No flat earth model can explain this case
« on: February 15, 2018, 05:50:54 PM »
My case is very simple. Two stationary observers viewing the sun. One viewing the sunset where the sun is moving downwards below the horizon and the other viewing the sunrise where the sun is moving upwards coming over the horizon. In this case, because the observers are stationary and the sun is moving against the horizon as the frame of reference, you can be confident that the direction of the movement of the sun is the real direction. A flat earth cannot explain this case. Only a sphere can where one observer is on one side moving away from the earth (sunset) and the other observer is on the other side moving towards the sun (sunrise). There is no other physical model that can explain this case if you assume a single sun.

If you're going to reply, please stick to this specific case and video examples don't really make sense here.

Offline Sydney

  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2018, 02:06:40 AM »
I would contest your use of lexicon in your description. In my view, the Sun is approaching from a distance, reaching zenith to the viewer, and then receding into the distance. What the lenses of our eyes perceive as we view its course through the sky is also affected by atmospheric refraction (AR). AR is the amount of moisture in the air, or lack thereof, which also acts as a lens and further distorts the actual object (image) given to our brains through these two "lenses".

You did not ask any question, but rather instead pointed out something and then made a conclusion, so I am not sure if there is a question there.

The effect you described (using my lexicon) perfectly explains what people see... for those who believe they are on a ball and the ball is rotating... and for FE believers, that they are standing on a stationary plane and the object (the Sun) is circling overhead in ever tightening and widening concentric circles. The effect, at face value, is the same regardless, but how one interprets it is debatable.

Respect 

JohnAdams1145

Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2018, 09:30:16 AM »
I would contest your use of lexicon in your description. In my view, the Sun is approaching from a distance, reaching zenith to the viewer, and then receding into the distance. What the lenses of our eyes perceive as we view its course through the sky is also affected by atmospheric refraction (AR). AR is the amount of moisture in the air, or lack thereof, which also acts as a lens and further distorts the actual object (image) given to our brains through these two "lenses".

You did not ask any question, but rather instead pointed out something and then made a conclusion, so I am not sure if there is a question there.

The effect you described (using my lexicon) perfectly explains what people see... for those who believe they are on a ball and the ball is rotating... and for FE believers, that they are standing on a stationary plane and the object (the Sun) is circling overhead in ever tightening and widening concentric circles. The effect, at face value, is the same regardless, but how one interprets it is debatable.

Respect

Highly unlikely. Refraction as a result of moisture in the air would result in scattering, because the index of refraction is not even close to uniform across the space. The fact that we see crystal-clear images of the Moon and Sun suggests that your atmospheric refraction hypothesis is bunk.

This is not to mention the obvious problem: your hypothesis is neither specific nor falsifiable. I suggest you try to quantify exactly how the atmospheric refraction bends the light; I doubt you'll find it fits anywhere close to what you say it does.  Start with Snell's Law. You can't just throw out the words "atmospheric refraction" to discredit optical observations.

Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2018, 02:30:13 AM »
Sydney, I stated a case that can't be explained by a FE model. So any reply would have to simply refute my claim. No question required.

Even if your theory of refraction actually did occur, it can't explain the consistent observations of simultaneous sunrises and sunsets all around the Earth because if that were the cause of one person seeing not seeing the real direction of the sun but simply the effect of refraction, then you would expect the effect to be somewhat random and not 100% consistent with what is predicted by a spherical Earth. Inconsistencies in the atmosphere from day to day and across the Earth would result in some variation to some observer at one of the points of observation yet we don't see that. We see consistent and predictable simultaneous sunsets and sunrises that is quite easily explained by a spherical Earth with no appeal optical illusions.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2018, 08:33:10 PM »
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2018, 10:42:08 PM »
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.

I have no idea what you are talking about but do you mean that would happen on a spherical earth?

If you mean on your imaginary disc earth then I guess you would if you could dig through to the bottom. Without gravity to stop you UA would accelerate the earth upwards as you remain stationary and the earth would fly upwards leaving you in space.

In real life we live on a globe and a universe which has gravity so even if you could bore through the globe you couldn't fall through the hole into space.

I feel a may have misunderstood your post, I have no idea which point you think you have scored here.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2018, 11:37:05 PM »
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.

I have no idea what you are talking about but do you mean that would happen on a spherical earth?

If you mean on your imaginary disc earth then I guess you would if you could dig through to the bottom. Without gravity to stop you UA would accelerate the earth upwards as you remain stationary and the earth would fly upwards leaving you in space.

In real life we live on a globe and a universe which has gravity so even if you could bore through the globe you couldn't fall through the hole into space.

I feel a may have misunderstood your post, I have no idea which point you think you have scored here.

The point is that we can't just go around making declarations of what will happen without showing that it would happen.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2018, 08:16:46 AM »
The point is that we can't just go around making declarations of what will happen without showing that it would happen.
Oh, cool.

I'm looking forward to your proof on shadows being affected by perspective then. That is something you simply "declared" would happen and not shown at all
(Because you can't, because it wouldn't happen). How are you getting on trying to produce long shadows without the light source being physically close to the ground?

I don't disagree that people should back up their assertions, but it's a bit rich coming from someone who pretty much never does.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2018, 09:40:47 AM »
The point is that we can't just go around making declarations of what will happen without showing that it would happen.
Oh, cool.

I'm looking forward to your proof on shadows being affected by perspective then.

Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective?  ???

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2018, 02:20:47 PM »
Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective?  ???
You said this:

Quote
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

This is one of your declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen. You are claiming that a light source which is physically above an object can cast a shadow angled upwards and when I showed you how ridiculous that is you said I hadn't accounted for perspective. So you seem to think that perspective can affect how shadows are cast. I am looking forward to your demonstration of that. As I said in my "long shadows at sunset" thread, the only way for long shadows to be cast like that is with a light source physically close to the horizon (or the light bending so it appears to be). If you think you can demonstrate to the contrary then let's see it.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2018, 04:10:10 PM »
Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective?  ???
You said this:

Quote
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

This is one of your declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen. You are claiming that a light source which is physically above an object can cast a shadow angled upwards and when I showed you how ridiculous that is you said I hadn't accounted for perspective. So you seem to think that perspective can affect how shadows are cast. I am looking forward to your demonstration of that. As I said in my "long shadows at sunset" thread, the only way for long shadows to be cast like that is with a light source physically close to the horizon (or the light bending so it appears to be). If you think you can demonstrate to the contrary then let's see it.
This idea that somehow the lamp post sees you is 'interesting'.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2018, 04:15:46 PM »
Yes.  :D
That's one word for it.
As I said at the time, it's the same level of reasoning as:
"I have shut my eyes so now I can't see anything and therefore nothing can see me and I have thus become invisible".
This is why it's a bit rich Tom picking someone up for making declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen when he says silly things like this which are clearly untrue and doesn't back them up with anything.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2018, 05:54:55 PM »
Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective?  ???
You said this:

Quote
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

This is one of your declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen. You are claiming that a light source which is physically above an object can cast a shadow angled upwards and when I showed you how ridiculous that is you said I hadn't accounted for perspective. So you seem to think that perspective can affect how shadows are cast. I am looking forward to your demonstration of that. As I said in my "long shadows at sunset" thread, the only way for long shadows to be cast like that is with a light source physically close to the horizon (or the light bending so it appears to be). If you think you can demonstrate to the contrary then let's see it.

Are you challenging me to show that a light source located at 90 degrees to Zenith would create a shadow pointing 180 degrees in the opposite direction?

Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2018, 06:02:31 PM »
How about we stick to the topic. There is no way to explain the case I described using a flat earth so I don't expect much discussion other than some that are honest to concede that it can't be done.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2018, 06:16:24 PM »
How about we stick to the topic. There is no way to explain the case I described using a flat earth so I don't expect much discussion other than some that are honest to concede that it can't be done.

There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?

Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.

Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2018, 06:32:53 PM »
Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective?  ???
You said this:

Quote
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

This is one of your declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen. You are claiming that a light source which is physically above an object can cast a shadow angled upwards and when I showed you how ridiculous that is you said I hadn't accounted for perspective. So you seem to think that perspective can affect how shadows are cast. I am looking forward to your demonstration of that. As I said in my "long shadows at sunset" thread, the only way for long shadows to be cast like that is with a light source physically close to the horizon (or the light bending so it appears to be). If you think you can demonstrate to the contrary then let's see it.

Are you challenging me to show that a light source located at 90 degrees to Zenith would create a shadow pointing 180 degrees in the opposite direction?
I believe he's challenging you to show how a light source at coordinates (2x,x) with respect to an object at (0,0) can create shadows longer than 2 times the height of the object casting them. In other words: What is your evidence that Euclidean geometry stops working at long distances? Please refrain from attacking a strawman when answering.

Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2018, 06:34:44 PM »
How about we stick to the topic. There is no way to explain the case I described using a flat earth so I don't expect much discussion other than some that are honest to concede that it can't be done.

There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?

Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.

Sorry, I wasn't following your off topic discussion. Carry on I guess.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2018, 07:04:52 PM »
There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?

Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.

What is there to be explained?

First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.

Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.

No?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2018, 10:07:15 PM »
There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?

Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.

What is there to be explained?

First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.

Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.

No?

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: No flat earth model can explain this case
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2018, 10:28:29 PM »
(Responding to  "Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further.  Even if you DID reach the other side ...)

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

You're the one who introduced the case scenario. I point out that you wouldn't fall out of the other side (due to gravity), but you ask me to explain falling out of the other side. Why?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?