The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: MCToon on September 26, 2022, 07:10:55 PM
-
I published a video last week examining the claimed "most comprehensive flat earth sunset explanation". The video I reviewed simply said that perspective was the main cause of sunsets. Then offered refraction as the second cause.
I analyzed these claims and found they didn't explain sunsets at all. I did the math for perspective and concluded that perspective demands that the sun could never get close to the horizon.
I examined the effects of refraction, which cause things to appear slightly higher, not lower.
In the comments of my video, several flat earthers were angry at me and declared that I just didn't understand flat earth.
I don't want to misrepresent the flat earth position. So I come to you, dear flat earthers, looking for the correct explanation for flat earth sunsets.
Since I have already done the math for perspective, there is no need to just say "perspective". Instead, please provide the full geometry-based method to properly explain how the sun appears to cross the horizon.
Further, I have read the wiki page here on the topic:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset
This provided nothing testable.
I read Rowbotham's work. It simply makes claims about perspective without a plausible mechanism.
I read the Electromagnetic Acceleration page. It lacks empirical supporting evidence.
Any answers I receive may be featured in the follow up video.
Thank you in advance.
Here is my video in case you want to point out the correct methodologies:
https://youtu.be/N2tym8wibYk
-
I published a video last week examining the claimed "most comprehensive flat earth sunset explanation". The video I reviewed simply said that perspective was the main cause of sunsets. Then offered refraction as the second cause.
I analyzed these claims and found they didn't explain sunsets at all. I did the math for perspective and concluded that perspective demands that the sun could never get close to the horizon.
I examined the effects of refraction, which cause things to appear slightly higher, not lower.
In the comments of my video, several flat earthers were angry at me and declared that I just didn't understand flat earth.
I don't want to misrepresent the flat earth position. So I come to you, dear flat earthers, looking for the correct explanation for flat earth sunsets.
Since I have already done the math for perspective, there is no need to just say "perspective". Instead, please provide the full geometry-based method to properly explain how the sun appears to cross the horizon.
Further, I have read the wiki page here on the topic:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset
This provided nothing testable.
I read Rowbotham's work. It simply makes claims about perspective without a plausible mechanism.
I read the Electromagnetic Acceleration page. It lacks empirical supporting evidence.
Any answers I receive may be featured in the follow up video.
Thank you in advance.
Here is my video in case you want to point out the correct methodologies:
https://youtu.be/N2tym8wibYk
Provide the constants used in the math you performed for perspective.
-
I am in Minneapolis, 45°N latitude.
On the December Solstice I measured the sun's angular elevation at local solar noon to be 22.5°.
45°N latitude is 4730 miles from the sun's position over the Tropic of Capricorn at local solar noon.
That gives a sun elevation of 1973 miles.
12 hours later the sun's position is on the opposite side of flat earth. 10,944 miles from Minneapolis.
using 1973 miles elevation, the sun's angular elevation must be 10.2°.
This uses the AE map. If you prefer a different one, please provide it and include the analysis of the distances.
-
So you read through the EA page and decided that it worked, but you thought that it "lacked empirical evidence" and discarded that possibility, proceeding to publish a video with the title page "The Sun Could Never Set on Flat Earth" which ignores EA and doesn't bring it up at all. This appears to be dishonest.
Why does EA "lack empirical evidence" to preclude it's inclusion in the video, but the FE Perspective Theory made the cut. Where is the empirical evidence for the FE Perspective Theory to show that it has more empirical evidence than EA? Also, where is the empirical evidence for the RE Theory observation of the sun setting behind the horizon to differentiate it from other explanations like EA? You appear to have singled out EA as not having empirical evidence, so I would expect you to show how the other two theories mentioned do have empirical evidence.
Furthermore, the EA page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration) does list and link evidence: Moon Tilt Illusion, Milky Way arch, tails of comets, meteors, curved aurora borealis, curved ecliptic.
-
What year?
-
I was specifically responding to a singular video claiming to have the "comprehensive explanation for sunsets on flat earth". The video never mentioned EA. None of the YouTube flerfs mention EA that I have seen. I have only seen it here. If there are other applications, I would love to review them as well.
I can respond to "perspective". It is real and does exist. This is basic trig. It's just that when you do apply perspective it shows that the sun would never set. You must appreciate the sweet irony.
The response to EA is so boring: there is no evidence light does this. What else is there? It's a testable hypotheses that has been falsified already. Here's one of many: https://mctoon27.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/results-of-leveling-refraction-tests-by-ngs-tr-nos92-ngs22.pdf
I do appreciate that you, Pete and the others here actually try to provide an explanation for things. It's a bit more interesting than the religiflerfs that just say "nuh-uh", "density", and "perspective".
-
What year?
December Solstice 2019
-
So you read through the EA page and decided that it worked, but you thought that it "lacked empirical evidence" and discarded that possibility, proceeding to publish a video with the title page "The Sun Could Never Set on Flat Earth" which ignores EA and doesn't bring it up at all. This appears to be dishonest.
Tom, I would like to give some time to EA. Would you present the idea in a live video?
-
How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?
-
How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?
Can you suggest a method or methods for doing this?
-
How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?
You seem to have neglected to read my post.
I am giving flat earthers an opportunity to showcase how sunsets work on flat earth. Since all the analysis I did conclude that sunsets are not possible, you will clearly disagree with my results.
So, please show the process YOU personally went through to critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth.
You did critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth, right?
The analysis you personally did showed that sunsets are possible, right?
Otherwise, you would never have accepted them, right?
All these things are supported by empirical evidence, right?
-
How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?
You seem to have neglected to read my post.
I am giving flat earthers an opportunity to showcase how sunsets work on flat earth. Since all the analysis I did conclude that sunsets are not possible, you will clearly disagree with my results.
So, please show the process YOU personally went through to critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth.
You did critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth, right?
The analysis you personally did showed that sunsets are possible, right?
Otherwise, you would never have accepted them, right?
All these things are supported by empirical evidence, right?
Your OP is entitled "Re: Comprehensive explanation for sunsets"
My question directly deals with how comprehensive your observations were.
I have accepted nothing.
You have offered no true analysis of the two possible causes.
I just asked you a direct question related to one of the issues you claimed to have analyzed and you dismissed it out of hand.
-
How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?
Air quality variables? You mean like particulate matter, humidity and temperature? These, under normal physics, would have a negligible effect on the apparent elevation of the sun. I can only assume that MC Toon was using normal physics as there is very little offered from the FE perspective.
-
How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?
You seem to have neglected to read my post.
I am giving flat earthers an opportunity to showcase how sunsets work on flat earth. Since all the analysis I did conclude that sunsets are not possible, you will clearly disagree with my results.
So, please show the process YOU personally went through to critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth.
You did critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth, right?
The analysis you personally did showed that sunsets are possible, right?
Otherwise, you would never have accepted them, right?
All these things are supported by empirical evidence, right?
Your OP is entitled "Re: Comprehensive explanation for sunsets"
My question directly deals with how comprehensive your observations were.
I have accepted nothing.
You have offered no true analysis of the two possible causes.
I just asked you a direct question related to one of the issues you claimed to have analyzed and you dismissed it out of hand.
I think you're missing the point. The question in the OP is, "So I come to you, dear flat earthers, looking for the correct explanation for flat earth sunsets."
The question is not, "What is it about my empirical assessment that you find ambiguous or faulty." So once you answer the OP question, then comes the discussion as to how one arrived at whatever explanation. But the OP question should be answered first otherwise there is no discussion to be had.
So what is your correct explanation as to how FE sunsets work?
-
How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?
Can you suggest a method or methods for doing this?
I analyzed these claims.
How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?
Air quality variables? You mean like particulate matter, humidity and temperature? These, under normal physics, would have a negligible effect on the apparent elevation of the sun. I can only assume that MC Toon was using normal physics as there is very little offered from the FE perspective.
I analyzed these claims.
I think you're missing the point. The question in the OP is, "So I come to you, dear flat earthers, looking for the correct explanation for flat earth sunsets."
The question is not, "What is it about my empirical assessment that you find ambiguous or faulty." So once you answer the OP question, then comes the discussion as to how one arrived at whatever explanation. But the OP question should be answered first otherwise there is no discussion to be had.
So what is your correct explanation as to how FE sunsets work?
I analyzed these claims.
Not surprisingly, the OP reveals itself to be another case of RE stomping their collective feet, outrageously demanding an explanation from FE for something they claim to have already analyzed in depth. One goes so far as to label the analysis as using "normal physics"!
Another steamy pile.
-
Not surprisingly, the OP reveals itself to be another case of RE stomping their collective feet, outrageously demanding an explanation from FE for something they claim to have already analyzed in depth.
I did not claim that. Your question was, paraphrased "Have you accounted for atmospheric variables?", directed toward McToon. I've fielded the same question in the past, with regard to my own observations, phrased in different ways. My response is always to ask - "How do you suggest I do that?", and after that, everything goes silent.
Do you have any method for accounting for the things that you say McToon (and possibly I) should be accounting for?
If you don't, do you have any basis for suggesting that they have any effect, at all, on the observation? I want to know if my eyes and camera are misleading me, so tell me what I should be looking for.
-
Not surprisingly, the OP reveals itself to be another case of RE stomping their collective feet, outrageously demanding an explanation from FE for something they claim to have already analyzed in depth. One goes so far as to label the analysis as using "normal physics"!
[/quote]
Again, you miss the point, I am asking for the flat earth explanation. I was told I don't understand flat earth. So I am here to learn.
Since my analysis concluded that sunsets could never happen, the analysis is wrong in your view, why would you want my analysis? This is your chance to shine.
I posed this question in many other places as a response to the accusation that I don't understand flat earth. Flat earthers have three general responses:
- Anger, deflection, demanding I answer questions, memes, etc.
- "Perspective" and "Refraction". Sometimes in the form of a video that never applies perspective, and roughly applies refraction opposite empirical measurements.
- The sole outliner, Tom Bishop, with EA.
- Tom is the ONLY one that has earned any respect as his proposed answer has some analysis. If light actually curved as he proposes, there could be something interesting.
- There is no empirical evidence light does as he proposes, so it gets no farther.
Action80, you have chosen option 1. This informs me that you accepted the claims without doing any analysis. Anyone that had done the analysis would be giddy to share their results. Thank you, Action80. You have confirmed, yet again, that flat earthers generally accept flat earth claims without critical analysis.
-
Not surprisingly, the OP reveals itself to be another case of RE stomping their collective feet, outrageously demanding an explanation from FE for something they claim to have already analyzed in depth.
I did not claim that. Your question was, paraphrased "Have you accounted for atmospheric variables?", directed toward McToon. I've fielded the same question in the past, with regard to my own observations, phrased in different ways. My response is always to ask - "How do you suggest I do that?", and after that, everything goes silent.
Do you have any method for accounting for the things that you say McToon (and possibly I) should be accounting for?
If you don't, do you have any basis for suggesting that they have any effect, at all, on the observation? I want to know if my eyes and camera are misleading me, so tell me what I should be looking for.
Actually, that is nowhere near an accurate paraphrasing of my question to the OP.
My question was very specific.
The OP claims his analysis demonstrates a setting sun is not possible on a flat earth.
I asked a very direct question regarding that analysis.
Response = nothing of substance.
I am not going to engage in any of your research projects.
My time is too valuable to surrender for free.
Yes, I have a basis for stating the atmoplane is a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question.
I am relatively confident you and everyone else has heard of mirages, for instance.
-
Since my analysis concluded that sunsets could never happen, the analysis is wrong in your view, why would you want my analysis? This is your chance to shine.
It is decidedly apparent to all here that your so-called analysis is nothing more than a statement that flat earth does not allow for a setting sun.
My choice of how I choose to shine is to clearly point out that your so-called analysis is nothing of the sort.
Your simple statement qualifies more as an Angry Rant, "erth rund!!!!"
Action80, you have chosen option 1. This informs me that you accepted the claims without doing any analysis. Anyone that had done the analysis would be giddy to share their results. Thank you, Action80. You have confirmed, yet again, that flat earthers generally accept flat earth claims without critical analysis.
Engaging in projection fails to aid you in your quest for answers.
-
Since my analysis concluded that sunsets could never happen, the analysis is wrong in your view, why would you want my analysis?
Presumably for the same reason you're trying to solicit an analysis from FE'ers. After all, we disagree with you, therefore we're wrong, so why would you want our position?
-
Since my analysis concluded that sunsets could never happen, the analysis is wrong in your view, why would you want my analysis?
Presumably for the same reason you're trying to solicit an analysis from FE'ers. After all, we disagree with you, therefore we're wrong, so why would you want our position?
I was told I didn't understand the flat earth position. So I went looking for an explanation. Nobody other than you and Tom has anything resembling an effort at analysis. Everyone else's response is "perspective" or refusing to provide anything.
This has been a very informative exercise. Nobody that thinks perspective causes sunsets actually tested perspective. No exceptions.
-
This has been a very informative exercise. Nobody that thinks perspective causes sunsets actually tested perspective. No exceptions.
I don't think that conclusion is even remotely close to valid, nor will announcing it here help your endeavour. Most FE'ers approach you with open aggression. Part of that is just bias, sure, but antagonising them severely limits your chances at meaningful communication.
You may be thinking that you're going for the double-dog-dare approach. "Pah, nobody can take my challenge, try it, you won't!" It really doesn't work tho.
-
There is no empirical evidence light does as he proposes, so it gets no farther.
FE always seems to employ circular reasoning with things like this. If light bend upwards then sunset could occur on a FE.
How do we know light bends upwards? We get sunsets.
The empirical evidence for EA seems to be the observations it is used to explain.
-
I am not going to engage in any of your research projects.
My time is too valuable to surrender for free.
Yes, I have a basis for stating the atmoplane is a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question.
I am relatively confident you and everyone else has heard of mirages, for instance.
To my mind, the next step would be for you to engage with my "project", and demonstrate how the "atmoplane" has affected it. But you won't. Vague hints in the direction of "mirages" do not make for a sound basis.
-
The empirical evidence for EA seems to be the observations it is used to explain.
The idea that anyone should be "explaining observations" rather than drawing conclusions from them is at the core of the disagreement here. We're not trying to "explain sunsets", despite the repeated cries of those who claim to support science, but whose actions betray them. We observe, hypothesise, verify, and conclude.
EA is partially hypothesised, and at no point did verification suggest that there's any reason to stop developing the theory.
-
I am not going to engage in any of your research projects.
My time is too valuable to surrender for free.
Yes, I have a basis for stating the atmoplane is a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question.
I am relatively confident you and everyone else has heard of mirages, for instance.
To my mind, the next step would be for you to engage with my "project", and demonstrate how the "atmoplane" has affected it. But you won't. Vague hints in the direction of "mirages" do not make for a sound basis.
What project?
You have no project.
There is nothing conceptually vague about mirages.
-
MCToon,
You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)
Action80
In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:
1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause the sun (or a ship) to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When the sun (or a ship) moves away from an observer, why does the sun (or a ship) always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?
- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first. And, the sun appears to set and rise because the Earth is rotating.
-
MCToon,
You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)
Action80
In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:
1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause a ship to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When a ship moves away from an observer, why does a ship always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?
- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first.
- I think MCToon is asking you to explain the physics or science regarding why/how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause the sun to appear to "sink down" on a flat plane.
This thread is about explanations of sunsets, not about ships.
MCToon claims sunsets cannot happen on a flat earth, based on an extremely comprehensive analyis he performed regarding two issues, those being perspective and refraction.
Quiet please, while he gathers the data as to provide the particulars...
-
MCToon,
You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)
Action80
In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:
1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause a ship to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When a ship moves away from an observer, why does a ship always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?
- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first.
- I think MCToon is asking you to explain the physics or science regarding why/how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause the sun to appear to "sink down" on a flat plane.
This thread is about explanations of sunsets, not about ships.
MCToon claims sunsets cannot happen on a flat earth, based on an extremely comprehensive analyis he performed regarding two issues, those being perspective and refraction.
Quiet please, while he gathers the data as to provide the particulars...
My above post included the sun (i.e. sun setting) and a question as to why the sun always sets "down" but never sets "up" on a flat earth.
As MCToon is gathering his data would you be able to provide some clarity as to how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause a sun to set down vs. up?
-
MCToon,
You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)
Action80
In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:
1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause a ship to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When a ship moves away from an observer, why does a ship always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?
- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first.
- I think MCToon is asking you to explain the physics or science regarding why/how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause the sun to appear to "sink down" on a flat plane.
This thread is about explanations of sunsets, not about ships.
MCToon claims sunsets cannot happen on a flat earth, based on an extremely comprehensive analyis he performed regarding two issues, those being perspective and refraction.
Quiet please, while he gathers the data as to provide the particulars...
My above post included the sun (i.e. sun setting) and a question as to why the sun always sets "down" but never sets "up" on a flat earth.
As MCToon is gathering his data would you be able to provide some clarity as to how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause a sun to set down vs. up?
It only included the word sun after I pointed out your off-topic contribution.
I am not going to entertain your off-topic original contribution/only to later revise game.
-
MCToon,
You've pushed your original OP question off the rails by engaging with flat earthers in a way that they are not going to want to engage with you. Stick to the dialogue and try and take emotion out of it if you want a fruitful debate. (yes, I've learned my lesson on approach and am trying to do better)
Action80
In terms of perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane being a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question:
1) What are the physics or science behind these three variables that cause a ship to appear to sink towards the surface of the Earth (whether the surface be land or water)?
2) When a ship moves away from an observer, why does a ship always appear to "sink down" towards Earth's surface but never appear to "sink up" towards Earth's atmosphere?
- Round Earthers would say that because the Earth is a globe, you are seeing the ship move about Earth's curvature and thus the bottom of the ship begins to "disappear" first.
- I think MCToon is asking you to explain the physics or science regarding why/how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause the sun to appear to "sink down" on a flat plane.
This thread is about explanations of sunsets, not about ships.
MCToon claims sunsets cannot happen on a flat earth, based on an extremely comprehensive analyis he performed regarding two issues, those being perspective and refraction.
Quiet please, while he gathers the data as to provide the particulars...
My above post included the sun (i.e. sun setting) and a question as to why the sun always sets "down" but never sets "up" on a flat earth.
As MCToon is gathering his data would you be able to provide some clarity as to how perspective, mirages, and the atmoplane cause a sun to set down vs. up?
It only included the word sun after I pointed out your off-topic contribution.
I am not going to entertain your off-topic original contribution/only to later revise game.
I indeed sent my original post out and noticed it did not include mention of the sun. When I noticed this, I was in the process of editing my post just as you sent your reply.
The timestamp of my edit shows this.
Anyways, in good faith and now with sun added, would you be able to answer the question as to how mirages, perspective, and atmoplane always cause the sun to appear to set down vs. set up on a flat earth?
-
I am not going to engage in any of your research projects.
To my mind, the next step would be for you to engage with my "project", and demonstrate how the "atmoplane" has affected it. But you won't. Vague hints in the direction of "mirages" do not make for a sound basis.
What project? You have no project.
I never claimed to have something named as a project. I invited you to examine my observations and conclusions, all on YouTube (here and in other threads), and you declined, referring to this here as my "research project". I put it in quotes because I was quoting you. You were the first to refer to me having a "project".
Again, I invite you to view my observations and conclusions, and indicate what I should be looking for in terms of these "atmoplane" effects that would have any significant effect on either.
If you're not going to engage in review of my work, and you refuse to engage with others, and you provide no observations, projects or experimentation of your own, then ... why are you here?
-
I am not going to engage in any of your research projects.
To my mind, the next step would be for you to engage with my "project", and demonstrate how the "atmoplane" has affected it. But you won't. Vague hints in the direction of "mirages" do not make for a sound basis.
What project? You have no project.
I never claimed to have something named as a project. I invited you to examine my observations and conclusions, all on YouTube (here and in other threads), and you declined, referring to this here as my "research project". I put it in quotes because I was quoting you. You were the first to refer to me having a "project".
Again, I invite you to view my observations and conclusions, and indicate what I should be looking for in terms of these "atmoplane" effects that would have any significant effect on either.
If you're not going to engage in review of my work, and you refuse to engage with others, and you provide no observations, projects or experimentation of your own, then ... why are you here?
As always, crystal clear statements from you, Tumeni [/sarcasm]
You have stuff on YouTube? Where?
-
You have stuff on YouTube? Where?
Told you already in a previous thread. PM me for links. Last time I posted them in threads, Pete slapped me down for "spamming" my own channel
PM me, and I'll link you.
-
The empirical evidence for EA seems to be the observations it is used to explain.
The idea that anyone should be "explaining observations" rather than drawing conclusions from them is at the core of the disagreement here. We're not trying to "explain sunsets", despite the repeated cries of those who claim to support science, but whose actions betray them. We observe, hypothesise, verify, and conclude.
EA is partially hypothesised, and at no point did verification suggest that there's any reason to stop developing the theory.
Maybe "understanding" is a better word that "explaining"? That's what science has sought to do - to understand.
The sun clearly goes across the sky and sets - the ancients believed that it was the sun that moved, their flat earth model had the sun above the earth during day and below it during night. Day was day everywhere, night was night everywhere. We now know that isn't true. So we need a different explanation or understanding of how the sun moves and why it sets.
Your page on Zeteticism says:
in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed to testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment
But how does one do that? What's the experiment? We know the sun sets. Let's say that a rotating globe earth and your FE model with EA yield identical results. Why would you conclude one of those rather than the other?
You have said that you believe you can "see too low", so I guess that's a test you've done - making observations of distant objects. But I think you accept that you can't see all of distant objects. So now what? Conventional science would say that you can't see the bottom of distant objects because the earth is a sphere and the bottom is hidden behind the curve of the earth. And if you can see more than your trusty curve calculator tells you that you should, then it's because refraction is a thing - a thing one can easily demonstrate. But now we're back to the same problem. If FE+EA would also yield the same results then why is one conclusion preferable to the other?
What's the test that makes you favour FE+EA over a globe earth?
-
McTOON -
Here is another FE theory about Sunsets. In the first image, you can see a light bulb hovering over a flat earth map with a glass magnifying dome on top. You can see how half the earth is covered with light and the other half in darkness (night).
(https://i.imgur.com/6OA3GQh.jpg)
To explain sunsets, you need to understand how light is seen from earth through an atmospheric dome... In this short video, I placed a camera beneath the dome pictured above and slowly walked away to simulate the sun moving away from observers during a sunset. As you can see, the glass dome slowly fades the image of the light bulb into darkness...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpCC2Op81TE
-
Could you tell us more about that dome? Is it hollow or solid inside, like a paperweight? I assume the latter, but would appreciate if you could confirm
-
Yes solid..
-
Yes solid..
The Earth's atmosphere isn't a solid glass dome. Your experimental approach with a solid glass dome is not accurate.
It also appears that the size of the Sun you are using (via the light bulb) is much larger in scale as compared to the solid glass dome you are using to represent the Earth. The diameter of the small spotlight Sun should be as close in scale to the size of the flat earth you are simulating. So, this would need to be scale relative to the diameter of the flat Earth plane.
-
It's not, but the atmosphere has water vapor which can add to refraction...
-
It's not, but the atmosphere has water vapor which can add to refraction...
To what degree does water vapor add to refraction? Is it the same as a solid glass dome?
Also, your experiment appears to be using a light bulb that is very large in scale to the size of your solid glass flat earth dome model. The size of the bulb you are using to simulate a small spotlight Sun should be to scale relative to the size of the flat earth model you are using.
Additionally, the distance of the small spotlight Sun in your experiment should also be to scale relative to the surface of your flat earth model.
-
The bulb is definitely too big but I'm not sure about the distance being wrong. I used to think a spotlight sun was the only way to simulate the day/night and other observations on earth but then I tried different distances and they all worked the same. I'm trying to recreate Voyager 1 photos of the sun and earth to get a more accurate simulation...
(https://i.imgur.com/LjTjK4n.gif)
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/536/voyager-1s-pale-blue-dot/
Here's a close up of the Earth Sun relationship...
(https://i.imgur.com/qLoArxd.jpg)
Earth is located where it says "E", Venus "V" and the sun appears in only some photos but I marked it as "Sun". You can see how far away Earth is relative to the Sun which I hope isn't too far off from my photo. Moving the lightbulb away like I did is not accurate but I was just proving the point of atmospheric refraction. If you actually turn the Map in a circular motion or in many other configurations you can also get a sunset and night effect. It's bizarre almost but the light just fades away.
-
The bulb is definitely too big but I'm not sure about the distance being wrong. I used to think a spotlight sun was the only way to simulate the day/night and other observations on earth but then I tried different distances and they all worked the same. I'm trying to recreate Voyager 1 photos of the sun and earth to get a more accurate simulation...
(https://i.imgur.com/LjTjK4n.gif)
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/536/voyager-1s-pale-blue-dot/
Here's a close up of the Earth Sun relationship...
(https://i.imgur.com/qLoArxd.jpg)
Earth is located where it says "E", Venus "V" and the sun appears in only some photos but I marked it as "Sun". You can see how far away Earth is relative to the Sun which I hope isn't too far off from my photo. Moving the lightbulb away like I did is not accurate but I was just proving the point of atmospheric refraction. If you actually turn the Map in a circular motion or in many other configurations you can also get a sunset and night effect. It's bizarre almost but the light just fades away.
Thanks.
1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate. Solid glass and our atmosphere are two very different mediums; it would be like suggesting that looking through a large tank filled with water has the same refraction properties as looking through a large tank without any water but saying that the tank without water has similar refraction properties because there is water vapor in our atmosphere.
2. Regarding sizes and distances of our Earth, the spotlight Sun, and celestial bodies, what do you believe the following are:
- size/diameter of the flat Earth's plane?
- size/diameter of the Sun?
- distance of the Sun to the Earth's plane? (I believe you are currently trying to use Voyager 1 photos of the sun and earth to recreate distances to get a more accurate simulation).
3. It appears you may be suggesting and wanting to experiment in your model with Sun to flat Earth distances that are different than what "general" FE theory suggests which is that the spotlight Sun is only about 30 miles or so in diameter and 3,000 miles or so away from the flat Earth plane. Is this correct?
-
Cashew its like saying refraction exists through solid mediums - liquid mediums - and gaseous atmospheric mediums... Its an established phenomenon. We can argue how much atmospheric refraction exists which I think is your general point.
I can give you a few numbers as to what the diameter of the earth is, sun, moon, and distance between them but its really not worth it.
But generally I'd put all my distances within thousands of miles which is similar to some general FE theory.
-
Cashew its like saying refraction exists through solid mediums - liquid mediums - and gaseous atmospheric mediums... Its an established phenomenon. We can argue how much atmospheric refraction exists which I think is your general point.
I can give you a few numbers as to what the diameter of the earth is, sun, moon, and distance between them but its really not worth it.
But generally I'd put all my distances within thousands of miles which is similar to some general FE theory.
1. Yes, my first point is that using a solid glass dome to simulate your model would be an inaccurate setup.
2. It would indeed be worth it to having an experimental setup that mimics as best as possible the scale of sizes and distances to which you are testing.
- for example, if the small spotlight Sun is the same as general FE theory (~30 miles in diameter) and your flat Earth assumption is say 7,900 miles, than that would indicate that in your model the Sun would need to be 263 times smaller. The spotlight in your model would be quit small, almost like the size of the head of a pin (vs. a large flashlight bulb) if you wanted to use something similar in size to what you are using to replicate the flat Earth.
- The distance of your small Sun would also need to be positioned to simulate being about 3,000 miles away, which would be a less than half the diameter of your flat earth model.
- Do you plan to adjust your setup in this way?
3. In terms of your mention about Voyager 1, my comment can be addressed in a different thread and debate, but it would seem to suggest you believe in or are open to the notion that NASA has gone to space and that space travel exists. If that be the case, than some questions to you would be what do you make of the pictures NASA has taken and published over these past few decades showing a Globe Earth and Earth's curvature? Again, this is for a separate debate but something to think about since you mentioned Voyager 1.
-
I hope to make a more accurate model to scale to test some of these assumptions...
And yeah, I believe in space travel and photography. The only way to reconcile FE Theory and space travel in my view is to not doubt its authenticity, rather finding a different interpretation of the data if called for.
-
It's not, but the atmosphere has water vapor which can add to refraction...
It seems you have not studied the effects of water vapor on the index of refraction.
Also, the sun sets in deserts and over the ocean alike. Ascribing correct or incorrect effects of water vapor doesn't help.
-
Most FE'ers approach you with open aggression.
Indeed. I would expect them to be excited to share the results of their hard work. You and Tom do! I find it very strange that so many flat earthers make such absurd claims about the Flat Earth Society. You are the only ones I have seen in all my adventures that actually try.
To your knowledge, are there other people that think the EA idea is worthwhile?
-
It's not, but the atmosphere has water vapor which can add to refraction...
It seems you have not studied the effects of water vapor on the index of refraction.
Also, the sun sets in deserts and over the ocean alike. Ascribing correct or incorrect effects of water vapor doesn't help.
Okay, fair enough. Nitrogen and Oxygen are 99% of the earth's atmosphere - not water vapor.
I'm still trying to find data about the properties of the atmosphere after which I can compare the effects of refraction.
-
The idea that anyone should be "explaining observations" rather than drawing conclusions from them is at the core of the disagreement here. We're not trying to "explain sunsets", despite the repeated cries of those who claim to support science, but whose actions betray them. We observe, hypothesise, verify, and conclude.
That seems at odds with the wiki, which frequently uses the word 'explain' in exactly that manner, for example:
Horizon limits are easily explained by the fact that air is not transparent and refraction diverts/scatters the rays over a large dense medium, so it is not possible to see past a certain distance.
Aside from being obviously wrong (why can I see the top half of a distant ship, or mountain, but not the bottom, if the cause is the limited visibility?), that is clearly an attempt to explain something, in precisely the fashion that you are claiming that you do not do. Moreover, where is the verification of this? What we observe directly contradicts this hypothesis.
I would suggest that a more fundamental question for FET is not so much why there are sunsets, or why things disappear from the bottom up as they get more distant, but why there is a horizon in the first place. If the earth was flat, then we wouldn't expect a distinct, crisp horizon at a relatively short distance from the observer. The wiki is muddled on this - in one place, we have this:
Light from objects too far away either hits the ground or is bent upwards before it reaches us. This also explains the "sinking ship" effect: the bottom portion of the ship appears to sink into the ocean because all of the light either hits the ocean or is bent upwards, but light from the top portion will be able to go further down before being bent upwards and becoming visible to us, since the ocean is lower relative to it.
But then elsewhere we have this:
It is believed that the bending of light does not simulate the rate of globe earth curvature. Instead, the bending occurs more gradually over a greater distance.
But if the bendy light doesn't bend enough to 'simulate' (?) the rate of globe earth curvature, why would there be a distinct horizon behind which things appear to disappear?
-
Okay, fair enough. Nitrogen and Oxygen are 99% of the earth's atmosphere - not water vapor.
I'm still trying to find data about the properties of the atmosphere after which I can compare the effects of refraction.
Start here:
https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/understanding.html
I have a collection of empirical measurements here:
https://mctoon.net/refraction/
-
These are great websites.. Thanks..
-
1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.
The Dome is not the atmoplane.
-
1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.
The Dome is not the atmoplane.
Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.
-
1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.
The Dome is not the atmoplane.
Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.
But you did write that using a solid glass dome to simulate the atmoplane is wrong. The Dome holds the atmoplane in.
-
To your knowledge, are there other people that think the EA idea is worthwhile?
I had a mixed response from Globebusters, with some of them/some of their audience claiming that EA proves I'm a CIA spy (or whatever it is they say), and others at least conceding it's viable. But I generally don't bother with the more hardline FE'ers, they're just a little too much to handle.
-
1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.
The Dome is not the atmoplane.
Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.
But you did write that using a solid glass dome to simulate the atmoplane is wrong. The Dome holds the atmoplane in.
As I mentiined to Tron, our atmosphere (or atmoplane as you call it) is not solid glass.
I don't believe in a physical dome. Unfortunately in Tron's experiment where he wanted to use a physical dome, he filled his dome with solid glass. We all know that our atmosphere (the atmoplane as you call it) does not consist of solid glass.
-
1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.
The Dome is not the atmoplane.
Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.
But you did write that using a solid glass dome to simulate the atmoplane is wrong. The Dome holds the atmoplane in.
As I mentiined to Tron, our atmosphere (or atmoplane as you call it) is not solid glass.
I don't believe in a physical dome. Unfortunately in Tron's experiment where he wanted to use a physical dome, he filled his dome with solid glass. We all know that our atmosphere (the atmoplane as you call it) does not consist of solid glass.
Yes, therefore. the solid glass is keeping the atmoplane in. The dome is NOT simulating the atmoplane.
It is simulating the DOME, not the atmoplane.
Typical obfuscation, probably purposeful, on your part.
-
The contention here is that for the dome to be filled with glass, it would have to be... well, filled with glass.
We are not currently experiencing a world that's uniformly filled with glass. Glass is solid. We'd notice.
A solid glass dome is convenient, because it does very accurately replicate FE predictions at a smaller scale. However, I cannot imagine a scenario in which this would be an accurate description of our world.
-
1. As I mentioned, using a solid glass dome to simulate our atmosphere would not be accurate.
The Dome is not the atmoplane.
Yup. Thats why I said don't use a dome filled with glass to simulate a flat earth.
But you did write that using a solid glass dome to simulate the atmoplane is wrong. The Dome holds the atmoplane in.
As I mentiined to Tron, our atmosphere (or atmoplane as you call it) is not solid glass.
I don't believe in a physical dome. Unfortunately in Tron's experiment where he wanted to use a physical dome, he filled his dome with solid glass. We all know that our atmosphere (the atmoplane as you call it) does not consist of solid glass.
Yes, therefore. the solid glass is keeping the atmoplane in. The dome is NOT simulating the atmoplane.
It is simulating the DOME, not the atmoplane.
Typical obfuscation, probably purposeful, on your part.
I honestly am not sure what we are arguing about.
All I am saying is that when Tron used a solid glass dome shaped object to perform an experiment, that the solid glass wouldn't be an accurate representation of our atmosphere (the atmoplane). We don't live in and breath in solid glass.
If Tron wanted to redo the experiment and simulate it via a physical dome to simulate his firmament, than his firmament dome could be like a thin glass shell vs. being totally filled in with glass.
Again, am not sure what we are arguing about.
-
I honestly am not sure what we are arguing about.
All I am saying is that when Tron used a solid glass dome shaped object to perform an experiment, that the solid glass wouldn't be an accurate representation of our atmosphere (the atmoplane). We don't live in and breath in solid glass.
If Tron wanted to redo the experiment and simulate it via a physical dome to simulate his firmament, than his firmament dome could be like a thin glass shell vs. being totally filled in with glass.
Again, am not sure what we are arguing about.
The sun is being reflected by (or is actually placed inside) the dome.
-
I honestly am not sure what we are arguing about.
All I am saying is that when Tron used a solid glass dome shaped object to perform an experiment, that the solid glass wouldn't be an accurate representation of our atmosphere (the atmoplane). We don't live in and breath in solid glass.
If Tron wanted to redo the experiment and simulate it via a physical dome to simulate his firmament, than his firmament dome could be like a thin glass shell vs. being totally filled in with glass.
Again, am not sure what we are arguing about.
The sun is being reflected by (or is actually placed inside) the dome.
That's good.... I'm glad I recommended to Tron to not fill the inside of the dome with solid glass otherwise a small spotlight sun wouldn't be able to exist or move.
Tron was performing his simulation with the spotlight sun outside of the dome. If he is reading this, he could perhaps also include performing his simulation with a small spotlight sun inside of the dome.
-
I might play with a glass bowl and put the sun above and below it but for now the glass atmodome is the best I have.
I'll try to fill a dome with water and record the lighting effects. Someday I'll stick a GoPro in there and record the results.
The most accurate experiment is to fill a dome with air and bring it to space and compare it to the vacuum of space. ;D
-
I might play with a glass bowl and put the sun above and below it but for now the glass atmodome is the best I have.
I'll try to fill a dome with water and record the lighting effects. Someday I'll stick a GoPro in there and record the results.
The most accurate experiment is to fill a dome with air and bring it to space and compare it to the vacuum of space. ;D
Just as a solid paperweight doesn't really simulate the atmosphere (we all would be crushed), I'm thinking that bowl of water wouldn't necessarily either (we'd all drown).
Now if you can get your contraption up in to space, that might be interesting.
-
I might play with a glass bowl and put the sun above and below it but for now the glass atmodome is the best I have.
I'll try to fill a dome with water and record the lighting effects. Someday I'll stick a GoPro in there and record the results.
The most accurate experiment is to fill a dome with air and bring it to space and compare it to the vacuum of space. ;D
There was someone that used a double-walled bowl filled with water. Essentially it became a water "atmodome" with air on the inside. I cannot recall the person. I do recall it didn't work.
-
The dome ideally would have to mimic the atmosphere of a spherical Earth as we know it. A 'hidden' firmament may exist but I don't think it's 100% necessary to allow astral observations. The center of a flat Earth would have higher then normal atmosphere height (to make a dome shape) but current estimates seem to allow from 50 to 400 miles in height variation guesses for some layers of the atmosphere so I can't rule this out yet.
How can we make a model of a round Earth and it's atmosphere to study?
How can we make a flat Earth model with an atmosphere to study?
Magnetism, friction, or gravity may hold the atmosphere to the surface. How to make a model of this and perhaps test it in a vacuum chamber is beyond me.
-
Provide the constants used in the math you performed for perspective.
The video is out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfANWPvICOw
On the December solstice, the angular elevation of the sun was 22.5° at local solar noon. Milleapolis is at 45°N Lattiude. That's 4,723 statute miles from the Tropic of Capricorn. Solving the triangle puts the sun at 1,956 miles high.
On the same day, 12 hours later the sun is still over the Tropic of Capricorn, moved 180 degrees of longitude. This puts the sun 10,937 miles due north of Minneapolis on the AE map. Taking the sun to be at the same elevation and solving the triangle, the flat earth angular height of the sun must be 10.14°.
If this is the wrong way, show the correct way. Note that in the video I provided a real-world example using the same method to measure the height of a physical object. If I did this wrong, show the right way with a real-world example applying your method.