaG also is very clear that the path of the sun over the flat earth is further south in the Northern winter.

My observation is; when the sun is at the northern most extremity and the circumfrance is at the smallest, it must be travelling at its slowest, then speed up to its maximum when it is at the southern most extremity, as there is no doubt the sun apparently goes round the earth every 24 hours(an indeed uses the fact that the sun describes a circle every 24 hours, as absolute truth)

What makes an object 27 miles in diameter speed up and slow down like that? 27 miles in diameter is still pretty hefty, so there must be some pretty high forces to accelerate it, and then slow it down!

As it is only 700 miles away, can we not harness that energy to make power? And why do we not feel the effects of such energy here on the plane earth?

All good points which i am sure will be ignored or glossed over........

Re: The distance to sunset
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2018, 08:04:23 AM »
I asked some of these questions a while back in this thread

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8380.0

Quote
What in the FE model powers the sun and keeps it shining? And if it is circling above the flat earth then what keeps it in the sky? Why doesn't it fall on us? I see that seasons are explained by the circular motion changing so it is a tighter circle in summer and bigger circle in winter. What causes the sun to move between these orbits and what makes it speed up in winter and slow down in summer as it would have to as the circumference of the circle changes, otherwise the day / night cycle would change length

One thing I didn't mention is that the sun and moon (not sure if it's both) also change altitude which is said to cause the phases of the moon so you'd need some quite considerable force to cause that too.

There's a few pages on that thread but none of the questions above are answered as far as I remember because they don't know, they just rationalise all this in a desperate attempt to make their model work, but it raises far more questions than it answers.
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Offline SiDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2018, 11:38:20 AM »
If enag says the sun is even further south than Rockhampton in south summer, that just further strengthens my argument. Does it also say the northern summer is further north? I'll look that up!
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 12:31:36 PM by SiDawg »

Offline SiDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2018, 12:20:30 AM »
Two days later and noone has debated this (either for or against)?

Does this mean no one understands what i'm saying, or does this mean this is finally a very simple way to prove the flat earth model doesn't work? If there is no debate for this can we please pin this as a topic? There may be an aswer in the future but there doesn't seem to be an answer today.

Ignore the actual map and the actual path of the sun for a second: ENAG clearly explains the seasons as the sun moving in a larger circle or a smaller circle. If a larger circle: then obviously the distance covered from mid day to sun set is going to be different. So this is in DIRECT contradiction of the explanation that the sun sets due to perspective... if it sets due to perspective then it sets at a CERTAIN DISTANCE... It is impossible to have a longer or a shorter distance in certain places and certain times

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2018, 02:48:14 AM »
From Enag, “Chapter IV, The true form and magnitude of ther Earth”

“From the preceding facts it is evident that the circumference of the earth, at the distance of the Cape of Good Hope from the polar centre, is not less in round numbers than 23,400 miles. Hence the radius or distance in a direct line from the polar centre to Cape Town, to Sydney, to Auckland in New Zealand, and to all the places on the same arc, is about 3720 statute miles. And as the distance from the polar centre to Valencia in Ireland is shown to be 2556 statute miles, the direct distance from Valencia to Cape Town is 1164.”
[/i]

The above are distances in Statute miles from the above chapter.
Valencia in Ireland is in County Kerry, SW Ireland, about the same Lattitude as London.

From the above direct quote we get a distance of Kerry to the pole is 2556 miles, and from pole to Auckland is 3720 miles, making a total across the plane from London to Auckland of 6,276 miles.

The sun is said to be 3,000 miles above the plane earth, so simple trig will give us the angle of elevation (if the sun were overhead at Auckland ) which is never claimed, but it is acknowledged that the sun is further north on its “winter” path.

Tan Alt = Height/distance
Tan Alt = 3,000/6,276
 Therefore if the sun were overhead at Auckland, the apparent altitude of the sun would be 25.5 degrees ABOVE the horizon when looking north past the North Pole, at midnight in the northern winter!

Being a bit more charitable, lets say the figure of 700 miles is used from EnaG as the hieght of the sun.
Using the same formula as above but substitute 7,00 for 3,000 and you get an angle of 9 degrees ABOVE the horizon.

Clearly this is nonsense, and no amount of “perspective” or Horizon rising can account for either figure.

In the distances quoted from EnaG chapter IV it is said that the distance from the pole to Auckland/Cape Town/Sydney is 3720 miles.
Given that Cape Town is 34 south, and at similar latitudes as Sydney and Auckland, we can see that they are all about 11 degrees above the Tropic of Capricorn, or about 750 statute miles further south than the southernmost path of the sun.

Using that distance subtracted from the one obtained from EnaG means that the suns horizontal distance from Valencia to a point above the earth is at a maximum of 5,526 miles.

When on the equator on march 21st the sun sets (more or less) at 18:00 local time, or when the sun has travelled 90 degrees, or 90 x 60 minutes of arc, or 5400 nautical miles, or 6,214 statute miles, (EnaG states that 1 minute of arc on the equator = 1 nautical mile) so that for whatever reason on the plane earth, refraction, perspective, rising horizon etc etc, it should be held true that the sun sets when the horizontal distance from the suns position over the earth is 6,214 miles away. Thus using the distances from Enag, the sun will never set when more than 60 miles north of Valencia if the sun were overhead Auckland, and NEVER set at all in Valencia when the sun is overhead in the Tropic of Capricorn, and at any point further north!

As  London is further North than Valencia, it would mean that London is in perpetual daylight!

Unless;

EnaG Chapter IV is hopelessly wrong in the true form and magnitude of the earth, OR
The earth is not a Plane surface, OR
There is some wicked refraction and completely variable, yet unknown horizon rise, or some other thing, yet undiscovered???
« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 02:56:00 AM by Tontogary »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2018, 03:13:57 AM »
Let’s do the mathematics using distances we get using 1 deg latitude = 1 nautical mile,
.
Pole to Tropic of Cancer = 113 degrees (90 +23) or 6,780N. Miles or 7,802Statute Miles.

Trigonometry says Angle above the plane will be Tangent altitude = Height/ Distance or
Tan Alt = 3,000/7,802
Angle Altitude = 21 degrees degrees above the horizon. Therefore on a plane Earth the Sun Never sets over the pole.

Using the latitude of London of 52 degrees, we work out the distance from London to Tropic of Cancer OVER the pole, as 151 degrees, (38 degrees to pole, and 113 degrees to Tropic of Cancer) or a distance of 9,060 Nm or 10,426 Sm
.
Use the same maths as above and you get an angle above the horizon of 16 degrees, meaning the sun would never set in London.

As for the angular size of the sun using trig and Pythagoras  and a diameter of 28 miles you get an angular measurement of 17.7 minutes of arc, well over the minimum required by the eye to see.


Offline SiDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2018, 03:33:24 AM »
Hi Tontogary you are absolutely right, however we know that flat earthers say that "perspective" causes the sun to vanish, and therefore discredit any angular calculations you have shown.

So the beauty of my method, is it's simplicity: I am saying that if we accept the flat earth explanation for perspective as true (it is not) then there can be no explanation for how the sun can set at different distances in the northern summer compared to the southern summer. The simplicity of my argument is it's strength.

And so then it follows that they would have to come up with another explanation for how the sun can set. Because Rowbotham does not address this problem, I suspect most flat earthers will have a hard time answering that question. It will require a NEW theory from a flat earther, and although I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume I am right (ha!), I have a hard time thinking of any possible explanation that will not be itself easily debunked by being inconsistent with reality.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2018, 04:46:57 AM »
I have also tried to show that as well.

If “perspective” allows the sun to set, then using distances (quoted as facts in EnaG) shows that the distance from about London over the pole to the Tropic of Capricorn is the same distance as the sun is when it is setting to an observer whose lattitude is the same as the suns declination, which means that the sun will either set at midnight in the depths of winter in London, or never set.

I think there may be enough observers (7+ million) who would disagree with that! I was just quantifying it!

I can work out distances pretty easily using the globe earth, and most FEers agree to some extant that 1 deg of lattitude = 1 nautical mile, so the rest is pretty easy. I can work out the distance on a plane earth, as well as the globe earth, using EnaG references and actual distances. In each case neither will actually explain the obvious errors that occur in FE theory.

If “perspective” occurs on an object of fixed size at a distance, then that distance must be uniform all around the world. FEers often gloss over the fact that on a Plane earth it would be possible to see the other side of the pole!

Offline SiDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2018, 05:17:52 AM »
Yeah the problem is that flat earthers say there is no agreed map of the flat earth... So you have to return to the core principle of the argument: if summer is defined by two circles of different length, then summer days must be shorter in the south, and winter days must be longer in the north.

As you know there's a wealth of data available on sun set/sun rise at every location on earth at different times and people to confirm that, so every single way they think of to draw either a different map or different circular paths, it will not match the known sunrise/sunset times. If they can't explain sunrise and sunset, that's a very very important part of believing in the flat earth... If they can't explain how that works I can't see how they can believe in a flat earth.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 05:42:30 AM by SiDawg »

Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2018, 01:39:57 AM »
SiDawg, this is great! Thank you so much for posting.

I agree that this is beautifully simple, and it completely and irreversibly destroys the FE hypothesis. You should post it on metabunk & Quora as well.

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 3793
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2018, 06:46:53 AM »
That map is used for illustration purposes only. You wasted your time. No one put effort into designing it.

Also, if you read the writings of the early Flat Earth research society, the Universal Zetetic Society, they believed that there were two poles and that light on large scales didn't behave according to Elucid's ancient predictions.

We try to tell you these things, but you aren't listening or reading any of the material we tell you to read. The wiki says this too. I guess we need to start spelling out these disclaimers in capital letters in the material?

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2018, 07:08:56 AM »
That map is used for illustration purposes only. You wasted your time. No one put effort into designing it.

Also, if you read the writings of the early Flat Earth research society, the Universal Zetetic Society, they believed that there were two poles and that light on large scales didn't behave according to Elucid's ancient predictions.

We try to tell you these things, but you aren't listening or reading any of the material we tell you to read. The wiki says this too. I guess we need to start spelling out these disclaimers in capital letters in the material?

Ok so now there are 2 poles?

But then how does one fly south, arrive at the South Pole, then the ONLY direction a comp[as points is north, then fly north and get round to the other side of the world?
How does having 2 poles work with the apparent movement of stars across the sky?
How does the magnetic lines of force work on the bi polar flat earth.
All these questions will need to be answered before you can claim 2 poles.

You claimed it, you own it. Or are you only saying someone else said it?

From your statements so far;
The world is flat,
You dont have any idea what the geography of said flat earth is,
You dont know how light behaves,
You dont know what causes the seasons,
You dont know the shape or dimensions of the sun, or if it is a globe or flashlight,
You dont know how the earths magnetism fits in with the flat earth,
You dont know what any distances are around the world,
You dont know what a mile is,
You dont know how a system of co ordinates works with the flat earth,
You dont know what causes the tides,
You dont know if the earth is static or accelerating, or has gravity, or gravitational forces,
You dont know what causes plate tectonic movements,
And with all of the above you have on many occasions stated you dont have the time ( or effort) to be bothered with trying to find out any of the above, and basically when coming across a point you cannot explain you say it is not fully understood, but some strange forces are driving it.

Whereas the RE have science, formulae, and experiments, with Empirical observations as well as millions of peoples experience that do explain, fit in and agree with the RE.

I  think Occam’s razor should be used to make a decisive cut here.............
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 07:13:10 AM by Tontogary »

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 3793
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2018, 07:27:32 AM »
That map is used for illustration purposes only. You wasted your time. No one put effort into designing it.

Also, if you read the writings of the early Flat Earth research society, the Universal Zetetic Society, they believed that there were two poles and that light on large scales didn't behave according to Elucid's ancient predictions.

We try to tell you these things, but you aren't listening or reading any of the material we tell you to read. The wiki says this too. I guess we need to start spelling out these disclaimers in capital letters in the material?

Ok so now there are 2 poles?

But then how does one fly south, arrive at the South Pole, then the ONLY direction a comp[as points is north, then fly north and get round to the other side of the world?
How does having 2 poles work with the apparent movement of stars across the sky?
How does the magnetic lines of force work on the bi polar flat earth.
All these questions will need to be answered before you can claim 2 poles.

You claimed it, you own it. Or are you only saying someone else said it?

From your statements so far;
The world is flat,
You dont have any idea what the geography of said flat earth is,
You dont know how light behaves,
You dont know what causes the seasons,
You dont know the shape or dimensions of the sun, or if it is a globe or flashlight,
You dont know how the earths magnetism fits in with the flat earth,
You dont know what any distances are around the world,
You dont know what a mile is,
You dont know how a system of co ordinates works with the flat earth,
You dont know what causes the tides,
You dont know if the earth is static or accelerating, or has gravity, or gravitational forces,
You dont know what causes plate tectonic movements,
And with all of the above you have on many occasions stated you dont have the time ( or effort) to be bothered with trying to find out any of the above, and basically when coming across a point you cannot explain you say it is not fully understood, but some strange forces are driving it.

Whereas the RE have science, formulae, and experiments, with Empirical observations as well as millions of peoples experience that do explain, fit in and agree with the RE.

I  think Occam’s razor should be used to make a decisive cut here.............

Read the studies we performed on the earth after Earth Not a Glove was published. Look at our library. It's all there for you. You don't like reading books? Too bad. I'm not going to post images of each page here for you.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2018, 11:31:51 AM »
That map is used for illustration purposes only. You wasted your time. No one put effort into designing it.

Also, if you read the writings of the early Flat Earth research society, the Universal Zetetic Society, they believed that there were two poles and that light on large scales didn't behave according to Elucid's ancient predictions.

We try to tell you these things, but you aren't listening or reading any of the material we tell you to read. The wiki says this too. I guess we need to start spelling out these disclaimers in capital letters in the material?

Ok so now there are 2 poles?

But then how does one fly south, arrive at the South Pole, then the ONLY direction a comp[as points is north, then fly north and get round to the other side of the world?
How does having 2 poles work with the apparent movement of stars across the sky?
How does the magnetic lines of force work on the bi polar flat earth.
All these questions will need to be answered before you can claim 2 poles.

You claimed it, you own it. Or are you only saying someone else said it?

From your statements so far;
The world is flat,
You dont have any idea what the geography of said flat earth is,
You dont know how light behaves,
You dont know what causes the seasons,
You dont know the shape or dimensions of the sun, or if it is a globe or flashlight,
You dont know how the earths magnetism fits in with the flat earth,
You dont know what any distances are around the world,
You dont know what a mile is,
You dont know how a system of co ordinates works with the flat earth,
You dont know what causes the tides,
You dont know if the earth is static or accelerating, or has gravity, or gravitational forces,
You dont know what causes plate tectonic movements,
And with all of the above you have on many occasions stated you dont have the time ( or effort) to be bothered with trying to find out any of the above, and basically when coming across a point you cannot explain you say it is not fully understood, but some strange forces are driving it.

Whereas the RE have science, formulae, and experiments, with Empirical observations as well as millions of peoples experience that do explain, fit in and agree with the RE.

I  think Occam’s razor should be used to make a decisive cut here.............

Read the studies we performed on the earth after Earth Not a Glove was published. Look at our library. It's all there for you. You don't like reading books? Too bad. I'm not going to post images of each page here for you.

Do you really want me to go back and copy paste your quotes?

Example
“No one knows the distance from Paris to New York”
“The system of Lat/Long is based on RE which we reject”
“ measured distances are measured considering the world is a globe, and we do not recognise that”
“There is no map of the flat earth”
“Nobody knows the shape of the earth, or the position of the continents on it”
“Nobody knows the size and dimensions of the continents”

There are a lot of statements in the same vein Tom. Are you going back on the statements you made? Or are you just saying it is is true because EnaG says so?

I have cast doubt on a number of EnaG “truths” so i am sceptical about anything the author says.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 303
  • retired from debunking flat Earth belief. ttyl
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2018, 02:45:12 PM »
That map is used for illustration purposes only. You wasted your time. No one put effort into designing it.

Also, if you read the writings of the early Flat Earth research society, the Universal Zetetic Society, they believed that there were two poles and that light on large scales didn't behave according to Elucid's ancient predictions.

We try to tell you these things, but you aren't listening or reading any of the material we tell you to read. The wiki says this too. I guess we need to start spelling out these disclaimers in capital letters in the material?

These objections are already covered in the OP.

it doesn't actually matter what the map is; there is no possible flat Earth where the distances between the terminus line and places seeing high noon work out.

the specific claim refuted in the OP is Rowbotham's explanation of sunsets. it's a fair representation.

It's time to accept that your opponents have studied your material, and found it lacking. You can whine about it, but the fact is that we have studied your library.

Offline SiDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2018, 12:18:56 AM »
That map is used for illustration purposes only. You wasted your time. No one put effort into designing it.

The exact details of the map are irrelevant: a belief that the sun follows an expanding and contracting path, and a belief that the sun sets due to perspective, means that southern summer days are shorter than northern summer days.

Also, if you read the writings of the early Flat Earth research society, the Universal Zetetic Society, they believed that there were two poles and that light on large scales didn't behave according to Elucid's ancient predictions.

This is a "debate forum": an answer of "go and read something" is not in line with how debate forums work

We try to tell you these things, but you aren't listening or reading any of the material we tell you to read. The wiki says this too. I guess we need to start spelling out these disclaimers in capital letters in the material?

If you can link to the material you're talking about that would be great. Even if you believe light curves, this can not explain the observation. If the sun is exactly the same distance in the southern summer as it is when it sets in northern summer, EXACTLY the same distance... then any phenomenon you believe in such as "flat earth perspective" or "flat earth light curving" would ALSO be applied in the exactly same manner yes? It is completely illogical. In a system with two objects, an observer, a sun, a horizontal and a vertical distance... If ALL of those are equal, then how do you explain how the image of the sun can change? You mentioned the poles: are you implying that magnetic forces affect light to such a degree that they "pull" the image of the sun at longer distances so it sets at the same time?

Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2018, 02:18:37 AM »
That map is used for illustration purposes only. You wasted your time. No one put effort into designing it.

Also, if you read the writings of the early Flat Earth research society, the Universal Zetetic Society, they believed that there were two poles and that light on large scales didn't behave according to Elucid's ancient predictions.

We try to tell you these things, but you aren't listening or reading any of the material we tell you to read. The wiki says this too. I guess we need to start spelling out these disclaimers in capital letters in the material?

First of all, you're messing up the history here. Euclid described Euclidean geometry, which is the mathematics of spaces in which you can draw straight lines. Euclidean geometry is not incorrect, no matter how much you have to say about it. You have hardly an understanding of the math involved, and it's actually pretty basic. Whether light travels in straight lines or not is the question you're really trying to ask. So don't invoke Euclid, because he really has nothing to do with it and didn't make any "ancient predictions" about the straightness of light more than I "predict" that light is straight. It's just an assumption backed by normal Zetetic experience.

Second, you have no observations to back up your claim that light travels in significantly non-straight lines on Earth-scale. It's just a mere "rationalization" (according to your use of the term) that you derived to patch up the holes in your assertions.

Third, as others are arguing, it doesn't matter whether the light travels straight.

Please don't ever use the words ".*magnet.*" or ".*electr.*" to justify why light doesn't travel straight. That's a ton of gibberish you're going to have to perform rigorous experiments to back up, not invent to save FE. You're essentially denying Maxwell's laws, which power computers, communications, and many wonders of this world.

Offline SiDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2018, 03:31:42 AM »
Besides, once you start making claims of "magnetism effect rays of light" then you AT LEAST have to accept a basic understand of perspective and the direction of light from distant objects... and a basic understanding of perspective ALSO proves the flat earth wrong... i.e. there are very simple formulas for working out the angle above the horizon that distant objects will appear (Angle = Arctan(Height Of Sun / Distance of Sun)). That's also the very simple formula which explains how an object approaching the vanishing point can not stay the same size... the "size" of an object can be thought of as the gap between the top and bottom of the object...so if both the top and the bottom of the object are approaching the horizon, then the object size changes. Basic stuff.

So the "sun sets at different distances" argument proves that your idea of perspective is wrong, and if your idea of perspective is wrong then you need a new way to explain a sun set...

If your answer is now "magnetism" to both phenomenon... then we go back to the original point: it would follow that there would have to be a force gradient between the north and south hemisphere to explain how the sun could set at a different distance... If that's the basis of your argument I look forward to clearly showing how that wouldn't work once you start to consider distances to the sun that criss-cross that magnetic radial gradient