Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
but I don't think anyone in here thinks that's the case
this is a meaningless sentence. Does the earth literally raises? Is the sun torching it at sunset?you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?
EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!
EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high
Perspective changes the orientation of bodies around you. Perspective has has oriented the man to be 90 degrees from zenith for the sun. A photon leaving the sun at 90 degrees is pointed at the man, and that is the straight line path it will take.
At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.
you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?
The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.
At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.
oh god not again. This is meaningless. You are basically refusing to accept basic geometry because you cannot shoehorn it in your preconceived view. This is demented, I'm sorry.have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.
The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.
Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
nothing you said is controversial, but unless you can use it to answer the question in the OP is an off topic musingPlease create a thread on round earth tides and discuss about it how much you want
This isn't round Earth. This is the relationship between the moon's influence and the sun's influence. Nothing to do with the Earth except for distance between it and the moon and sun. What am I saying that's controversial in the slightest?
you can calculate yourself, to the precision you deem necessary, what's the angle of incidence of light coming from an object 6000 miles away, and 3000 miles high.
That's the point. ~20° is not a precise measurement at all. Does it change? Is there not a set value? I know what he said. Even 30° was thrown around a few times. That's a 10-degree difference. It's vague regardless. Specificity is highly recommended under such circumstances.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.
Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
can you please draw a diagram with the correct quotes and the path of the light? You keep repeating the same stuff, that has been taken to task a hundred times.
Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
can you please draw a diagram with the flat earth and the positions of this bulge and of the "lag"? Saying opposite of the moon on a flat earth makes really little sense. How come do we have a lag that's higher than the bulge? Why would you have a lag at all?The water is warped away from a particular area (the moons geodesic deviation is at the highest magnitude in the area it is most directly facing), and other water farthest away lags behind, leaving a tidal bulge opposite of the moon. This leaves one tide facing the moon and the other opposite of the moon (two tides, separated almost 12 hours apart).Quote from: AstralSentient link=topic=7111.msg128697#msg128697 and =1508039173Two tides a day are because the water is warped away from a particular part of Earth and other water is left behind, having two high tides.ok, this part has to be explained, as for the rest, you seem to use aether as a substitute for gravity, so no problem there. (Well there are some, I guess, but they can wait)
I used the scarequotes for a reason. There is no standard model, but afaik no one in here has ever presented anything in the neighbourhood of what you are writing. The "celestial gravitation wiki page" is the paragraph I cite in the OP. And it doesn't make anything clear. To call that a word salad is being charitable.QuoteIs the rest of the Flat Earth Society ok with this explanation? I understand that aether isn't part of the "standard model" (lol)What "standard model"? I thought the celestial gravitation wiki page made it clear that multiple with differing explanations may exist.
Aether is just a term for the space-time fabric of the universe (there may be disagreements on how to describe it and it's effects).
What makes you think "no physicist" has never noticed or proposed this?source? I don't think this is as established as you think.
It has been known that 'orbits' are straight line geodesics in curved space-time with General Relativity.
I think you are presuming that since mainstream society and science communicators have been proclaiming the Earth is round, that it is a consensus among scientists that given all the theories they got (including Relativity) have a round earth, and so what I'm saying here must include GR but add in extra things to make it flat (because a flat earth certainly can't agree with modern physics, right?).the aether, the rejection of euclidean geometry, the "Ferrari effect" etc are all things you have to put up on top of the understood model. My "why" question still stands.
A good example is with Heliocentrism,not really. That is a matter of frames of references and it is well understood. If anything, it was a movement in the direction of a simpler model, not the contrary.
so I wasted time answering you in those threads. I'll make a note for the future of first asking if you actually hold the views you are defending...QuoteBtw, weren't you the guy defending tom's magic perspective in another thread, and the infinite plane with gravity in yet another? How many mutually exclusive view are you holding?I find other Flat Earth ideas merely interesting views that may have some merit every now and then, I don't really hold to all these other ideas (maybe a few that I don't find mutually exclusive and supposedly work out).
Two tides a day are because the water is warped away from a particular part of Earth and other water is left behind, having two high tides.ok, this part has to be explained, as for the rest, you seem to use aether as a substitute for gravity, so no problem there. (Well there are some, I guess, but they can wait)
I came on this forum stating that I hold to an alternate view than mainstream FE, so I'll put it here for comments, discussion, etc. like I did in the other forum. [...]Frankly I don't know where to start... there are a lot of things that don't sound right, but it has been too much time since I studied relativity, and the wall of text is hard to parse.
figureswould you mind pointing me to where on the wiki is the correct information? I happen to agree that 3d got that one probably wrong, but I can't blame him. If you spent half of the time you spend whining correcting the wiki with clear and univocal statements, you'd get almost no misrepresentations from people trying to nail jello to the wall.The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2).Please stop spreading lies about us. It's extremely unhelpful, especially when it's been pointed out to you before.
Aha! I knew I'd seen it someplace:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer#Infinite_Earth
would you mind pointing me to where on the wiki is the correct information? I happen to agree that 3d got that one probably wrong, but I can't blame him. If you spent half of the time you spend whining correcting the wiki with clear and univocal statements, you'd get almost no misrepresentations from people trying to nail jello to the wall.The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2).Please stop spreading lies about us. It's extremely unhelpful, especially when it's been pointed out to you before.
Right. The reason I asked is because if the sun is 3,000 miles high, it would need to be over 240,000 miles away to appear a distance above the horizon that even comes close to being equal to the size of the moon (since you provided the specs on the moon, I'll just use that).precisely. I realized later that that 3000 figure wasn't random
We're left with the sun and moon physically getting lower, or perspective causing the light to curve.
);