[Humble B]

In November and February from several locations near Marseille, e.g. the city of Allauch, people can watch the sun set behind Canigou peak, a mountain in the Pyrenees about 160 miles in the distance. This video showing this sunset is taken on February 4 2011:

When we use timeanddate.com to look up time and direction of this sunset on 02-04-2011 in Allauch, it will tell us the sun did set at 17:53 and the geographical direction of this sunset was 248° (South is 180° and west is 270°), so the direction in which the sunset is visible is 22° south of west:



If I take a map of France (I used Google earth for this occasion, but every other map of France will do) and I draw a line from Allauch to Canigou peak, we see that timeanddate is correct about the cardinal direction, Canigou peak is indeed located about 22° SW of Allauch:




Now the question is, does this match with a flat earth sun circling horizontally around the North Pole? To answer this question I used the Gleason map (Also referred to in the FES' WIKI, https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps)

The white cross I've put on this map indicates the geographical directions as seen from Allauch, Allauch is in the centre of the cross.
The black arrow indicates the geographical direction the observer has to look to see Canigou peak from Allauch, and of course the direction to see the sun set on 4 Februari.
The red arrow indicates where the sun will be above a flat earth when at 17.53 the sun sets in Allauch.

The map is divided by 24 lines of longitude, so the sun has to move one such line every hour to make a full circle a day. Starting south from Allauch at noon, almost 6 hours later (at sunset) the sun has moved almost 90°



This indicates that if the sun is circling above a flat earth and around the North pole, In Marseille & Allauch the sun will have to set in winter around 3 o'clock in the afternoon (position B) to make a sunset behind Canigou peak possible, or a sunset at 17:53 will happen ± 50° north of that mountain (position C).

How does your FET solve this conflict between observation and the existing FE models to make this sunset a proof for a flat earth? Or with other words, how can a sunset in Allauch "debunk the ball" if on a flat earth such a Mediterranean sunset can never happen?

[Tom Bishop]

Wait. How did you prove that the Monopole map and model is the correct map and model of the Flat Earth?

[stack]

If it's not the correct one, which FE map/model should be used as the correct one?

[Humble B]

Wait. How did you prove that the Monopole map and model is the correct map and model of the Flat Earth?

I'm not a FE'er, so that burden of proof is not on me. I research the flat earth FE'ers are showing me.
But I will be delighted if someone can show me a map of FE that explains the Allauch sunset as well as a winter sunset in California:

[Tom Bishop]

Here is the current Flat Earth model: ?

Here is the Flat Earth annual budget: $0

Feel free to debunk.

[inquisitive]

Here is the current Flat Earth model: ?

Here is the Flat Earth annual budget: $0

Feel free to debunk.

Why do you think the earth is flat aand not any other shape?

[AATW]

Here is the current Flat Earth model: ?

Really? What's all that content in your Wiki then?

Here is the Flat Earth annual budget: $0

That's the same as Bobby's annual scientific budget but he has spent time and money doing experiments.
You call yourself an empiricist and have not.
You were shown several ways of measuring horizon dip, none of them would have cost you any significant money, you declined to do any of them. You have to stop hiding behind the "no annual budget" excuse when you repeatedly refuse to do any experiments which would cost you no more than a few bucks and some time and would help you understand more about reality and help you form a more coherent flat earth model (or reject it entirely, depending on the results of those experiments).

[Pete Svarrior]

but he has spent time and money doing experiments.

That's very unlikely. What makes you think he spent time or money, let alone both?

[Curious Squirrel]

but he has spent time and money doing experiments.

That's very unlikely. What makes you think he spent time or money, let alone both?

I'll give you I can't positively prove he's spent money since he's never posted a receipt or similar, but to claim he's spent zero time conducting experiments?

Sue looks like he's been spending time
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10787.msg167264#msg167264

Doing at least a few different experiments suggested here on the forums
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10056.msg163800#msg163800

Unless you want to claim the images are stock photos or photoshop I suppose?

[Mysfit]

Wait. How did you prove that the Monopole map and model is the correct map and model of the Flat Earth?

This is the map on the wiki for the sun. It has been proven to the satisfaction the Flat Earth Society and has been included in the required reading.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun

[Tom Bishop]

Here is the current Flat Earth model: ?

Here is the Flat Earth annual budget: $0

Feel free to debunk.

Why do you think the earth is flat aand not any other shape?

It might be some other shape, sure? The book is called Earth Not a Globe, not The Earth is Flat. A Flat Earth is the interpretation of the experiments. The concave earth people also take many of the ENAG experiments to interpret a Concave Earth; although in Experiment 2 a Flat Earth is strongly suggested.

Here is the current Flat Earth model: ?

Really? What's all that content in your Wiki then?

It's a few archived points about Earth Not a Globe and content from previous forum posts, and the Wiki well admits that there are many possibilities. If you are looking for a comprehensive world model, you won't find it. All of this is a work in progress with minimal budget.

That's the same as Bobby's annual scientific budget but he has spent time and money doing experiments.

It sounds like Bobby is the leading Flat Earth researcher then, because no one else here is doing experiments, at least not anymore. I have my own busy life.

The point I am making is that YOU are the "Flat Earth Society." YOU are the one who came here with an interest in "Flat Earth." Read the quote in your signature! If you have any complaints about progress, talk to your mirror.

Why are you posting here with complaints that you are not doing enough?

[inquisitive]

Wait. How did you prove that the Monopole map and model is the correct map and model of the Flat Earth?

This is the map on the wiki for the sun. It has been proven to the satisfaction the Flat Earth Society and has been included in the required reading.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun

All measurements show it is not 3000miles above the earth.  Perspective is not involved.

[MCToon]

The point I am making is that YOU are the "Flat Earth Society." YOU are the one who came here with an interest in "Flat Earth." Read the quote in your signature! If you have any complaints about progress, talk to your mirror.

For all our differences, I love this response.  Yes, WE are the Flat Earth Society.  We need not agree on everything, but everyone that posts or even reads here, is the society.  Agreement on the truthiness of the title of the society is not a requirement for membership, participation is it.

Tom, Inquisitive, others, thank you for your involvement, it makes it interesting.

[Mysfit]

Wait. How did you prove that the Monopole map and model is the correct map and model of the Flat Earth?

This is the map on the wiki for the sun. It has been proven to the satisfaction the Flat Earth Society and has been included in the required reading.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun

All measurements show it is not 3000miles above the earth.  Perspective is not involved.

I have started work requesting changes to the wiki. I may leverage Tom saying that we are the flat earth society to get more permissions.

Back on topic, the mountains must be hundreds (thousands?) of miles high. I can’t think of another flat solution.

[AATW]

but he has spent time and money doing experiments.

That's very unlikely. What makes you think he spent time or money, let alone both?

Well. He's posted the results of those experiments so unless he is lying he must have spent time doing them.
And he's shown details of the equipment he made to do those experiments so he must have spent some money on equipment.

Some quotes from him:

I'm just playing around right now. Trying to make a plan before I spend time building a leveling rig and making the hikes.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9492.0

This is just for fun, mainly, so I'm hesitant to go out and spend over $20 on a rectangular glass fish tank just for this. Maybe I can find one at a swap meet or garage sale this weekend for under $10.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9492.60

It's a square wire frame shelving assembly that provides a converging set of orthogonal perspective lines when viewed through its center.
I attached a water leveling tube to the left sight for leveling pitch (forward/backward tilt) and a guide line between two orthogonal lines to serve as a transverse sight. Line that up so that it and the two (left/right) orthogonals make a straight line, and that's your vanishing line, which either will or won't line up with the horizon (as long as the rig is level, 90° to vertical. That's what the water level in the tubing is for.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9492.80

There's more but I can't be bothered going any further in the thread. Are you suggesting he did this all at zero cost and in zero time?
I'm not saying he spent much but that is my exact point, you don't have to spend much or even take that long to do simple experiments.
In my early time here I did some simple experiments to demonstrate things, I used stuff I had lying around so I didn't spend anything and they didn't take me long.
Bobby has gone far further with this than I ever have and he must have spent some money.

My point was and remains, Tom whining about a lack of funding doesn't wash when he can do simple experiments himself and minimal cost and which don't have to take anywhere near as long as Bobby has taken and he refuses to do them. He believes horizon remains at eye level. What experiments has he done to verify this?

[MCToon]

Here is the current Flat Earth model: ?

Here is the Flat Earth annual budget: $0

Feel free to debunk.

Why do you think the earth is flat aand not any other shape?

It might be some other shape, sure? The book is called Earth Not a Globe, not The Earth is Flat. A Flat Earth is the interpretation of the experiments. The concave earth people also take many of the ENAG experiments to interpret a Concave Earth; although in Experiment 2 a Flat Earth is strongly suggested.

While the title of the book contains "not a Globe", the opening page of the book says this:

"Proving it a plane, without axial or orbital motion"

We find other flatness claims throughout the book:

Page 13: "On the contrary, this simple experiment is allsufficient to prove that the surface of the water is parallel to the line-of-sight, and is therefore horizontal, and that the Earth cannot be other than A PLANE !"

Page 20: "...is not a globe, has really no degree of sphericity; but is 'to all intents and purposes' A PLANE !"

Page 23: "When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one centre, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world..."

Page 25: "Having advanced direct and special evidence that the surface of the earth is not convex, but, on the contrary, a vast and irregular plane..."

There are many examples, skipping several.

Page 188: "...because the Earth is a Plane..."

Page 215: "...the Earth is a plane, and motionless..."

Page 221: "...But it has been demonstrated that the Earth is a Plane and motionless, and that from a great eminence every part of its surface could be seen at once..."

EnaG makes it very clear.  Flat is the only allowed shape.

[Tom Bishop]

Here is the current Flat Earth model: ?

Here is the Flat Earth annual budget: $0

Feel free to debunk.

Why do you think the earth is flat aand not any other shape?

It might be some other shape, sure? The book is called Earth Not a Globe, not The Earth is Flat. A Flat Earth is the interpretation of the experiments. The concave earth people also take many of the ENAG experiments to interpret a Concave Earth; although in Experiment 2 a Flat Earth is strongly suggested.

While the title of the book contains "not a Globe", the opening page of the book says this:

"Proving it a plane, without axial or orbital motion"

We find other flatness claims throughout the book:

Page 13: "On the contrary, this simple experiment is allsufficient to prove that the surface of the water is parallel to the line-of-sight, and is therefore horizontal, and that the Earth cannot be other than A PLANE !"

Page 20: "...is not a globe, has really no degree of sphericity; but is 'to all intents and purposes' A PLANE !"

Page 23: "When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one centre, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world..."

Page 25: "Having advanced direct and special evidence that the surface of the earth is not convex, but, on the contrary, a vast and irregular plane..."

There are many examples, skipping several.

Page 188: "...because the Earth is a Plane..."

Page 215: "...the Earth is a plane, and motionless..."

Page 221: "...But it has been demonstrated that the Earth is a Plane and motionless, and that from a great eminence every part of its surface could be seen at once..."

EnaG makes it very clear.  Flat is the only allowed shape.

What part of "a flat earth is the interpretation of the experiments" was not understood?

Others do take Rowbotham's experiments of seeing further than should be possible and interpret them differently. Rowbotham's work also spawned the concave earth movement.

[Bobby Shafto]

What part of "a flat earth is the interpretation of the experiments" was not understood?

That's unusually rude and insulting. Not used to seeing that from you. The book is all about the flat earth interpretation of the experiments. It's not a book about "not a globe" leaving the reader to reach his or her own conclusion. Readers are free to do that, of course, but be honest: that's not the objective of the book nor the interpretation by Rowbotham.

Others do take Rowbotham's experiments of seeing further than should be possible and interpret them differently. Rowbotham's work also spawned the concave earth movement.

Experiments and observational tests showing one can see further than should be possible can also be interpreted as a larger globe than one with a diameter of 3959 miles. Being able to see further than what should be possible on a no-atmosphere globe of said radius isn't enough to interpret as "not a globe." Globe is not pass/fail on the basis of an earth curve calculator.

Concave earth proponents have to cherry pick from EnaG. Not all of his claimed experiments and reasoning supports concavity. EnaG is unequivocally a flat earth treatise. 

And as for the opening question, observing a sunset behind Canigou from that distance doesn't prove the earth is flat (or concave).

[iamcpc]

If it's not the correct one, which FE map/model should be used as the correct one?

Personally I can best relate best to the infinite repeating plane flat earth model. It can corroborate known sun positions, travel times, shipping times, modern cartography etc.

Here's a rough draft of the infinite repeating plane concept:

http://earth3dmap.com/

I'm not a FE'er, so that burden of proof is not on me. I research the flat earth FE'ers are showing me.
But I will be delighted if someone can show me a map of FE that explains the Allauch sunset as well as a winter sunset in California:

Here is a rough draft of an infinite repeating plane flat earth map which can explain past, present, and future sunrises and sunsets all over the world.

http://suncalc.net/

[JCM]

If it's not the correct one, which FE map/model should be used as the correct one?

Personally I can best relate best to the infinite repeating plane flat earth model. It can corroborate known sun positions, travel times, shipping times, modern cartography etc.

Here's a rough draft of the infinite repeating plane concept:

http://earth3dmap.com/


Here is a rough draft of an infinite repeating plane flat earth map which can explain past, present, and future sunrises and sunsets all over the world.

http://suncalc.net/

An infinite plane Earth is unsupportable.  Simply looking at the stars, their paths, and their period of revolution tells us we are not on an infinite plane. 

1. Stars rotate around a north and south centered pole.
2. Stars take slightly less then 24 hours to return to the same position.
3. Stars maintain their distances from each other perfectly during rotation.
4. Star trails as seen by time lapse cameras show stars near equator moving faster then near poles and that angular velocity is perfectly proportional throughout the sky lessening towards the poles maintaining their positions perfectly.
5. Stars rose in the east, set in the west, and take nearly 12hours to rise again in the east.

The above 5 statements of fact are indisputable. This tells us either the stars are a spherical shell around us, rotating around us with poles in the north and south with us in the center OR the stars aren’t moving and the Earth is rotating in slightly less then 24 hours.  In either case, an invite plane of Earth would cut the sky in half which clearly isn’t happening.