If you have ever been south of the Equator, you know that the seasons are reversed: December through January are the hottest months, and have the longest daylight hours. Flat earth theory has a halfway decent explanation for this. The radius of the sun's orbit above the earth increases and decreases with the seasons. During the southern summer months, the sun has a larger orbital radius:Since ;) I always want to do the right thing! ;) I did as i was told and looked up "the Wiki"! The nearest I could find was on sunsets, so
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c8/Flat_Earth_Seasons.svg)
This sort of makes sense for the Northern Hemisphere. But as they say, the devil's in the details. Let's look at two cities during the December Solstice:
New York City: 9 hours 15 minutes of daylight (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/new-york)
Sao Paulo: 13 hours 35 minutes of daylight (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/brazil/sao-paulo)
I plotted the location of the sun at sunrise and sunset for each city on a Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map*:(http://i.imgur.com/r19XSG3.jpg)
Notice the location of the sun at sunset for each city. Why does the sun set later for Sao Paulo than for New York City, even though New York City is much closer to the sun?
As you move farther south of Sao Paulo, the days become longer and longer, and the distance from the sun at sunset and sunrise gets farther and farther! In fact, according to this model, in the extreme southern latitudes, much of the northern hemisphere lies between the sun and the southern hemisphere at sunset, despite it being pitch black in many of those northern locations. How is this possible on a flat earth?
* Yes, I know this isn't an official flat earth map. But since there isn't an official map, I'll use this one since it seems to be the most commonly referenced.
Edit:Accidentally posted early. Give me a few minutes.Ok, all better now.
The Setting of the Sun
Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them. When a plane flies away from an observer, without increasing or decreasing its altitude, it appears to gradually approach the horizon. In a long row of lamps, the second, supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series, will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.
Once the lower part of the Sun meets the horizon line, however, it will intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the sun's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent beyond the resolution of the human eye. The vanishing point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.
Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/7c/Fig71.jpg)However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f8/Fig75.jpg)This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point. Every receding star and celestial body in the night sky likewise disappears after intersecting with the vanishing point.
Now the Wiki states that the sun is 32 miles in diameter, so the vanishing point for the sun should be 32/arctan(1' of arc) = 110,008 miles!
Need I say more? The explanations in the Wiki and in Rowbotham are completely ridiculous.
Aha, Eureka!Now the Wiki states that the sun is 32 miles in diameter, so the vanishing point for the sun should be 32/arctan(1' of arc) = 110,008 miles!
Need I say more? The explanations in the Wiki and in Rowbotham are completely ridiculous.
And that's just for the sun to vanish. For it to appear to touch the horizon, the angle between the sun and the horizon would have to be less than 1' of arc. Assuming the sun is 3000 miles above the earth:
3000/arctan(1' of arc) = 10,000,000 miles away. (horizontally)
Yikes.
Edit: 5 posts, 4 major holes in FE theory! We need some Zetetic researchers on this, stat!
The Setting of the Sun. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .In addition to this modified law of perspective the remaining light of the sun bouncing around in the atmosphere will be lost by the non transparent atmosphere. After the sun sets the sky is still relatively illuminated. It takes a couple hours for the deep blackness of the night to set in. The cause of night is simply due to a non-transparent atmosphere. As the sun recedes its light is dimmed and lost to the increasing number of atoms and molecules which intersect the light rays.
Take note that at sunset the sun is already dimmed by an order of magnitude compared to its intensity overhead at noonday. At sunset it is possible to look directly at the sun without a straining of the eye, while overhead at noon looking directly at the sun can be quite painful. This severe reduction of intensity at sunset is a striking example of how the atmosphere can reduce the intensity of an object with distance.
Over a week, and no responses. Last call for any flat earthers out there, before I add it to the pile of round earth proofs.
Only problem with OP's post is not posting the time of year, you see.
the sun SPEEDS UP on the outer ring to keep appearance of same speed.
But this OP implies it does go 'slower' maybe on the outer ring? If anything that actually PROVES Flat Earth then;
though the reported sunrise direction does sound like checkmate to me.
Nametaken, I'm pretty sure you completely missed the point of my post.
Yes, it would have to speed up to make it around the longer loop in the same 24 hour period. This is yet another problem with the FE model. However, that wasn't the point of my post.
I am fairly sure I did not imply anything of the sort. Even if I did, how on earth would that prove that the earth is flat? I merely plotted the location of the sun during sunrise/sunset for each city, based on the amount of daylight they receive. The goal was to highlight some geometric problems with the flat earth model.
Nametaken, the last time the OP was edited was August 3rd. You missed the date originally. It's your mistake, not TotesNotReptilian's. You should probably apologize too.
tbh I'm arguing a point I don't even agree with here (and failing apparently anyway, so I'll stop)...As for whatever mess I tried to convey above, ??? for that I will sincerely apologize; I am still trying to make heads and tails of it myself (hence the edits).I am quite confused, I'll admit.
This is the first forum I've ever had anyone address me by my username, I've never seen that before but I see it constantly here. Anyone else notice that?How else would we address you? We don't know your real name. When conversations become lively, calling out usernames is a good way for us to be sure the intended recipient of a given comment is understood by all.
I made a few edits to the post for clarity and to fix a few mistakes.You blithely say "Though it looks a little funny for sunset direction on FE model."Nametaken, I'm pretty sure you completely missed the point of my post.
That's what I'm best at. On google Earth, all of your points of sunrise and sunset are mapped concisely. Simply fire it up and navigate to the point of sunrise and spin towards the corresponding town, and you will feel like the sun, just as you have depicted. Interesting trick, about which way the sun rises from.
I caught the fact that you listed December right after I posted. But I had too much fun writing that. I probably do owe a slight apology there, but it sure was fun. That is a nice diagram. Wish I made it myself to be honest, I might have been slightly jealous.Yes, it would have to speed up to make it around the longer loop in the same 24 hour period. This is yet another problem with the FE model. However, that wasn't the point of my post.
It has to move faster to cover more area in the same amount of time, but that still means it spends more time in the sky in December. The only inconsistency I see is with sun rise direction to be honest (FE Model); but it uses shady logic. The sun doesn't actually appear from over another continent, as the image you put will seem to show (illusion). Basic geometry, if I may borrow your image... What these people might see:
Proof I'm not a FE shill I made a mistake: old one I messed up:
http://i.imgur.com/r9OE9bA.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/r9OE9bA.jpg)
Real One:(http://i.imgur.com/Jom6EQp.jpg)
The black lines are what these people in each city should see... not the rising from another continent. The sunrise and sunset are time-based, not location based in the image you provided. Unless like you said I am missing the point entirely. Simple geometry. Although that leaves the issue of sunset direction for the FE model it seems, so my diagram may be incorrect.
As you admit, that scale is incorrect and not official FE Map. So we are both shooting in the dark on that one. In FE model, as I stated above, in winter the sun moves much, much slower in the 'southern hemisphere'. So the daylight cycle is accurate on both model's as far as I can tell; that's not a problem with the FE model, nor the globe. The sun gives the Southern Hemisphere more December love in both models. Though for People in Punta, I imagine the sun seems to move VERY slow considering that margin of window they have.I am fairly sure I did not imply anything of the sort. Even if I did, how on earth would that prove that the earth is flat? I merely plotted the location of the sun during sunrise/sunset for each city, based on the amount of daylight they receive. The goal was to highlight some geometric problems with the flat earth model.
Regardless, the FE model implies that it appears to go 'slower' in southern hemisphere, due to more area to cover. This argument automatically implies that at the outset. It's not an argument otherwise. I should have said 'proof of longer days this time of year favors neither flat earth nor globe model' instead of 'if anything it proves flat earth'. I meant, it's not an argument for or against either model, as both models sufficiently account for it.
Nope! Looks like both models check out. Though it looks a little funny for sunset direction on FE model. The downside of not having a official FE map, maybe? I'm assuming it has to do with sunrise/sunset angles on globe model assuming the lat/long gets smaller on globe, when in fact, they get larger on FE model, meaning a translation is required. I may simply be missing something, I admit.
#TIL
Location | Sunrise Azimuth | FE Sunrise Dir | ||||
Brisbane, Australia | 117°, or 27° South of East | I know this one, I live here! | ||||
São Paulo, Brazil | 115°, or 25° South of East | 23°, or 67° North of East | ||||
Puntas Arenas, Chile | 133°, or 43° South of East | 39°, 51° North of East |
The simple fact that Flat Earther's will not address is the in the south of the Equator at the Summer Equinox the sun rises south of East.
Just a few places:
Location Sunrise Azimuth FE Sunrise Dir Brisbane, Australia 117°, or 27° South of East I know this one, I live here! São Paulo, Brazil 115°, or 25° South of East 23°, or 67° North of East Puntas Arenas, Chile 133°, or 43° South of East 39°, 51° North of EastTo me this is quite a big argument against the FE theory of the sun's movement, and ultimately against the whole FE hypothesis.
As I already stated, the difference here we are all ignoring is the fact that 'degree' doesn't mean anything on the FE!
I know I'm the only one arguing for the FE model. I'm not claiming to be FE'r. I'm just pointing out the misrepresentation of the FE model. Actually, this argument has a better smoking gun against the flat earth, I was thinking about making a topic on myself. It is this; yes the sun works funny in the southern hemisphere. But if the sun works funny... the stars are a bloody circus.
Yes, it would have to speed up to make it around the longer loop in the same 24 hour period. This is yet another problem with the FE model. However, that wasn't the point of my post.
It has to move faster to cover more area in the same amount of time, but that still means it spends more time in the sky in December. The only inconsistency I see is with sun rise direction to be honest (FE Model); but it uses shady logic. The sun doesn't actually appear from over another continent, as the image you put will seem to show (illusion). Basic geometry, if I may borrow your image... What these people might see:
The simple fact that Flat Earther's will not address is the in the south of the Equator at the Summer Equinox the sun rises south of East.
Just a few places:
Location Sunrise Azimuth FE Sunrise Dir Brisbane, Australia 117°, or 27° South of East I know this one, I live here! São Paulo, Brazil 115°, or 25° South of East 23°, or 67° North of East Puntas Arenas, Chile 133°, or 43° South of East 39°, 51° North of EastTo me this is quite a big argument against the FE theory of the sun's movement, and ultimately against the whole FE hypothesis.
Heh. Can't hold a debate without both perspectives is all.
As I already stated, the difference here we are all ignoring is the fact that 'degree' doesn't mean anything on the FE!
FE degrees are different from Globe degrees in Southern Hemisphere due to lattitude/longitude getting longer instead of shorter. That's all. It's a matter of translation. Don't ask me for the translation! I wouldn't know. I don't defend the FE model, only misrepresentations of it. I never went so far as to learn this 'translation'.
(http://www.learner.org/jnorth/images/graphics/mclass/Lat_Long.gif) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20co-ords_zpssfzmbeef.jpg) |
As I already stated, the difference here we are all ignoring is the fact that 'degree' doesn't mean anything on the FE!
Sure it does. A "degree" is just a unit of measurement of angles. In this case, it means the exact same thing on the flat earth as it does on the round earth. Both models have a North. The degree that the sun rises/sets at is measured as an angle from due North. We aren't talking about latitude/longitude degrees.
To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
First of all, there is no need to apologize. I suspect Rama misread your comment.
As I already stated, the difference here we are all ignoring is the fact that 'degree' doesn't mean anything on the FE!
Sure it does. A "degree" is just a unit of measurement of angles. In this case, it means the exact same thing on the flat earth as it does on the round earth. Both models have a North. The degree that the sun rises/sets at is measured as an angle from due North. We aren't talking about latitude/longitude degrees.
Actually we are talking about lat and long degrees. Your degree of latitude = the elevation angle of the sun on the equinox. Even the Wiki agrees:
But we aren't talking about the equinox or the elevation angle of the sun. We are talking about the solstice, and the horizontal direction of sunset/sunriseAh, yes, I went off topic. You are correct. And if I've understood their posts, nametaken agrees with you and me, to wit: the horizontal direction of sunrise/sunset observed in the real world does not match the direction predicted by the FE "solar spiral" model.
First of all, there is no need to apologize. I suspect Rama misread your comment.
I think you still completely missed the point of my post. Yes, the sun is physically over a different continent/ocean when it rises/sets for these cities. The outer yellow circle represents the physical path of the sun over a 24 hour period on December 21. Each spot represents the physical location of the sun when the corresponding city sees a sunrise or sunset.
I haven't the time or inclination (I feel a bit like "death warmed up" at the moment), but I beg to differ on degrees being different on the flat earth map.
I have not been misrepresenting the FE position at all.
As on the Globe, on the flat earth map "parallels" of latitudes are measured north or south of the equator with the North Pole being 90° N and the limit of the "Ice Rim" being 90° S.
The meridians of longitude on the flat earth map are straight lines radiating from the North Pole, with 0° through Greenwich, exactly as on the globe.
The co-ordinates of any point on that map are the same in degrees of latitude and longitude as on the globe. The spacing of latitude lines (close to 111 km per degree) is the same as on the globe, though the spacing of the lines of longitude continually increases from zero at the North Pole to a maximum at the "rim".
On the diagrams, you gave, the shapes of the earth are quite different, but the lat, long of any location is exactly the same numbers on each.
One of the major problems with the FE model is the fact that on a flat surface the angle of elevation to a fixed object in the sky would not be a constant mileage per degree. The further away from zero one travels north or south, the further you should have to travel to get another degree of elevation change to the sun.
And if I've understood their posts, nametaken agrees with you and me, to wit: the horizontal direction of sunrise/sunset observed in the real world does not match the direction predicted by the FE "solar spiral" model.
I am prone to confusion about perspective and actual location/motion on FE model, that is my bad.
Perhaps an illustration will help.One of the major problems with the FE model is the fact that on a flat surface the angle of elevation to a fixed object in the sky would not be a constant mileage per degree. The further away from zero one travels north or south, the further you should have to travel to get another degree of elevation change to the sun.Way above my head. My attempt at pun.
I don't understand the parabolic reflection theory well enough to argue it.Not sure what you are referring to here.
I shouldn't have tried to argue a point I only thought I understood.Naw, you're fine. The more you participate, the more you will understand. I have quite enjoyed doing some of the research I have needed to bolster my belief in the RE side and refute the FE arguments.
The time of sunrising and sunsetting are almost wrong. They are theorical and depends on a calculating on round earth projections. For example in Istanbul sun rising time as official time is usually earlier then the real. Sometimes we are waking up on a time almost night. Because that time announcing as sunrising time and workplaces starting to work a time that earlier then sun rising.A testable claim, that's quite helpful! Please share with us a link to your source, the one providing these incorrect times. I would like to compare them with the projected times provided by the timeanddate.com web site for Istanbul (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/turkey/istanbul), and then I will observe sunrise and sunset in Istanbul via webcam to see how far off these incorrect projected times are from the actual observed events.
So the times you show are completely wrong. So your theory is wrong.
The time of sunrising and sunsetting are almost wrong. They are theorical and depends on a calculating on round earth projections. For example in Istanbul sun rising time as official time is usually earlier then the real. Sometimes we are waking up on a time almost night. Because that time announcing as sunrising time and workplaces starting to work a time that earlier then sun rising.
So the times you show are completely wrong. So your theory is wrong.
I am prone to confusion about perspective and actual location/motion on FE model, that is my bad.
Not your fault; the model takes great liberties with how perspective actually works, which causes confusion for anybody who is used to thinking about perspective the way we are accustomed to.Perhaps an illustration will help.One of the major problems with the FE model is the fact that on a flat surface the angle of elevation to a fixed object in the sky would not be a constant mileage per degree. The further away from zero one travels north or south, the further you should have to travel to get another degree of elevation change to the sun.Way above my head. My attempt at pun.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/c8jBnp7qbfxU1O7nkiZdvCJvr2lDjtG35BmqoYvc8Tn4Sweul0YBQ3Gs1dQP6YX2otoH6Ys7Z8DOjAaCm2fm5o-_aqxxSk412hLernIuI4v65vvjC81TPWrPCXDZXgnT-bOZ1dv0VvuPqfWpjzRyokc0frDeMkTckAuz8Ukhj18I8BdRcm9CxmnP2jb86SnUYyHoaFiLd6Ta71iu0DQszIdcl7i0YthWut4erc_QsNR1VST7y16YnfAjFJ0FYEI1pirHbgXHD3dOE98j0aO9OBQ4QL6lOa2wkEdGqXI3sJGCiy5fnIkJ3DYQ15lRjUVEbVHei3vs23BsvEzmzG4krepQ6L9SEqrppv-cY58XKIHpWFhmyw1-OuDXhw7jPf5T6dh9GXLDU7XTJZE6ZCwh_al8aMNJUx7TAvdXWB6A1lnVc98vKQLH91YAVDiWAkugdlWQzlRmijOXO1KpXwkBjMVefMRRmIfrGMrykYGpzmquO7-PmX0Mm6mONjR6llAJPbSctnD8AolHNEGtM1Nmaq3SRHrQGRP82RhfAeGpBEBRFEdzQy2rUKyA1kY-QsDKCalC_zO94xb-RmXjVZiSEdWibmnpFuGR5WOLjn2KFM344go3=w960-h720-no)
In the picture, let's start with observer B and his view of the sun. He is at the magic 45° mark where his distance to the sub-solar point equals the distance up to the sun from a flat earth. I've used the FE figure of 3000 miles (or as they would say, "about" 3000 miles). 3000 miles over 45° gives 66.7 miles per degree. This figure does not hold true at any other distance, however. Consider Observer A, half the distance to the sub-solar point. His viewing angle is 63.4°, which means that from his spot to the sub-solar point one covers 26.6° of latitude (90 minus 63.4). So for him, the miles per degree is less, quite a bit less in fact, at only 56.3 miles per degree. Looking at Observers C and D, you see the pattern: the further away you go, the larger the miles per degree figure grows.
The FE model attempts to address this problem by proposing an atmospheric optical effect that would refract the sun's light very severely in order to lower its apparent elevation in the sky to a position lower than what I have shown in my figure. This attempt fails to address the left-to-right shift in apparent solar position that would also be required for observation to match the FE model.I don't understand the parabolic reflection theory well enough to argue it.Not sure what you are referring to here.I shouldn't have tried to argue a point I only thought I understood.Naw, you're fine. The more you participate, the more you will understand. I have quite enjoyed doing some of the research I have needed to bolster my belief in the RE side and refute the FE arguments.
That math is inaccurate.No, it's not. What is "inaccurate" is the scale estimates in your favorite visual phenomenon, perspective lines. The demonstration in the video using horizontal slats on a wall, which appear to all come together at a vanishing point? The distance in the axis he calls Z (typical convention is X and Y are horizontal axes and Z is the vertical, but whatever) compared to the distance from the bottom horizontal slat to the top one is a MUCH greater ratio than the corresponding distance to the sun circling above a flat earth. Even at the best case for your scenario, midnight of the December Sostice on Hornos Island (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornos_Island) off South America at 55.9° south with the sun all the way around the disc at 23.3° south, the horizontal distance to the sun (calculated using the wiki-approved 69.5 miles per dgree (http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude) figure) is still only 18,000 miles, or just over six times as far away horizontally as it is high. That's nowhere near enough distance for the claimed perspective effects to be enough, and the numbers are even worse for you at sunrise and sunset.
No, it's not. What is "inaccurate" is the scale estimates in your favorite visual phenomenon, perspective lines. The demonstration in the video using horizontal slats on a wall, which appear to all come together at a vanishing point? The distance in the axis he calls Z (typical convention is X and Y are horizontal axes and Z is the vertical, but whatever) compared to the distance from the bottom horizontal slat to the top one is a MUCH greater ratio than the corresponding distance to the sun circling above a flat earth. Even at the best case for your scenario, midnight of the December Sostice on Hornos Island (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornos_Island) off South America at 55.9° south with the sun all the way around the disc at 23.3° south, the horizontal distance to the sun (calculated using the wiki-approved 69.5 miles per dgree (http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude) figure) is still only 18,000 miles, or just over six times as far away horizontally as it is high. That's nowhere near enough distance for the claimed perspective effects to be enough, and the numbers are even worse for you at sunrise and sunset.
And that's completely aside from the fact that the slats in his photo get obviously much "smaller" as they approach the vanishing point, which the sun does NOT do.
(Edited to correct my math)
If we extend your side view scene into forever the sun will never touch the ground. There is no perspective point where things touch.Yes, that's been our point all along.
This is a proof that the method used is fallacious.No, it's proof that your view of perspective is wrong. All the favorite examples of "parallel lines are seen to touch at the vanishing point" are many multiples of the distance between those parallel lines. Railroad tracks "touch" miles away, or tens of thousands of times the width of the track. Containers on a container ship "touch" far beyond the ship's bow, perhaps even beyond the horizon, which will also be hundreds or maybe thousands of container widths away. That's how perspective works, it takes not merely great distance but great proportional distance.
Well, it's talked about there, but I wouldn't say the round earth position has been adequatly addressed there. But never mind that, if we're going to get into that again it belongs in its own thread; I should not have brought it up here.QuoteAnd that's completely aside from the fact that the slats in his photo get obviously much "smaller" as they approach the vanishing point, which the sun does NOT do.
This is addressed here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
This is addressed here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
The time of sunrising and sunsetting are almost wrong. They are theorical and depends on a calculating on round earth projections. For example in Istanbul sun rising time as official time is usually earlier then the real. Sometimes we are waking up on a time almost night. Because that time announcing as sunrising time and workplaces starting to work a time that earlier then sun rising.
So the times you show are completely wrong. So your theory is wrong.
From another Southern Hemispherite: I would like to know how the mid-summer sun manages to rise well South of East, at 117° here.The time of sunrising and sunsetting are almost wrong. They are theorical and depends on a calculating on round earth projections. For example in Istanbul sun rising time as official time is usually earlier then the real. Sometimes we are waking up on a time almost night. Because that time announcing as sunrising time and workplaces starting to work a time that earlier then sun rising.
So the times you show are completely wrong. So your theory is wrong.
I find many of your responses utter rubbish on these forums. You just say things like "So the times you show are completely wrong.", just like a true flat earther, when you have failed to provide any substantial proof. Have you ever been to the Southern hemisphere? I live there and I can assure you that the sunrise and sunset times are correct. Have you ever watched sport or any other live event in the Southern hemisphere live on TV? For example, day/night cricket matches from Australia or South Africa? You could then confirm when the sun sets. Now you will probably say it is not live, but recorded earlier and the TV station are in on it too! But you can also follow the live scores live on cricinfo on the internet, so the whole internet is in on it also! In fact, everyone in the Southern hemisphere must be in on the conspiracy of day lengths, direct air flights, Antarctica bases, yacht races, etc! Yeah, the earth is flat and outer half of the world can't really exist because it does not make sense with any FE model of daylight hours that can explain it! We need to ship you and Tom BIshop to a base in Antarctica for a year to actually prove 24 hour daylight in December (and Eric Dubay to the ISS indefinitely).
. . . . . . . . .
Any thoughts? I just remember in this thread someone said it was absurd that the sun is on the 'other side' of the world when it rises in Southern Hemisphere, and I had the time to mull it over and chew on it, and it makes sense now to me on a Flat Plane, if the sun is close it would be noticeable and observable in Southern Hemisphere. Tangentially, it would make sense that it is so much colder in AA; which it is. The global record low temperatures are all in the antarctic.
Anyway the shape of FE debates are always ad hoc, so improvised responses can be hard, I guess. Sorry for being so late with this, I had to put a lot of thought into it.
. . . . . . . . .
Any thoughts? I just remember in this thread someone said it was absurd that the sun is on the 'other side' of the world when it rises in Southern Hemisphere, and I had the time to mull it over and chew on it, and it makes sense now to me on a Flat Plane, if the sun is close it would be noticeable and observable in Southern Hemisphere. Tangentially, it would make sense that it is so much colder in AA; which it is. The global record low temperatures are all in the antarctic.
Anyway the shape of FE debates are always ad hoc, so improvised responses can be hard, I guess. Sorry for being so late with this, I had to put a lot of thought into it.
Remember that in mid-summer (21 Dec) McMurdo Station, Antarctica - (@ Lat, long of 77.8419° S, 166.6863° E) has daylight at around 1:50 AM on 21/Dec, with the sun due South,
Invercargill, New Zealand (@ Lat, long of 46.4132° S, 168.3538° E) is in complete darkness at the same time (sunset @ 9:39 PM, sunruse 5:50 AM).
Fits perfectly with the Globe, but please explain how this fits with your "musings".
And I don't suppose observations of those that live here count.. . . . . . . . .
Any thoughts? I just remember in this thread someone said it was absurd that the sun is on the 'other side' of the world when it rises in Southern Hemisphere, and I had the time to mull it over and chew on it, and it makes sense now to me on a Flat Plane, if the sun is close it would be noticeable and observable in Southern Hemisphere. Tangentially, it would make sense that it is so much colder in AA; which it is. The global record low temperatures are all in the antarctic.
Anyway the shape of FE debates are always ad hoc, so improvised responses can be hard, I guess. Sorry for being so late with this, I had to put a lot of thought into it.
Remember that in mid-summer (21 Dec) McMurdo Station, Antarctica - (@ Lat, long of 77.8419° S, 166.6863° E) has daylight at around 1:50 AM on 21/Dec, with the sun due South,
Invercargill, New Zealand (@ Lat, long of 46.4132° S, 168.3538° E) is in complete darkness at the same time (sunset @ 9:39 PM, sunruse 5:50 AM).
Fits perfectly with the Globe, but please explain how this fits with your "musings".
You won't get a reasonable answer to this from FE,'ers. They will just say data is false or prove it.
. . . . . . . . .
Any thoughts? I just remember in this thread someone said it was absurd that the sun is on the 'other side' of the world when it rises in Southern Hemisphere, and I had the time to mull it over and chew on it, and it makes sense now to me on a Flat Plane, if the sun is close it would be noticeable and observable in Southern Hemisphere. Tangentially, it would make sense that it is so much colder in AA; which it is. The global record low temperatures are all in the antarctic.
Anyway the shape of FE debates are always ad hoc, so improvised responses can be hard, I guess. Sorry for being so late with this, I had to put a lot of thought into it.
Remember that in mid-summer (21 Dec) McMurdo Station, Antarctica - (@ Lat, long of 77.8419° S, 166.6863° E) has daylight at around 1:50 AM on 21/Dec, with the sun due South,
Invercargill, New Zealand (@ Lat, long of 46.4132° S, 168.3538° E) is in complete darkness at the same time (sunset @ 9:39 PM, sunruse 5:50 AM).
Fits perfectly with the Globe, but please explain how this fits with your "musings".
Of course, would have to go there to verify. I prefer more warm and humid climates though, so I'll be setting this one aside for now.
Of course, would have to go there to verify. I prefer more warm and humid climates though, so I'll be setting this one aside for now.
There are plenty of warm, humid locations in South America. You don't have to go all the way to Antarctica to observe how the southern hemisphere experience refutes the flat earth model.
Of course, would have to go there to verify. I prefer more warm and humid climates though, so I'll be setting this one aside for now.
There are plenty of warm, humid locations in South America. You don't have to go all the way to Antarctica to observe how the southern hemisphere experience refutes the flat earth model.
I hear the Amazon Rain Forest is slightly warm and humid.
. . . . . . . . .
Any thoughts? I just remember in this thread someone said it was absurd that the sun is on the 'other side' of the world when it rises in Southern Hemisphere, and I had the time to mull it over and chew on it, and it makes sense now to me on a Flat Plane, if the sun is close it would be noticeable and observable in Southern Hemisphere. Tangentially, it would make sense that it is so much colder in AA; which it is. The global record low temperatures are all in the antarctic.
Anyway the shape of FE debates are always ad hoc, so improvised responses can be hard, I guess. Sorry for being so late with this, I had to put a lot of thought into it.
Remember that in mid-summer (21 Dec) McMurdo Station, Antarctica - (@ Lat, long of 77.8419° S, 166.6863° E) has daylight at around 1:50 AM on 21/Dec, with the sun due South,
Invercargill, New Zealand (@ Lat, long of 46.4132° S, 168.3538° E) is in complete darkness at the same time (sunset @ 9:39 PM, sunruse 5:50 AM).
Fits perfectly with the Globe, but please explain how this fits with your "musings".
. . . . . . . . .
Any thoughts? I just remember in this thread someone said it was absurd that the sun is on the 'other side' of the world when it rises in Southern Hemisphere, and I had the time to mull it over and chew on it, and it makes sense now to me on a Flat Plane, if the sun is close it would be noticeable and observable in Southern Hemisphere. Tangentially, it would make sense that it is so much colder in AA; which it is. The global record low temperatures are all in the antarctic.
Anyway the shape of FE debates are always ad hoc, so improvised responses can be hard, I guess. Sorry for being so late with this, I had to put a lot of thought into it.
Remember that in mid-summer (21 Dec) McMurdo Station, Antarctica - (@ Lat, long of 77.8419° S, 166.6863° E) has daylight at around 1:50 AM on 21/Dec, with the sun due South,
Invercargill, New Zealand (@ Lat, long of 46.4132° S, 168.3538° E) is in complete darkness at the same time (sunset @ 9:39 PM, sunruse 5:50 AM).
Fits perfectly with the Globe, but please explain how this fits with your "musings".
Huh, I forgot to mention, this is impossible not only on the Flat Earth but the globe as well.
"Earth's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23°26′13.6″ (or 23.43711°) and decreasing." - wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt).
Maybe my calculations are wrong (I'm using 2 balls as physical representation), but I checked in google earth as well. With a 23 degree tilt, there is no way the sun will ever be viewed as "in the south" much farther south than the tropic of Capricorn. This not only disproves Flat Earth sun mechanics, but Globe as well!
Maybe I'm wrong but this is what I'm seeing; the claim that the sun is viewed due south from Antarctica would require a near-full 90 degree tilt! From the other side looking south, it matches up. McMurdo Station, Antarctica on the other side in December, I assume?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Earth-lighting-summer-solstice_EN.png/1200px-Earth-lighting-summer-solstice_EN.png) Illumination of Earth by Sun at the northern solstice. | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Earth-lighting-winter-solstice_EN.png/1200px-Earth-lighting-winter-solstice_EN.png) Illumination of Earth by Sun at the southern solstice. |
Again, indisputable, so FE silenced! The simple fact is that the Southern Hemisphere is a complete embarrassment to FE'ers! Their model could never work on what is observed from, or distances travelled in, the Southern Hemisphere! I propose a new flat earth map. It is actually 2 maps, one with the current map up to the equator and a second one for the Southern Hemisphere with Antarctica in the center, but they are linked together on the equator by a dimensional rift so that you can travel between the maps via the equator, and sunlight is also able to skip dimensions. Oh crap, someone may take this seriously.
The sun after/before twilight is behind a lot more of earths atmosphere than the stars are, the stars emit different light, and i don't know why I'm having to explain any of this.That doesn't explain how the sun stays the same size as it supposedly moves away, perspective dictates it would get smaller. Nor does it explain how the sun gradually dips below the horizon instead of blending with it. In fact I can't really see what it does explain.
The sun is a convex mirror reflecting starlight along a uniform path - that unique optical property makes it appear the same size at varying distances.