61

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Zig-Zaging Sun

« on: December 29, 2018, 06:47:44 PM »

Download Celestia, which is a 3D planetarium program. Navigate to the higher latitudes and you will find that there is no zig-zagging sun. The sun floats above the horizon around the observer just as expected:

I did. I found a "zig-zagging" sun, just as with the AndrewMarsh app you linked to earlier. 

Allow me to decipher your Celestia screencap and explain:



You had the red line of the sun's ecliptic displayed against a blue equatorial grid and a horizon reference for the earth.

My image takes the same snapshot and adds some elevation above the horizon lines (green) and an apparent path of the sun (white) in reference to that those.

Your snapshot was from a point in time 2 hours after the sun had reached its lowest elevation on that date, as seen from 75° north latitude. At the time of the your picture, the sun is ascending. It was ended its "zig" 2 hours earlier and is now on it's "zag."

Though this is for 2014, look at how the Andrew Marsh calculator depicts that: the sun is "zigging" just prior to reach N where it will reach it's lowest point over the horizon, and then will "zag" as the elevation increases over the next ~12 hours.



Checking this with Stellarium, and it's the same story. I put all 3 grids in (equatorial, azimuthal and ecliptic) so you could see how they are related.



This is what is happening in the opening video you posted. I wouldn't call it "zig zag." More like "undulating" but it's not "smooth." The "zig zag" is a function of latitude. At 75°, it's "zig zags," as illustrated by the resources you brought to the table.

62

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Zig-Zaging Sun

« on: December 29, 2018, 07:44:26 AM »

The closer to 90° (North Pole) latitude, the less the variation.

On that day (June 8th), at 90° latitude, the sun goes around a "smooth" 22°, 51' all the way around.

63

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Zig-Zaging Sun

« on: December 29, 2018, 07:39:58 AM »

13° above the horizon to the North.
22° above the horizon to the West.
33° above the horizon to the South.
22° above the horizon to the East.

"Zig zag"

64

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Zig-Zaging Sun

« on: December 29, 2018, 07:27:35 AM »

You just did.

65

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Zig-Zaging Sun

« on: December 29, 2018, 06:10:09 AM »

This should produce a smoothly rotating sun around the Arctic that never sets.

In contradiction to this expected smoothness, we find videos of the sun from the Arctics which apparently zig-zaggs in the sky:

Why should it be smooth? Substantiate that statement.

"According to RET" it should undulate; the further you are from the pole, the more it will "zig zag." Only at 90° latitude will it be "smooth."  Explain why you think otherwise.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 29, 2018, 12:45:48 AM »

Edby asked the same question in another thread. The perspective answer is here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11694.msg177692#msg177692

Yes. Now we're getting somewhere.

I'm having trouble digesting what P-Brane is saying, but I took a screencap:



This looks like a Mercator projection rather than the AE monopole model. Is that okay?

So that I don't screw it up because I don't understand, can you take that and adjust it to illustrate how the sunlight from the equator the time of a Miami equinox sunrise is reaching a viewer in Miami?  Rather than me botching up the attempt and waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong -- which I know I'll be because I don't even know where to start -- can you just show me how that applies to the scenario of a sunrise occuring due east when the sun is on the equator to the south for a flat earth?


Edit: Heck, I'll give it a shot. Something like this?

[image deleted]

Nope. After watching the full video, that was completely wrong. I don't know how to apply this to the topic. I await your answer.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 29, 2018, 12:05:42 AM »

Bobby, we would first need to show that the premise of this argument is correct before we attempt to explain "how does this work in FET."

I don't understand this.

Does the rise due east on the Spring Equinox when viewed from Miami?

Where on the earth is the sun overhead the earth when that is happening?

Can you answer those two questions?

If so, then diagram for me how on a flat earth the sun at Miami rise is due east.

You presented that scenario. You don't see how it works on a globe? Fine. How does it work on a flat earth?

Even if you don't know where the sun is at Miami's equinox sunrise, just draw for me how due east from Miami goes. Does it go straight east from Miami, perpendicular to the longitude as the latitude bends away to the left and the sun is somewhere along that line? Or does it follow the line of latitude as it curves to the left and the sun is somewhere along that curve? Or something else I'm not thinking of?

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 28, 2018, 05:52:51 PM »

I only now ask for the courtesy of showing me how these observations (May sunrise from the Pyrenees, Feb sunset from south of France, winter soltice sunrise from Punta Arenas, summer solstice sunset from Nenana, AK, or equinox sunrise from Miami) work on a flat earth model.  I might have the same difficulty with that as you are having with the globe. Can we try?

Looking at another topic, it's all too clear that there's a major, fundamental disconnect between flat earth and globe earth advocates. The globe doesn't make sense to some flat earthers and the flat earth doesn't make sense to some globe earthers.

I'm a globie. The globe makes sense to me and matches observation. I can't seem to help Tom (a flat earther) make sense of the globe.
Tom is a flat earther. I assume the flat earth model makes sense to him and matches his observations.
But I, a globe earther, can't make sense of how a flat model matches observations. All I'm asking for is for someone to do for the flat earth what I've tried to do for a globe earth.

I'll pick Tom's example of Miami sunrise at the equinox.  Show me the path from Miami (red dot) to the sun's position directly over the earth at the time it is seen rising in Miami (yellow dot ) on either of these or any other preferred model representation of a flat earth:





When I've tried to show what I think as I understand it, I've been rebuked. So show me how.

If the question itself is making an incorrect assumption, correct it. Don't just tell me it's incorrect. If I have the sun in the wrong place, put it in the right place.

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 28, 2018, 03:54:30 PM »

What you've drawn here is straight on the 2D graphic. But it's not the straight line on a globe.



I made a video to illustrate:



And here's is the Suncalc graphic:



Note that arcing orange line on the superimposed sphere? That's the equator. The yellow line depicts the bearing of sunrise from Miami. But because that orange line is not also a straight line, that means that bearing line will have to follow a great circle arc and become more southerly as it approaches the equator.

If you move the location from Miami south in Suncalc, down to the equator, you'll see that orange line straighten out and become parallel with the rising sun line. That's because from a position on the equator, the path to the sun IS the equator. Only there will a straight line due east stay due east. Any northern or south and the straight line will cross lines of latitude.

With this, I'm done defending the globe. I haven't ignored you, right? I just am at my limit as to how to explain.

I only now ask for the courtesy of showing me how these observations (May sunrise from the Pyrenees, Feb sunset from south of France, winter soltice sunrise from Punta Arenas, summer solstice sunset from Nenana, AK, or equinox sunrise from Miami) work on a flat earth model.  I might have the same difficulty with that as you are having with the globe. Can we try?

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 28, 2018, 03:22:04 PM »

The diagram and path of light you provided above seems very similar to the one I made.

But you're making a key error. I'll explain:

Consider what you guys are saying happens at Equinox, for example. The sun is over the equator, and you tell us that someone in Miami would see the sun rising from directly East. The sun (allegedly) rises directly from the East. Right?

Correct.

Yet, if we used your method of connecting Miami along the surface of the globe, over to where the sun is directly over the equator, the observer would be looking to the South of East.

No. The Miami observer would be facing due East. The path to the sun on the Equator doesn't stay due east on a globe for someone not on the equator. Miami is at a latitude north of the equator, so even though it's a straight path due east at first, that straight line will not follow the eastward line of latitude on a globe. The globe's east line will curve left. To keep seeing east, your vision would have to curve to the left somehow. But light doesn't do that. It stays straight. Thus, on a globe, a straight line will follow a great circle arc, not a constant line of latitude.  So the bearing will gradually shift south the further you go until it reaches the Equator.

Like this:

If this surface of the earth method is accurate, how would you explain the above?

I did exactly what you told us was necessary to get the bearing of the sun. I made a line between Miami and the Equator, to where the sun is most directly over. Yet the rays of the sun are still coming in from the East.

Look at the difference between what you have above and these correct images below and see if you can see the difference.


Both of these depict a straight line on a globe. I just rotated the globe.

In your graphic, your line is not straight. It's straight on a 2D surface, but over a 3D surface of the globe, it would curve. It's the reason that Google Maps projection I showed you above has the actual straight line of a globe looking curved. You can't draw a straight line on a flat map and call it straight on a globe. That's why I suggested using a ball. Or go get a globe and stretch a string from Miami to Gabon and see for yourself. That's how the globe works.

It seems clear, to me, that these would have to be lines that stretch out into space to depict this, not along the surface of a globe. If the above analogy is valid, then it suggests that all of the illustrations of the observer-to-sun paths along the surface of the globe, including the one in the first post of your OP, are in question.

Because you're not grasping what is being explained to you. They're in question because you are trying to apply a flat mindset and technique to a globe. I'm not asking you to believe in a globe. Just pretend for a moment and assume a globe and try to comprehend how a globe works.

This directly answers your question in the OP in regards to bearings and the surface-of-the-earth method of sun bearing that is used.

But it doesn't answer the question about a flat earth. How can the sun appear to rise directly east in Miami if the sun is over Gabon on the Equator?

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 28, 2018, 04:56:09 AM »

I've spent a lot of time explaining to you how it CAN work on a globe. You don't get it. Fine.
Now, explain to me how it can work on a flat earth. I might not get it, but at least try to explain it to me as I've tried to explain the globe to you.

I'm giving up hope that this is ever going to get answered.

The Flat Earth explanation is revealing itself. As the only attempted explanations are done through connecting points on the surface of the earth, rather than geometric RET model of the Sun-Earth system, those same methods tell us that the sun is close over the earth.

I wish the flat earth explanation WAS revealing itself since I can't coax it out of anyone.

How can the sun rise as seen from Punta Arenas appear to rise from the southeast near the time of the southern solstice on a flat earth? That's been no more revealed than the opening question of how the sun seen from Pic du Canigó can appear to rise from the northeast over the Alps in the south of France in May.

My explanations for a globe do not "reveal" a flat earth explanation at all.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 28, 2018, 04:37:59 AM »

Why do you guys keep trying to connect Argentina to some point on the surface of the earth?

You're trying to understand how the sun can appear along a given bearing at sunset/rise, correct? Connecting the location on a globe earth where the sun appears on the horizon with the location on a globe earth where the sun is directly overhead gives you that bearing.



The reason for the sun setting or rising at a horizon on a globe is because the surface slopes away from the location where the sun appears directly overhead.

If it helps, think of that line across the globe between those two points like a shadow formed by two long ropes from each point extending up to the sun. That shadow lies under the two ropes that come together at the sun. At the earth, the ropes are practically parallel because of the distance to the sun is so great. But the angle each forms with the shadow varies from 90° to 0° depending on where on that curved globe surface the rope is attached.  The shadow is the azimuth angle to the sun for the location where the elevation angle is near 0°.

Edit: I realized after I wrote this that maybe you're confusing angles. There are two: azimuth and elevation. So, the bearing line -- the line drawn between these two non-random points -- is the azimuth angle when the elevation angle is near 0° (sunset/sunrise).

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 27, 2018, 11:41:18 PM »

The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth.

I'm still having a problem with the 'over the earth' idea. I think it means, the unique place where the sun is directly overhead. There will be such a place on both flat earth and globe earth. Is that what is meant?

Yes.

Where the sun occupies an observer's zenith.

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 27, 2018, 06:39:46 PM »

I believe that the argument with polar views you are posting, with the line going across the Northern or Southern areas, are implicitly assuming that the earth is flat and that the sun is close to the earth.

That is not implicit. To the contrary. If you are at a high enough latitude and the sun is at a high latitude in the same hemisphere but on the other side of the globe, you'll see it over the pole. On earth, that latitude is marked by the Arctic (and Antarctic) Circle. It's why the sun doesn't set to those above the Artic Circle when the sun is transiting at the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer. Likewise for the Antarctic Circle and the Tropic of Capricorn.

I can see how that could work on a flat bipolar model of earth, although not at the lines of bearing observed.
I can see how that could work on a flat AE model of the earth, but only for northern latitudes. Southern latitudes appear impossible. And again, the bearings are wrong.

At least as I work it out. If I'm doing it wrong, someone - a sincere advocate for a flat earth model preferably -- should step up and show me how to do it right. 6 days of me asking this question...

One can make a line on a globe between Cincinnati and China across the Northern Polar area, but that doesn't mean that the sun can come out of the North Pole.

Why would one randomly make a line between Cincinnati and China over the Northern Pola area? Is the sun over Cincinnati and an observer in China seeing the sun (or vice versa)? 

In fact, one can make a line that goes to the South of Cincinnati, around the Southern Polar area to China, just as straight, but that doesn't mean that the sun is going to come out of the South Pole.

And that's no surprise, because that's just randomly connecting two points.

The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth. That's on endpoint. Then find the location of an observer who is seeing the sun. That's the other endpoint. Now THOSE two points aren't random. The straight line path over the earth (on a globe) is the great circle arc that connects those two points. That will define the angle/direction an observer is facing in order to be seeing that sun.  And, yes, on a globe, you do sometimes have to face north or south to see a sun that's to the west or east according to longitude.

I showed that in my June 28, 2017 Alaska photo.

I can understand how that can be so on a globe. What I'm asking is how was I seeing the sun setting after midnight to the NNW if the earth was flat?

Use your preferred bipolar model. Was the sun's path like this?


Or this?



Or this?




Or something else? I'm not "fabricating" data here. I'm just offering up some options because I frankly don't know how to do it for a flat earth, and despite my repeated requests, no one is showing me. Simply focusing on how it can or can't be done on a globe doesn't answer the question how it can be done on a flat earth. The earth isn't flat by default if you don't get the globe answer. You still need to compose a flat earth answer.

I've spent a lot of time explaining to you how it CAN work on a globe. You don't get it. Fine.
Now, explain to me how it can work on a flat earth. I might not get it, but at least try to explain it to me as I've tried to explain the globe to you.

The geometry of the Sun-Earth system and the angle of the light rays and the earth seem to say that there are limits to how far north and how far south the sun should appear to the observer.]

Yes, there are. You are right about that. You can't just take any two points on a globe, draw a great circle arc line between them and think my globe explanation means the sun at one point will appear along that line to an observer at the other point. I don't know why you think that should be the case given what I've explained.

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 27, 2018, 10:07:02 AM »

The maximum angle the sun can be below East is 23.5 degrees:


East is 90 degrees East of North.

[snip]

90 + 23.5 = 113.5 Degrees East of North. 113.5 Degrees should be the max...

I think I see one source of confusion in this incorrect arithmetic/reasoning.

The 23.5° axial tilt is a seasonal thing. It doesn't change much during the course of a day. It's influence on the sun is to give us seasons, which is a earth-orbiting-sun consequence.

The sun's changing azimuth and elevation on a daily basis is due to a different parameter: earth's rotation and is dependent on latitude on the sphere.

To help visualize how azimuth (bearing) changes during the course of a day, he's a few snaps of a globe earth rotating through a 10-hour period from sunrise. The column on the left is a view from the sun's "bird's eye" view. The column on the right is the side view with the sun off to the right:



At any point during the day, the shortest straight line distance across the sphere is a great circle arc between the sun's zenith point and Punta Arenas. See how it shifts as the earth rotates with the sun staying above the Tropic of Capricorn and how it's direction away from Punta Arenas can be southerly when the sun is overhead Madagascar, but then drift quickly northward as the sun rises and the great circle distance becomes shorter.

There's some of the same concept here as the Moon Terminator Illusion we hashed out a few months ago.

Anyway, maybe that graphic above will help segregate the different influences of axial tilt/sun orbit and earth rotation/bearing drift.

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 27, 2018, 05:36:39 AM »

Since when did you have to travel North to go East?

The point of stack's illustration is that if you start out eastward at that latitude on a globe, going in a straight line will "curve" to the north. To stay on an easterly heading, you'd have to continue to bear to the right.  That's the globe.  I feel like you're trying to make sense of a globe by thinking it should behave like a flat coordinate system.

Can we at least agree that however Suncalc is coming up with its data, it's accurate? I've provided photographic evidence that it's correct for Alaska & sun at Tropic of Cancer, as Suncalc produced.

If we can do that, then let's spend a little time trying to make sense of it on a flat earth. Not being able to understand how it makes sense on a globe doesn't mean it works on a flat earth by default.  Since I initiated this topic, I've been asking for how it can work on a flat earth. Trying to bust the globe doesn't answer that question.  At least I've tried to help you understand the globe. Would you mind taking some time to help me understand how it can work on a flat earth?

I'm not trying to squelch your questioning how it works on a globe earth. I like trying to explain it. But I think it's only fair that you do the same for me. How can the sun be setting so far north from Nenana near the Summer Solstice and so far south from Punta Arenas near the Winter Solstice according to a flat earth model?

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 27, 2018, 05:18:26 AM »

In the meantime, answer me this? Do you deny that the sun IS actually rising on that bearing? Are you saying that Suncalc is wrong?

Here's a comparable situation to Punta Arenas near the Winter Solstice.
This is what SunCalc says was the direction of the setting sun from a spot near Nenana, Alaska a week past the 2017 Summer Solstice, according to SunCalc.



Agreed? Same question ought to be applicable. How can the sun appear to be setting so far north when it is near the Tropic of Cancer (over Saudi Arabia, according to Suncalc).

Nenana is further north (N64+°) than Punta Arenas is south (S53°).

Is SunCalc's data trustworthy?

I'm presenting this scenario because I wasn't in Punta Arenas this morning, but I was passing through Nenana, AK at 12:55AM on 28 June, 2017 and took this photo:



EXIF Data:
Wednesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎28‎, ‎2017 12:55 AM
64.6061861,-149.0889583

That's just past sunset looking toward the NNW when the sun is near the Tropic of Cancer. Suncalc is right.

So back to the question: How is that possible?

On a globe:


On a flat earth:

?

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 27, 2018, 03:10:08 AM »

Why is the sun appearing so far south?

I don't know how else to explain it. Let me think on how else to illustrate it or get the point across.

In the meantime, answer me this? Do you deny that the sun IS actually rising on that bearing? Are you saying that Suncalc is wrong?

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 27, 2018, 12:24:26 AM »

I wanted to see if my estimate using SunCalc of the sun's position at the time of sunrise in Punta Arenas was corroborated by TimeandDate and the NOAA Solar Calculator.

TimeandDate provided me with a sun location of -23.37, 56.35. Check.



NOAA Solar Calculator says the sun was at an elevation of 89.98° over that spot at that time. Check.

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models

« on: December 27, 2018, 12:12:01 AM »

Because that's the direct line of sight on a globe.

Take a globe. Stretch a string from Punta Arenas to that spot on the Tropic of Capricorn just west of Madagascar. That's the path.

We can make straight lines between any two points on that globe. That doesn't mean that the sun can rise out of the North Pole if it is circling the equator.

That's correct. It doesn't mean that. I don't know how to respond to that otherwise. I don't understand how that follows what I'm explaining.

Edit: Maybe the error is "any two points." We're not taking "any two points." We're taking a point where sunrise is being observed and a point on the earth over which the sun is when that sunrise is being observed.