The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: devils advocate on October 17, 2017, 11:03:29 PM
-
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
-
My views of a bi-polar model may not be the majority, but they are not out of bounds. Both monopole and bi-polar models of the earth are represented in the historic Flat Earth Society Literature.
In fact, if you read the literature, after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's, the Society led by Lady Blount admitted that the monopole model was a mistake and the official Flat Earth model was updated to have two poles. Read their books and journals from around that time period.
The problem seems to be that people tend to stop reading after Earth Not a Globe and tend to see the Bi-Polar model as new and fringe, when it is actually rather old and from the time period when the society was a scientific research organization with a budget (mid 1800's - 1930's).
-
My views of a bi-polar model may not be the majority, but they are not out of bounds. Both monopole and bi-polar models of the earth are represented in the historic Flat Earth Society Literature.
In fact, if you read the literature, after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's, the Society led by Lady Blount admitted that the monopole model was a mistake and the official Flat Earth model was updated to have two poles. Read their books and journals from around that time period.
The problem seems to be that people tend to stop reading after Earth Not a Globe and tend to see the Bi-Polar model as new and fringe, when it is actually rather old and from the time period when the society was a scientific research organization with a budget (mid 1800's - 1930's).
All this while we know the earth is round.
Did you check dateandtime.com?
-
My views of a bi-polar model may not be the majority, but they are not out of bounds. Both monopole and bi-polar models of the earth are represented in the historic Flat Earth Society Literature.
In fact, if you read the literature, after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's, the Society led by Lady Blount admitted that the monopole model was a mistake and the official Flat Earth model was updated to have two poles. Read their books and journals from around that time period.
The problem seems to be that people tend to stop reading after Earth Not a Globe and tend to see the Bi-Polar model as new and fringe, when it is actually rather old and from the time period when the society was a scientific research organization with a budget (mid 1800's - 1930's).
All this while we know the earth is round.
Did you check dateandtime.com?
Yes. We checked their website and even wrote to them and they refused to provide a source for their data or tell us anything about the model they are using, whether it was pattern or geometric-based, citing proprietary data.
-
My views of a bi-polar model may not be the majority, but they are not out of bounds. Both monopole and bi-polar models of the earth are represented in the historic Flat Earth Society Literature.
In fact, if you read the literature, after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's, the Society led by Lady Blount admitted that the monopole model was a mistake and the official Flat Earth model was updated to have two poles. Read their books and journals from around that time period.
The problem seems to be that people tend to stop reading after Earth Not a Globe and tend to see the Bi-Polar model as new and fringe, when it is actually rather old and from the time period when the society was a scientific research organization with a budget (mid 1800's - 1930's).
All this while we know the earth is round.
Did you check dateandtime.com?
Yes. We checked their website and even wrote to them and they refused to provide a source for their data or tell us anything about the model they are using, whether it was pattern or geometric-based, citing proprietary data.
Does it give the right information for your location?
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked. But the sun has made the same patterns across the sky for many years. Why do you think it is impossible to predict that pattern?
-
My views of a bi-polar model may not be the majority, but they are not out of bounds. Both monopole and bi-polar models of the earth are represented in the historic Flat Earth Society Literature.
In fact, if you read the literature, after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's, the Society led by Lady Blount admitted that the monopole model was a mistake and the official Flat Earth model was updated to have two poles. Read their books and journals from around that time period.
The problem seems to be that people tend to stop reading after Earth Not a Globe and tend to see the Bi-Polar model as new and fringe, when it is actually rather old and from the time period when the society was a scientific research organization with a budget (mid 1800's - 1930's).
Thanks for your answer Tom,
I just struggle to get my head around the strength of your belief. You seem so keen on proving things in a controlled experiment when it comes to RE proofs but less so with FE. You lambaste astronomy for observing and making assumptions and then explain the position and motion of the sun on FE, the magic perspective that allows sunsets to occur and when I asked for more detail about the stars we see you direct me to read FE literature, which itself does not contain any controlled experiments that demonstrate the astronomers are wrong about the size, locations of the stars. The only thing that's wrong is that none of it fits with a flat earth which leads me to think earth is round.
Surely between the FE believers, (I see you, Junker, Pete S, Dither and a couple of other MODs who turn up randomly-((not J-man as he is an obvious troll)) you could come up with some consensus and then update the Wiki?? Seems like there is just as much discord within the FE movement as between it and RE. Quote Monty Python: "Brothers let us not fight each other but unite against the common enemy"
You want FE to "fight the globulist heresy in all it's forms" which is noble and the right thing to do if you believe we are all the subjects of a mass conspiracy. If it turns out you're right Tom you will be a legend and I will rename my kids in your honour so please "get your house in order" as it were because if you are right then the world depends on you as you are the most frequent debater here. Chat to the others and come to a consensus. There should be A flat earth position.
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked.
Perfectly timed example Tom! You criticize the scientific method for trying to prove it's own hypothesis and hold your Zetetic method in high regard (which claims to evaluate EVERY POSSIBILITY to thus ensure that the TRUTH is found) and yet here you are offered something that may challenge your hypothesis and you avoid it! Same detail in another thread when they were asking you to do something with a piece of string to check the angles of the moon and you responded something akin to" why would I conduct your experiments?". Not the actions of a real truth seeker I think, more like someone who is exactly trying to prove only their own hypothesis and shying from any test that may challenge it!
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked.
Perfectly timed example Tom! You criticize the scientific method for trying to prove it's own hypothesis and hold your Zetetic method in high regard (which claims to evaluate EVERY POSSIBILITY to thus ensure that the TRUTH is found) and yet here you are offered something that may challenge your hypothesis and you avoid it! Same detail in another thread when they were asking you to do something with a piece of string to check the angles of the moon and you responded something akin to" why would I conduct your experiments?". Not the actions of a real truth seeker I think, more like someone who is exactly trying to prove only their own hypothesis and shying from any test that may challenge it!
He makes a fair point about it potentially being possible to predict sunrise/set times with pattern-based software. Looking at things here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php they don't appear to vary too much for the same day year to year. I have a suspicion a pattern could be there, but have neither the time nor the tools to attempt to find out. I'm not sure the timing of sunrise/set are all that amazing of a proof for RE anyway without conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there. The fact it happens at all is far greater evidence against FE in my opinion. I do hope Tom can find the time to get back to the most recent perspective thread though. I'm so very curious about his reply.
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked. But the sun has made the same patterns across the sky for many years. Why do you think it is impossible to predict that pattern?
Please check. And you agree the angle of the sun it gives is correct.
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked. But the sun has made the same patterns across the sky for many years. Why do you think it is impossible to predict that pattern?
Because the pattern changes depending on your location. If neither you, nor anyone else (it seems) knows the flat earth map - then how could a company like TimeAndDate.com possibly have the time/energy/money to send observers to every city in the world for years at a time, painstakingly measuring the passage of the Sun (and other things they show)?
CLEARLY they didn't do that - so they must have used some kind of mathematical formula...not just observations.
That said, I could perhaps believe that they checked their math by doing spot checks on actual sunrise times in a few places around the world.
But there is no way they could have done this in the way you imagine they might.
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked.
Perfectly timed example Tom! You criticize the scientific method for trying to prove it's own hypothesis and hold your Zetetic method in high regard (which claims to evaluate EVERY POSSIBILITY to thus ensure that the TRUTH is found) and yet here you are offered something that may challenge your hypothesis and you avoid it! Same detail in another thread when they were asking you to do something with a piece of string to check the angles of the moon and you responded something akin to" why would I conduct your experiments?". Not the actions of a real truth seeker I think, more like someone who is exactly trying to prove only their own hypothesis and shying from any test that may challenge it!
He makes a fair point about it potentially being possible to predict sunrise/set times with pattern-based software. Looking at things here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php they don't appear to vary too much for the same day year to year. I have a suspicion a pattern could be there, but have neither the time nor the tools to attempt to find out. I'm not sure the timing of sunrise/set are all that amazing of a proof for RE anyway without conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there. The fact it happens at all is far greater evidence against FE in my opinion. I do hope Tom can find the time to get back to the most recent perspective thread though. I'm so very curious about his reply.
Except I went through the documentation provided by the developer of SOFA and showed that there was zero evidence of this pattern-based stuff Tom made up. In fact, all of the relevant functions I looked at were using trig to calculate positions and times down to the microsecond. But hey, who needs facts on this board when we have Zetetecists and their thorough method? ::)
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked.
Perfectly timed example Tom! You criticize the scientific method for trying to prove it's own hypothesis and hold your Zetetic method in high regard (which claims to evaluate EVERY POSSIBILITY to thus ensure that the TRUTH is found) and yet here you are offered something that may challenge your hypothesis and you avoid it! Same detail in another thread when they were asking you to do something with a piece of string to check the angles of the moon and you responded something akin to" why would I conduct your experiments?". Not the actions of a real truth seeker I think, more like someone who is exactly trying to prove only their own hypothesis and shying from any test that may challenge it!
He makes a fair point about it potentially being possible to predict sunrise/set times with pattern-based software. Looking at things here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php they don't appear to vary too much for the same day year to year. I have a suspicion a pattern could be there, but have neither the time nor the tools to attempt to find out. I'm not sure the timing of sunrise/set are all that amazing of a proof for RE anyway without conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there. The fact it happens at all is far greater evidence against FE in my opinion. I do hope Tom can find the time to get back to the most recent perspective thread though. I'm so very curious about his reply.
Except I went through the documentation provided by the developer of SOFA and showed that there was zero evidence of this pattern-based stuff Tom made up. In fact, all of the relevant functions I looked at were using trig to calculate positions and times down to the microsecond. But hey, who needs facts on this board when we have Zetetecists and their thorough method? ::)
Oh I agree. As I said "...conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere..." It's just the information has relatively small variance, and I suspect it's POSSIBLE there could in fact be a pattern of some form to it. I just don't have the ability to go dredging through years worth of data points to try and see if there is one. That doesn't mean the suggestion that timeanddate.com (which as Tom mentioned DID refuse to give us what they use) could potentially be using it has no merit. Just that we have other sources that clearly show an equation based upon planetary motion and it's answers match all other sources we have that just give that info.
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked.
Perfectly timed example Tom! You criticize the scientific method for trying to prove it's own hypothesis and hold your Zetetic method in high regard (which claims to evaluate EVERY POSSIBILITY to thus ensure that the TRUTH is found) and yet here you are offered something that may challenge your hypothesis and you avoid it! Same detail in another thread when they were asking you to do something with a piece of string to check the angles of the moon and you responded something akin to" why would I conduct your experiments?". Not the actions of a real truth seeker I think, more like someone who is exactly trying to prove only their own hypothesis and shying from any test that may challenge it!
He makes a fair point about it potentially being possible to predict sunrise/set times with pattern-based software. Looking at things here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php they don't appear to vary too much for the same day year to year. I have a suspicion a pattern could be there, but have neither the time nor the tools to attempt to find out. I'm not sure the timing of sunrise/set are all that amazing of a proof for RE anyway without conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there. The fact it happens at all is far greater evidence against FE in my opinion. I do hope Tom can find the time to get back to the most recent perspective thread though. I'm so very curious about his reply.
Except I went through the documentation provided by the developer of SOFA and showed that there was zero evidence of this pattern-based stuff Tom made up. In fact, all of the relevant functions I looked at were using trig to calculate positions and times down to the microsecond. But hey, who needs facts on this board when we have Zetetecists and their thorough method? ::)
Oh I agree. As I said "...conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere..." It's just the information has relatively small variance, and I suspect it's POSSIBLE there could in fact be a pattern of some form to it. I just don't have the ability to go dredging through years worth of data points to try and see if there is one. That doesn't mean the suggestion that timeanddate.com (which as Tom mentioned DID refuse to give us what they use) could potentially be using it has no merit. Just that we have other sources that clearly show an equation based upon planetary motion and it's answers match all other sources we have that just give that info.
I think Tom has just latched onto the fact that TimeAndDate.com refused to give us an answer - and that dumped them into the conspiracy theory bucket so he now likes to talk about their failure to cooperate.
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked.
Perfectly timed example Tom! You criticize the scientific method for trying to prove it's own hypothesis and hold your Zetetic method in high regard (which claims to evaluate EVERY POSSIBILITY to thus ensure that the TRUTH is found) and yet here you are offered something that may challenge your hypothesis and you avoid it! Same detail in another thread when they were asking you to do something with a piece of string to check the angles of the moon and you responded something akin to" why would I conduct your experiments?". Not the actions of a real truth seeker I think, more like someone who is exactly trying to prove only their own hypothesis and shying from any test that may challenge it!
He makes a fair point about it potentially being possible to predict sunrise/set times with pattern-based software. Looking at things here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php they don't appear to vary too much for the same day year to year. I have a suspicion a pattern could be there, but have neither the time nor the tools to attempt to find out. I'm not sure the timing of sunrise/set are all that amazing of a proof for RE anyway without conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there. The fact it happens at all is far greater evidence against FE in my opinion. I do hope Tom can find the time to get back to the most recent perspective thread though. I'm so very curious about his reply.
Except I went through the documentation provided by the developer of SOFA and showed that there was zero evidence of this pattern-based stuff Tom made up. In fact, all of the relevant functions I looked at were using trig to calculate positions and times down to the microsecond. But hey, who needs facts on this board when we have Zetetecists and their thorough method? ::)
Oh I agree. As I said "...conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere..." It's just the information has relatively small variance, and I suspect it's POSSIBLE there could in fact be a pattern of some form to it. I just don't have the ability to go dredging through years worth of data points to try and see if there is one. That doesn't mean the suggestion that timeanddate.com (which as Tom mentioned DID refuse to give us what they use) could potentially be using it has no merit. Just that we have other sources that clearly show an equation based upon planetary motion and it's answers match all other sources we have that just give that info.
Sorry, this wasn't directed at you so much as I was using it as a jumping off point to remind Tom that I already showed him that it wasn't pattern based.
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked.
Perfectly timed example Tom! You criticize the scientific method for trying to prove it's own hypothesis and hold your Zetetic method in high regard (which claims to evaluate EVERY POSSIBILITY to thus ensure that the TRUTH is found) and yet here you are offered something that may challenge your hypothesis and you avoid it! Same detail in another thread when they were asking you to do something with a piece of string to check the angles of the moon and you responded something akin to" why would I conduct your experiments?". Not the actions of a real truth seeker I think, more like someone who is exactly trying to prove only their own hypothesis and shying from any test that may challenge it!
He makes a fair point about it potentially being possible to predict sunrise/set times with pattern-based software. Looking at things here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php they don't appear to vary too much for the same day year to year. I have a suspicion a pattern could be there, but have neither the time nor the tools to attempt to find out. I'm not sure the timing of sunrise/set are all that amazing of a proof for RE anyway without conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there. The fact it happens at all is far greater evidence against FE in my opinion. I do hope Tom can find the time to get back to the most recent perspective thread though. I'm so very curious about his reply.
Except I went through the documentation provided by the developer of SOFA and showed that there was zero evidence of this pattern-based stuff Tom made up. In fact, all of the relevant functions I looked at were using trig to calculate positions and times down to the microsecond. But hey, who needs facts on this board when we have Zetetecists and their thorough method? ::)
Oh I agree. As I said "...conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere..." It's just the information has relatively small variance, and I suspect it's POSSIBLE there could in fact be a pattern of some form to it. I just don't have the ability to go dredging through years worth of data points to try and see if there is one. That doesn't mean the suggestion that timeanddate.com (which as Tom mentioned DID refuse to give us what they use) could potentially be using it has no merit. Just that we have other sources that clearly show an equation based upon planetary motion and it's answers match all other sources we have that just give that info.
Sorry, this wasn't directed at you so much as I was using it as a jumping off point to remind Tom that I already showed him that it wasn't pattern based.
As I recall you were going to look further into the SOFA math and then disappeared from the thread.
-
Does it give the right information for your location?
Maybe it does. I have not really checked.
Perfectly timed example Tom! You criticize the scientific method for trying to prove it's own hypothesis and hold your Zetetic method in high regard (which claims to evaluate EVERY POSSIBILITY to thus ensure that the TRUTH is found) and yet here you are offered something that may challenge your hypothesis and you avoid it! Same detail in another thread when they were asking you to do something with a piece of string to check the angles of the moon and you responded something akin to" why would I conduct your experiments?". Not the actions of a real truth seeker I think, more like someone who is exactly trying to prove only their own hypothesis and shying from any test that may challenge it!
He makes a fair point about it potentially being possible to predict sunrise/set times with pattern-based software. Looking at things here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php they don't appear to vary too much for the same day year to year. I have a suspicion a pattern could be there, but have neither the time nor the tools to attempt to find out. I'm not sure the timing of sunrise/set are all that amazing of a proof for RE anyway without conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there. The fact it happens at all is far greater evidence against FE in my opinion. I do hope Tom can find the time to get back to the most recent perspective thread though. I'm so very curious about his reply.
Except I went through the documentation provided by the developer of SOFA and showed that there was zero evidence of this pattern-based stuff Tom made up. In fact, all of the relevant functions I looked at were using trig to calculate positions and times down to the microsecond. But hey, who needs facts on this board when we have Zetetecists and their thorough method? ::)
Oh I agree. As I said "...conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere..." It's just the information has relatively small variance, and I suspect it's POSSIBLE there could in fact be a pattern of some form to it. I just don't have the ability to go dredging through years worth of data points to try and see if there is one. That doesn't mean the suggestion that timeanddate.com (which as Tom mentioned DID refuse to give us what they use) could potentially be using it has no merit. Just that we have other sources that clearly show an equation based upon planetary motion and it's answers match all other sources we have that just give that info.
Sorry, this wasn't directed at you so much as I was using it as a jumping off point to remind Tom that I already showed him that it wasn't pattern based.
As I recall you were going to look further into the SOFA math and then disappeared from the thread.
Nope, I posted.
-
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
Under the Globe Earth model, the sun doesn't rise nor set. Being as we rotate around the sun the sun would appear to rise and set depending on how far away it is from us. AKA Perception. That same law of perception would also apply to the flat earth model being we perceive things to look the way they due because of how our brain and eyes work. My point is in a flat Earth, the sun rotates around us, meaning the further the sun is from us it would appear smaller and smaller causing it to appear to set. However, it hasn't!
-
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
Under the Globe Earth model, the sun doesn't rise nor set. Being as we rotate around the sun the sun would appear to rise and set depending on how far away it is from us. AKA Perception. That same law of perception would also apply to the flat earth model being we perceive things to look the way they due because of how our brain and eyes work. My point is in a flat Earth, the sun rotates around us, meaning the further the sun is from us it would appear smaller and smaller causing it to appear to set. However, it hasn't!
You have half of that correct - it would appear smaller and smaller as it receded into the distance. This is not what is observed in reality. The size of the sun stays pretty constant due to its size and distance.
-
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
Under the Globe Earth model, the sun doesn't rise nor set. Being as we rotate around the sun the sun would appear to rise and set depending on how far away it is from us. AKA Perception. That same law of perception would also apply to the flat earth model being we perceive things to look the way they due because of how our brain and eyes work. My point is in a flat Earth, the sun rotates around us, meaning the further the sun is from us it would appear smaller and smaller causing it to appear to set. However, it hasn't!
You have half of that correct - it would appear smaller and smaller as it receded into the distance. This is not what is observed in reality. The size of the sun stays pretty constant due to its size and distance.
Have you ever been on a beach, something we have a lot of here in Panama city, Panama , but really seen how the sun looks overhead and how it looks right when it meets the horizon? They are nowhere near the same size and depending on how close you are to it, based on how it rotates (your Earth, or my Sun) it would appear larger or smaller at the Horizon due to the season. The tropic of Cancer and Capricorn dictates the seasons. No matter which model you use. :)
-
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
Under the Globe Earth model, the sun doesn't rise nor set. Being as we rotate around the sun the sun would appear to rise and set depending on how far away it is from us. AKA Perception. That same law of perception would also apply to the flat earth model being we perceive things to look the way they due because of how our brain and eyes work. My point is in a flat Earth, the sun rotates around us, meaning the further the sun is from us it would appear smaller and smaller causing it to appear to set. However, it hasn't!
You have half of that correct - it would appear smaller and smaller as it receded into the distance. This is not what is observed in reality. The size of the sun stays pretty constant due to its size and distance.
Have you ever been on a beach, something we have a lot of here in Panama city, Panama , but really seen how the sun looks overhead and how it looks right when it meets the horizon? They are nowhere near the same size and depending on how close you are to it, based on how it rotates (your Earth, or my Sun) it would appear larger or smaller at the Horizon due to the season. The tropic of Cancer and Capricorn dictates the seasons. No matter which model you use. :)
The sun itself is almost exactly the same size regardless of where it's being see. The light/corona around the sun is what's magnified some by it's setting. Look at it with a proper filter (welding mask rated over 16 or so, or one of those eclipse glasses) and you'll see the actual orb of the sun doesn't change in size. Well it'll change very slightly, but nowhere near the amount the FE distance change would dictate.
-
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
Under the Globe Earth model, the sun doesn't rise nor set. Being as we rotate around the sun the sun would appear to rise and set depending on how far away it is from us. AKA Perception. That same law of perception would also apply to the flat earth model being we perceive things to look the way they due because of how our brain and eyes work. My point is in a flat Earth, the sun rotates around us, meaning the further the sun is from us it would appear smaller and smaller causing it to appear to set. However, it hasn't!
You have half of that correct - it would appear smaller and smaller as it receded into the distance. This is not what is observed in reality. The size of the sun stays pretty constant due to its size and distance.
Have you ever been on a beach, something we have a lot of here in Panama city, Panama , but really seen how the sun looks overhead and how it looks right when it meets the horizon? They are nowhere near the same size and depending on how close you are to it, based on how it rotates (your Earth, or my Sun) it would appear larger or smaller at the Horizon due to the season. The tropic of Cancer and Capricorn dictates the seasons. No matter which model you use. :)
The sun itself is almost exactly the same size regardless of where it's being see. The light/corona around the sun is what's magnified some by it's setting. Look at it with a proper filter (welding mask rated over 16 or so, or one of those eclipse glasses) and you'll see the actual orb of the sun doesn't change in size. Well it'll change very slightly, but nowhere near the amount the FE distance change would dictate.
Would you please point us in the direction of what it is you are talking about? Once again, what you have described is the opposite of what we see day in and day out as we look at the sun. What happens when you focus on a dot? Does it mean that everything else around it has disappeared? Well, perceptive will tell you that it has, but the reality is it hasn't! Flat Earthers believe that the moon and the sun are about the same size. but depending where you are on Earth and the time it is, the Sun will look bigger/smaller than "normal" and noticeably because of preceptive.
-
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
Under the Globe Earth model, the sun doesn't rise nor set. Being as we rotate around the sun the sun would appear to rise and set depending on how far away it is from us. AKA Perception. That same law of perception would also apply to the flat earth model being we perceive things to look the way they due because of how our brain and eyes work. My point is in a flat Earth, the sun rotates around us, meaning the further the sun is from us it would appear smaller and smaller causing it to appear to set. However, it hasn't!
You have half of that correct - it would appear smaller and smaller as it receded into the distance. This is not what is observed in reality. The size of the sun stays pretty constant due to its size and distance.
Have you ever been on a beach, something we have a lot of here in Panama city, Panama , but really seen how the sun looks overhead and how it looks right when it meets the horizon? They are nowhere near the same size and depending on how close you are to it, based on how it rotates (your Earth, or my Sun) it would appear larger or smaller at the Horizon due to the season. The tropic of Cancer and Capricorn dictates the seasons. No matter which model you use. :)
The sun itself is almost exactly the same size regardless of where it's being see. The light/corona around the sun is what's magnified some by it's setting. Look at it with a proper filter (welding mask rated over 16 or so, or one of those eclipse glasses) and you'll see the actual orb of the sun doesn't change in size. Well it'll change very slightly, but nowhere near the amount the FE distance change would dictate.
Would you please point us in the direction of what it is you are talking about? Once again, what you have described is the opposite of what we see day in and day out as we look at the sun. What happens when you focus on a dot? Does it mean that everything else around it has disappeared? Well, perceptive will tell you that it has, but the reality is it hasn't! Flat Earthers believe that the moon and the sun are about the same size. but depending where you are on Earth and the time it is, the Sun will look bigger/smaller than "normal" and noticeably because of preceptive.
What's the opposite? The sun doesn't change in size, so long as you are looking at the actual sun, not relying on the apparent size that is affected by glare and other things. Something further away from you will shrink in size. As the sun should set on a FE, it's getting very far away from you, which means it should be getting a lot smaller. On a RE, the sun isn't noticeably further away from you at sunset/rise than at noon.
Again, you need to be looking at the sun through a filter that allows you to see the sun itself, not just the corona or other artifacts. There's some images floating around from a FE video showing no change in sun size, I'll see if I can dig them up if you like, but a bit of searching should produce them too.
-
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
Under the Globe Earth model, the sun doesn't rise nor set. Being as we rotate around the sun the sun would appear to rise and set depending on how far away it is from us. AKA Perception. That same law of perception would also apply to the flat earth model being we perceive things to look the way they due because of how our brain and eyes work. My point is in a flat Earth, the sun rotates around us, meaning the further the sun is from us it would appear smaller and smaller causing it to appear to set. However, it hasn't!
You have half of that correct - it would appear smaller and smaller as it receded into the distance. This is not what is observed in reality. The size of the sun stays pretty constant due to its size and distance.
Have you ever been on a beach, something we have a lot of here in Panama city, Panama , but really seen how the sun looks overhead and how it looks right when it meets the horizon? They are nowhere near the same size and depending on how close you are to it, based on how it rotates (your Earth, or my Sun) it would appear larger or smaller at the Horizon due to the season. The tropic of Cancer and Capricorn dictates the seasons. No matter which model you use. :)
The sun itself is almost exactly the same size regardless of where it's being see. The light/corona around the sun is what's magnified some by it's setting. Look at it with a proper filter (welding mask rated over 16 or so, or one of those eclipse glasses) and you'll see the actual orb of the sun doesn't change in size. Well it'll change very slightly, but nowhere near the amount the FE distance change would dictate.
Would you please point us in the direction of what it is you are talking about? Once again, what you have described is the opposite of what we see day in and day out as we look at the sun. What happens when you focus on a dot? Does it mean that everything else around it has disappeared? Well, perceptive will tell you that it has, but the reality is it hasn't! Flat Earthers believe that the moon and the sun are about the same size. but depending where you are on Earth and the time it is, the Sun will look bigger/smaller than "normal" and noticeably because of preceptive.
First, you can't see the disc of the sun overheard. It is FAR too bright. As has been mentioned, you need something to filter out the glare. When you do this and observe the sun, it stays almost the exact same size all day. That is because it is very large and very far away. FE theory can't possibly be right because they small sun only a few thousand miles away would substantially smaller as it moved out of sight.
-
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
Under the Globe Earth model, the sun doesn't rise nor set. Being as we rotate around the sun the sun would appear to rise and set depending on how far away it is from us. AKA Perception. That same law of perception would also apply to the flat earth model being we perceive things to look the way they due because of how our brain and eyes work. My point is in a flat Earth, the sun rotates around us, meaning the further the sun is from us it would appear smaller and smaller causing it to appear to set. However, it hasn't!
You have half of that correct - it would appear smaller and smaller as it receded into the distance. This is not what is observed in reality. The size of the sun stays pretty constant due to its size and distance.
Have you ever been on a beach, something we have a lot of here in Panama city, Panama , but really seen how the sun looks overhead and how it looks right when it meets the horizon? They are nowhere near the same size and depending on how close you are to it, based on how it rotates (your Earth, or my Sun) it would appear larger or smaller at the Horizon due to the season. The tropic of Cancer and Capricorn dictates the seasons. No matter which model you use. :)
The sun itself is almost exactly the same size regardless of where it's being see. The light/corona around the sun is what's magnified some by it's setting. Look at it with a proper filter (welding mask rated over 16 or so, or one of those eclipse glasses) and you'll see the actual orb of the sun doesn't change in size. Well it'll change very slightly, but nowhere near the amount the FE distance change would dictate.
Would you please point us in the direction of what it is you are talking about? Once again, what you have described is the opposite of what we see day in and day out as we look at the sun. What happens when you focus on a dot? Does it mean that everything else around it has disappeared? Well, perceptive will tell you that it has, but the reality is it hasn't! Flat Earthers believe that the moon and the sun are about the same size. but depending where you are on Earth and the time it is, the Sun will look bigger/smaller than "normal" and noticeably because of preceptive.
First, you can't see the disc of the sun overheard. It is FAR too bright. As has been mentioned, you need something to filter out the glare. When you do this and observe the sun, it stays almost the exact same size all day. That is because it is very large and very far away. FE theory can't possibly be right because they small sun only a few thousand miles away would substantially smaller as it moved out of sight.
The problem is IDENTICAL to the problem with the moon...but with the advantage that staring at (and measuring) the moon doesn't trash your vision!
In RET terms, the moon is a lot closer than the sun - but it's still far enough away to show very little parallax or other weirdnesses.
In FET terms, the sun and moon are claimed to be about the same size and at about the same distance.
So whatever problem you might have with the sun - you should also have with the moon...and similar explanations should apply to both.
So both sun and moon are within a few percent of being the exact same size all day, every day, all year and for at least the past million or so years. They are the same when vertically overhead as on the horizon.
You can demonstrate this for the sun - either with a #12 welding glass (which cost a couple of bucks on Amazon) - or with one of the couple of million pairs of eclipse glasses that were recently sold and will be collecting dust for quite a while!
Or - you can do it with the moon...which is essentially the same deal.
When the moon is at zenith, it's the exact same size it is when it's on the horizon. The easiest way to convince yourself of this is to go out when there is a full moon - hold a penny at arm's length and line it up next to the moon. You'll soon be convinced that the size doesn't change at all.
This is a BIG problem for Flat-Earthism. The claims are:
1) Magic perspective squashes it to the horizon (but how come it doesn't squash the moon into a flattened oval too?)...and...
2) Big, bright glowy things defy the laws of perspective by remaining the same size, no matter how far away they are. Tom likes to show photos of rows of streetlamps that kinda show this effect - but then stops answering the thread when people point out the explanation for that and the many reasons that this cannot possibly be true.
Neither of these solves the problem...not by a long shot.
-
Why would timeanddate.com need to reply to you about their source of data when there are hundreds of software libraries to calculate sunrise, sunset, phase of moon and other such phenomena?
How could a software library built on RET get right answers all over the globe when there is not a single FET software library to do so, unless RET is a better (I.e. closer to reality) model than FET?
-
Why would timeanddate.com need to reply to you about their source of data when there are hundreds of software libraries to calculate sunrise, sunset, phase of moon and other such phenomena?
How could a software library built on RET get right answers all over the globe when there is not a single FET software library to do so, unless RET is a better (I.e. closer to reality) model than FET?
Ancient Astronomy is based on historical tables and pattern prediction, and so is Modern Astronomy. The same methods persist today. Astronomers do not use the assumption that the earth is a globe for their predictions. Models have been attempted, but are none are in use due to accuracy issues.
-
Why would timeanddate.com need to reply to you about their source of data when there are hundreds of software libraries to calculate sunrise, sunset, phase of moon and other such phenomena?
How could a software library built on RET get right answers all over the globe when there is not a single FET software library to do so, unless RET is a better (I.e. closer to reality) model than FET?
Ancient Astronomy is based on historical tables and pattern prediction, and so is Modern Astronomy. The same methods persist today. Astronomers do not use the assumption that the earth is a globe for their predictions. Models have been attempted, but are none are in use due to accuracy issues.
That is not an accurate statement. Yes, some pattern-based work is done, but there is also software to calculate numerous astronomical conditions.
Anyone with a little comp sci or advanced mathematics under their belt should be able to get through a large chunk of the documentation.
http://www.iausofa.org/background.html (http://www.iausofa.org/background.html)
-
Why would timeanddate.com need to reply to you about their source of data when there are hundreds of software libraries to calculate sunrise, sunset, phase of moon and other such phenomena?
How could a software library built on RET get right answers all over the globe when there is not a single FET software library to do so, unless RET is a better (I.e. closer to reality) model than FET?
Ancient Astronomy is based on historical tables and pattern prediction, and so is Modern Astronomy. The same methods persist today. Astronomers do not use the assumption that the earth is a globe for their predictions. Models have been attempted, but are none are in use due to accuracy issues.
That is not an accurate statement. Yes, some pattern-based work is done, but there is also software to calculate numerous astronomical conditions.
Anyone with a little comp sci or advanced mathematics under their belt should be able to get through a large chunk of the documentation.
http://www.iausofa.org/background.html (http://www.iausofa.org/background.html)
A mere collection of old algorithms that astronomers use.
-
A mere collection of old algorithms that astronomers use.
Translation: "I have no idea how this works"
-
Why would timeanddate.com need to reply to you about their source of data when there are hundreds of software libraries to calculate sunrise, sunset, phase of moon and other such phenomena?
How could a software library built on RET get right answers all over the globe when there is not a single FET software library to do so, unless RET is a better (I.e. closer to reality) model than FET?
Ancient Astronomy is based on historical tables and pattern prediction, and so is Modern Astronomy. The same methods persist today. Astronomers do not use the assumption that the earth is a globe for their predictions. Models have been attempted, but are none are in use due to accuracy issues.
That is not an accurate statement. Yes, some pattern-based work is done, but there is also software to calculate numerous astronomical conditions.
Anyone with a little comp sci or advanced mathematics under their belt should be able to get through a large chunk of the documentation.
http://www.iausofa.org/background.html (http://www.iausofa.org/background.html)
A mere collection of old algorithms that astronomers use.
You have new idea what you're talking about, so you try to dismiss it. In fairness, this is going to be over the heads of most people. I majored in comp sci and can do a fair job of reading their code. The current release is from 4/17 and you can view their change log. They continue to refine their collection of "old" algorithms. You do have a great sense of irony. You attempt to dismiss their algorithms as old and yet you try to pass off much older work as legit. Seriously, what has been done to further FE science in that past 100+ years? (And I don't mean repeats of the already disproved canal experiments)
-
Why would timeanddate.com need to reply to you about their source of data when there are hundreds of software libraries to calculate sunrise, sunset, phase of moon and other such phenomena?
How could a software library built on RET get right answers all over the globe when there is not a single FET software library to do so, unless RET is a better (I.e. closer to reality) model than FET?
Ancient Astronomy is based on historical tables and pattern prediction, and so is Modern Astronomy. The same methods persist today. Astronomers do not use the assumption that the earth is a globe for their predictions. Models have been attempted, but are none are in use due to accuracy issues.
That is not an accurate statement. Yes, some pattern-based work is done, but there is also software to calculate numerous astronomical conditions.
Anyone with a little comp sci or advanced mathematics under their belt should be able to get through a large chunk of the documentation.
http://www.iausofa.org/background.html (http://www.iausofa.org/background.html)
A mere collection of old algorithms that astronomers use.
You have new idea what you're talking about, so you try to dismiss it. In fairness, this is going to be over the heads of most people. I majored in comp sci and can do a fair job of reading their code. The current release is from 4/17 and you can view their change log. They continue to refine their collection of "old" algorithms. You do have a great sense of irony. You attempt to dismiss their algorithms as old and yet you try to pass off much older work as legit. Seriously, what has been done to further FE science in that past 100+ years? (And I don't mean repeats of the already disproved canal experiments)
Yeah - Tom's claim that astronomers use "patterns" and not carefully worked out equations based on theory is complete nonsense. He's clearly never spoken to a professional astronomer! Yes they use equations based on things like the mass of stars and the laws of relativity - and they refine those equations to take into account new facts as they become known.
Tom fondly believes that they've been using patterns to predict the position of the moon (for example) by using an accurate clock and measuring how often it orbits. Yes, they certainly did that - but they can also predict the slow movement of the moon away from earth based on the way that the earth is slowing down in rotation due to tides and transferring that momentum to the moon - they can extrapolate backwards from that to figure out how the moon was formed - then verify that by looking at the rocks brought back by the Apollo missions - and talk with paleontologist who confirm the different day lengths from millions of years ago compared to now. Then they can confirm this slow increase in the Moon's orbit by measuring the time it takes a laser pulse to bounce off of the handful or retro-reflectors left by Apollo and the Russian moon rovers.
His ideas of science are VERY limited - his imagination doesn't extend past the Victorian era level of science.
The modern world can measure things in so many different ways - and compare them - and make sure that they fit into that big picture...and when things DON'T fit - we revise our ideas to refine them and then use that to make MORE predictions.
Sure, science doesn't know everything - but it knows more and more every day.
What we don't know is often fascinating.
If you have a roll of that pressure sensitive adhesive tape - the kind that looks cloudy until you rub on it and it goes clear...take it into a very dark room...wait for your eyes to adapt to the darkness...then slowly peel tape off of the roll. You'll see a mysterious blue glow - right at the point where the tape comes off of the roll! Science doesn't know why that happens! We suspect that it has something to do with quantum theory - but this rather mundane thing is a mystery.
Will it still be a mystery in 10 years? Probably not.