The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: LersmenThe3 on January 07, 2018, 04:34:06 AM
-
Ok, keep in mind that I'm new here and this is my first post. I didn't make this account because I wanted "troll", I only want formal answers and proof to back them. I will not try and start a fight nor will I result to insulting you, I expect the same on your side of the matter also.
My question is about the spotlight sun or the FE sun model in general, and how it isn't visible during the night. I have seen the explanation of this in some other posts saying that it all boils down to perspective and angles, but I would love to hear more explanation of to how this works. All answers are welcome just keep in mind of the things I said at the beginning of the post, I truly am curious about this topic.
-
What's there to explain? The farther away light is according to the inverse square law, the dimmer it becomes. In addition, as you have said, perspective would decrease the size of the Sun and bring it down to a lower perceived altitude. Not to mention that objects in the foreground (mountains, forests, buildings, clouds, fog) would further obscure the Sun, and different atmospheric condition would bend and manipulate sunlight.
-
Pickel B Gravel,
It's not scientifically valid to just say "different atmospheric condition would bend and manipulate sunlight" -- you need to quantify and precisely describe the bending and how it fits in with the FE theory. You can't just dismiss an observation that seemingly contradicts FE theory without explaining precisely why. It turns out that the atmosphere is nowhere close to creating the total internal reflection that would keep the Sun a spotlight. It's just an ad-hoc patch without a good explanation.
Also, the inverse square law does apply, but keep in mind that our eyes can see sunlight reflected off black asphalt. It would take a lot of distance for our eyes to not notice the Sun at all. After all, we can see stars that are many light-years away.
The Sun is also 93 million miles away. Being farther by a few thousand miles won't affect the intensity much. (Of course, you can always deny this fact, but then you run into problems with the Sun being too small and not having enough energy and not being able to conduct nuclear fusion and not enough infrared hitting the poles).
In general, Pickel B Gravel is far from a genius in that she does not understand basic physics (such as Snell's Law for refraction) and can only speak in platitudes and generalities about the physics involved because if you decide to quantify things you find that the Sun will never be a spotlight.
However, I do find some of her beliefs to be patently offensive; it's one thing to be stubborn and ignorant and not believe in evolution, but it's another thing to say the widespread suffering of the Jews in the Nazi era was a made up lie. Imagine coming out of one of the most nightmarish experiences anyone has ever gone through just to be told that your suffering was a fake. It's disgusting how we can treat an event with millions of victims like this.
Pickel B Gravel, I'd gladly enter into any physics competition against you, and probably beat you soundly, and I admit I'm not anywhere near a physics or math expert. It's quite odd that you think you're a genius (probably Dunning-Kruger).
-
What's there to explain? The farther away light is according to the inverse square law, the dimmer it becomes. In addition, as you have said, perspective would decrease the size of the Sun and bring it down to a lower perceived altitude. Not to mention that objects in the foreground (mountains, forests, buildings, clouds, fog) would further obscure the Sun, and different atmospheric condition would bend and manipulate sunlight.
Interesting. So why does the sun not slowly fade in and out during the day? It is admittedly dimmer at sunset as the light travels through more atmosphere and more scatters, hence the different colours, but for most of the day doesn't get dimmer or change size as it (in your model) comes closer to us or moves away.
If the sun is a "ball of fire" then what causes it to be focused so it doesn't shine over the whole plane. This animation has a bit of tailing off but there is no explanation as to why it wouldn't be visible at all across the plane:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif
While we're here, how does it illuminate the moon? If it doesn't shine across the whole earth how can it shine sideways on the moon? Or are you going with the moon giving off its own (cold) light model?
-
What's there to explain? The farther away light is according to the inverse square law, the dimmer it becomes. In addition, as you have said, perspective would decrease the size of the Sun and bring it down to a lower perceived altitude. Not to mention that objects in the foreground (mountains, forests, buildings, clouds, fog) would further obscure the Sun, and different atmospheric condition would bend and manipulate sunlight.
Interesting. So why does the sun not slowly fade in and out during the day? It is admittedly dimmer at sunset as the light travels through more atmosphere and more scatters, hence the different colours, but for most of the day doesn't get dimmer or change size as it (in your model) comes closer to us or moves away.
If the sun is a "ball of fire" then what causes it to be focused so it doesn't shine over the whole plane. This animation has a bit of tailing off but there is no explanation as to why it wouldn't be visible at all across the plane:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif
While we're here, how does it illuminate the moon? If it doesn't shine across the whole earth how can it shine sideways on the moon? Or are you going with the moon giving off its own (cold) light model?
I have a telescope, and I'm going to the beach this summerr so I should be able to test this whole fading theory. I'll post on the debate board when I do so
-
What's there to explain? The farther away light is according to the inverse square law, the dimmer it becomes. In addition, as you have said, perspective would decrease the size of the Sun and bring it down to a lower perceived altitude. Not to mention that objects in the foreground (mountains, forests, buildings, clouds, fog) would further obscure the Sun, and different atmospheric condition would bend and manipulate sunlight.
Ok then, let me ask another question, if I went to an area of earth where the Moon was "Setting" and simultaneously had a friend in an area where the Moon was "Rising", how come we both see the same side of the Moon when according to the FE model the Moon is only a few miles up and very small.
-
Ok then, let me ask another question, if I went to an area of earth where the Moon was "Setting" and simultaneously had a friend in an area where the Moon was "Rising", how come we both see the same side of the Moon when according to the FE model the Moon is only a few miles up and very small.
The moon is actually fairly uniform in appearance, so you are probably just mistakenly thinking you are viewing the same spot.
-
The moon is actually fairly uniform in appearance
It really isn't.
(http://nineplanets.org/images/themoon.jpg)
-
Ok then, let me ask another question, if I went to an area of earth where the Moon was "Setting" and simultaneously had a friend in an area where the Moon was "Rising", how come we both see the same side of the Moon when according to the FE model the Moon is only a few miles up and very small.
The moon is actually fairly uniform in appearance, so you are probably just mistakenly thinking you are viewing the same spot.
You know, we have mapped to the Moon with surprising detail and it would be very easy to spot a difference even if the Moon has a uniform surface on both sides.
-
Pickel B Gravel,
It's not scientifically valid to just say "different atmospheric condition would bend and manipulate sunlight" -- you need to quantify and precisely describe the bending and how it fits in with the FE theory.
What if this portion of the answer you demand is "...still under construction."
You can't just dismiss an observation that seemingly contradicts FE theory without explaining precisely why.
Yes, she can.
It turns out that the atmosphere is nowhere close to creating the total internal reflection that would keep the Sun a spotlight.
All the above writing, with you making demands of Pickle, and...wait for it...
YES!!! POT MEET KETTLE!!!
JackAssery at its finest!!!
Also, the inverse square law does apply, but keep in mind that our eyes can see sunlight reflected off black asphalt. It would take a lot of distance for our eyes to not notice the Sun at all. After all, we can see stars that are many light-years away.
Assuming facts not in evidence.
You have no independent method confirming distance to stars.
The Sun is also 93 million miles away. Being farther by a few thousand miles won't affect the intensity much. (Of course, you can always deny this fact, but then you run into problems with the Sun being too small and not having enough energy and not being able to conduct nuclear fusion and not enough infrared hitting the poles).
The Sun is not 93 million miles away.
There is no such thing as fusion.
In general, Pickel B Gravel is far from a genius in that she does not understand basic physics (such as Snell's Law for refraction) and can only speak in platitudes and generalities about the physics involved because if you decide to quantify things you find that the Sun will never be a spotlight.
In general, I find you to be a jackass (first-class, granted) who claims to have a firm grasp about a lot of things, but in reality is just a:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
dead, brainless parrot, incapable of writing anything but the "party," line.
You could do us all a favor though...
Shorten your posts up so the rest of us poor lot do not need to be bored out of our gourds reading your incessant drivel and soon to be:
However, I do find some of her beliefs to be patently offensive
WHINING!!! Cheese is awaiting you in AR...
it's one thing to be stubborn and ignorant and not believe in evolution, but it's another thing to say the widespread suffering of the Jews in the Nazi era was a made up lie. Imagine coming out of one of the most nightmarish experiences anyone has ever gone through just to be told that your suffering was a fake. It's disgusting how we can treat an event with millions of victims like this.
Pickel B Gravel, I'd gladly enter into any physics competition against you, and probably beat you soundly, and I admit I'm not anywhere near a physics or math expert. It's quite odd that you think you're a genius (probably Dunning-Kruger).
Internet tough guy...
LMFAO!!!
-
What's there to explain? The farther away light is according to the inverse square law, the dimmer it becomes. In addition, as you have said, perspective would decrease the size of the Sun and bring it down to a lower perceived altitude. Not to mention that objects in the foreground (mountains, forests, buildings, clouds, fog) would further obscure the Sun, and different atmospheric condition would bend and manipulate sunlight.
Interesting. So why does the sun not slowly fade in and out during the day? It is admittedly dimmer at sunset as the light travels through more atmosphere and more scatters, hence the different colours, but for most of the day doesn't get dimmer or change size as it (in your model) comes closer to us or moves away.
If the sun is a "ball of fire" then what causes it to be focused so it doesn't shine over the whole plane. This animation has a bit of tailing off but there is no explanation as to why it wouldn't be visible at all across the plane:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif
While we're here, how does it illuminate the moon? If it doesn't shine across the whole earth how can it shine sideways on the moon? Or are you going with the moon giving off its own (cold) light model?
Also, if the sun was hovering above us, would it's speed in the sky not change? The closer an object is to you, the faster it appears to move. So, from sunrise to noon, it should be increasing its speed toward us, and vice-versa for noon to sunset.
-
Also, if the sun was hovering above us, would it's speed in the sky not change? The closer an object is to you, the faster it appears to move. So, from sunrise to noon, it should be increasing its speed toward us, and vice-versa for noon to sunset.
Yeah. And it keeps changing orbit to a tighter circle and a bigger one, it must keep changing speed when it does so otherwise the 24 day cycle would vary throughout the year.
I believe the FE idea is it keeps changing heights too which causes the phases of the moon, or maybe it's the moon which changes height, maybe both.
And, of course, what keeps it up in the sky at all? Why doesn't it just fall on us?
Asked all these questions in another thread, there has been no flat earth response.
-
Interesting. So why does the sun not slowly fade in and out during the day?
Why would it?
It is admittedly dimmer at sunset as the light travels through more atmosphere and more scatters, hence the different colours, but for most of the day doesn't get dimmer or change size as it (in your model) comes closer to us or moves away.
Correct.
If the sun is a "ball of fire" then what causes it to be focused so it doesn't shine over the whole plane.
It is not a ball of fire.
There can be no doubt it is hot like a fire and the closer to the Sun you get, the higher the temperature, but that does not make it a ball of fire.
This animation has a bit of tailing off but there is no explanation as to why it wouldn't be visible at all across the plane:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif
I believe this gif would be more accurate if it traced the outline of the sun on the AEP as found at timeanddate.com
While we're here, how does it illuminate the moon? If it doesn't shine across the whole earth how can it shine sideways on the moon? Or are you going with the moon giving off its own (cold) light model?
I believe the moon to be self-illuminating.
Also, if the sun was hovering above us, would it's speed in the sky not change? The closer an object is to you, the faster it appears to move. So, from sunrise to noon, it should be increasing its speed toward us, and vice-versa for noon to sunset.
What type of experience do you have with objects that are approximately 32 miles in size and 5000km away.
What types of observations have you made of the rest of these objects?
Tell us all, what is the exact composition the atmosphere at any given point, at any given time.
Tell us all, how many dimensions are there? I mean, be exact!
Are there any theoretical physicists currently exploring multi-dimensional models of the universe or the cosmos?
If so, could some of those studies be translated to more localized observations?
-
I believe the moon to be self-illuminating.
By what mechanism? What about the phases/eclipses?
The best way to prove to yourself that the moon is not self-illuminated is through a telescope. You can see that it is illuminated from an angle due to the shadows that are cast.
-
Interesting. So why does the sun not slowly fade in and out during the day?
Why would it?
It is admittedly dimmer at sunset as the light travels through more atmosphere and more scatters, hence the different colours, but for most of the day doesn't get dimmer or change size as it (in your model) comes closer to us or moves away.
Correct.
If the sun is a "ball of fire" then what causes it to be focused so it doesn't shine over the whole plane.
It is not a ball of fire.
There can be no doubt it is hot like a fire and the closer to the Sun you get, the higher the temperature, but that does not make it a ball of fire.
This animation has a bit of tailing off but there is no explanation as to why it wouldn't be visible at all across the plane:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif
I believe this gif would be more accurate if it traced the outline of the sun on the AEP as found at timeanddate.com
While we're here, how does it illuminate the moon? If it doesn't shine across the whole earth how can it shine sideways on the moon? Or are you going with the moon giving off its own (cold) light model?
I believe the moon to be self-illuminating.
Also, if the sun was hovering above us, would it's speed in the sky not change? The closer an object is to you, the faster it appears to move. So, from sunrise to noon, it should be increasing its speed toward us, and vice-versa for noon to sunset.
What type of experience do you have with objects that are approximately 32 miles in size and 5000km away.
What types of observations have you made of the rest of these objects?
Tell us all, what is the exact composition the atmosphere at any given point, at any given time.
Tell us all, how many dimensions are there? I mean, be exact!
Are there any theoretical physicists currently exploring multi-dimensional models of the universe or the cosmos?
If so, could some of those studies be translated to more localized observations?
Except for the last quote, I did not say any of those. Would you mind fixing the attribution for the quotes??
As to your last paragraph, I have experience with parallax and the movement of objects in a 3-dimensional world. Everyone does. An object will move faster when getting closer to you. The distance between you and the sun during sunrise, according to the FE model, is far longer than when it's above you. This great change would cause a change in speed. Here's a sim of what it would look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg) See how the sun's speed in the sky changes? This doesn't happen in real life.
what types of observations have you made of the rest of these objects
have you not ever observed this? Anyone can drive in a car and watch cars driving the other direction speed toward you. They move at a crawl, until they're right by you, and quickly pass.
Tell us all, what is the exact composition of the atmosphere at any given point, at any given time
About 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .9% argon, and .1% trace gasses.
Tell us all, how many dimensions are there? I mean, be exact!
4. 3 are physical dimensions, 1 is time.
Are there any theoretical physicists currently exploring multi-dimensional models of the universe or the cosmos?
String theorists are
If so, could some of those studies be translated to more localized observations?
No idea, I don't study string theory.
-
Interesting. So why does the sun not slowly fade in and out during the day?
Why would it?
It is admittedly dimmer at sunset as the light travels through more atmosphere and more scatters, hence the different colours, but for most of the day doesn't get dimmer or change size as it (in your model) comes closer to us or moves away.
Correct.
If the sun is a "ball of fire" then what causes it to be focused so it doesn't shine over the whole plane.
It is not a ball of fire.
There can be no doubt it is hot like a fire and the closer to the Sun you get, the higher the temperature, but that does not make it a ball of fire.
This animation has a bit of tailing off but there is no explanation as to why it wouldn't be visible at all across the plane:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif
I believe this gif would be more accurate if it traced the outline of the sun on the AEP as found at timeanddate.com
While we're here, how does it illuminate the moon? If it doesn't shine across the whole earth how can it shine sideways on the moon? Or are you going with the moon giving off its own (cold) light model?
I believe the moon to be self-illuminating.
Also, if the sun was hovering above us, would it's speed in the sky not change? The closer an object is to you, the faster it appears to move. So, from sunrise to noon, it should be increasing its speed toward us, and vice-versa for noon to sunset.
What type of experience do you have with objects that are approximately 32 miles in size and 5000km away.
What types of observations have you made of the rest of these objects?
Tell us all, what is the exact composition the atmosphere at any given point, at any given time.
Tell us all, how many dimensions are there? I mean, be exact!
Are there any theoretical physicists currently exploring multi-dimensional models of the universe or the cosmos?
If so, could some of those studies be translated to more localized observations?
Except for the last quote, I did not say any of those. Would you mind fixing the attribution for the quotes??
Sorry, fixed it I think.
As to your last paragraph, I have experience with parallax and the movement of objects in a 3-dimensional world. Everyone does. An object will move faster when getting closer to you. The distance between you and the sun during sunrise, according to the FE model, is far longer than when it's above you. This great change would cause a change in speed. Here's a sim of what it would look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg) See how the sun's speed in the sky changes? This doesn't happen in real life.
Some joker on the internet is going to present a model of the flat earth, yet admittedly does not believe in the flat earth?
How does that work exactly?
How do you, a denialist, present a model of something you deny exists to begin with?
I do not think that is possible, without extreme bias for one, and I totally reject that depiction.
have you not ever observed this? Anyone can drive in a car and watch cars driving the other direction speed toward you. They move at a crawl, until they're right by you, and quickly pass.
Are any of those objects overhead or 32 miles across or 5000 km away? I have watched jets overhead and calculated their movement. Seems pretty constant from time of first appearance to time of disappearance.
About 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .9% argon, and .1% trace gasses.
And soot, foreign particles, total water vapor, etc., etc...?
4. 3 are physical dimensions, 1 is time.
And that is all that you can be sure of?
How expansive is time?
String theorists are
Okay, it is an open subject with possible application to FE.
No idea, I don't study string theory.
See above answer...
-
Interesting. So why does the sun not slowly fade in and out during the day?
Why would it?
It is admittedly dimmer at sunset as the light travels through more atmosphere and more scatters, hence the different colours, but for most of the day doesn't get dimmer or change size as it (in your model) comes closer to us or moves away.
Correct.
If the sun is a "ball of fire" then what causes it to be focused so it doesn't shine over the whole plane.
It is not a ball of fire.
There can be no doubt it is hot like a fire and the closer to the Sun you get, the higher the temperature, but that does not make it a ball of fire.
This animation has a bit of tailing off but there is no explanation as to why it wouldn't be visible at all across the plane:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif
I believe this gif would be more accurate if it traced the outline of the sun on the AEP as found at timeanddate.com
While we're here, how does it illuminate the moon? If it doesn't shine across the whole earth how can it shine sideways on the moon? Or are you going with the moon giving off its own (cold) light model?
I believe the moon to be self-illuminating.
Also, if the sun was hovering above us, would it's speed in the sky not change? The closer an object is to you, the faster it appears to move. So, from sunrise to noon, it should be increasing its speed toward us, and vice-versa for noon to sunset.
What type of experience do you have with objects that are approximately 32 miles in size and 5000km away.
What types of observations have you made of the rest of these objects?
Tell us all, what is the exact composition the atmosphere at any given point, at any given time.
Tell us all, how many dimensions are there? I mean, be exact!
Are there any theoretical physicists currently exploring multi-dimensional models of the universe or the cosmos?
If so, could some of those studies be translated to more localized observations?
Except for the last quote, I did not say any of those. Would you mind fixing the attribution for the quotes??
Sorry, fixed it I think.
As to your last paragraph, I have experience with parallax and the movement of objects in a 3-dimensional world. Everyone does. An object will move faster when getting closer to you. The distance between you and the sun during sunrise, according to the FE model, is far longer than when it's above you. This great change would cause a change in speed. Here's a sim of what it would look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg) See how the sun's speed in the sky changes? This doesn't happen in real life.
Some joker on the internet is going to present a model of the flat earth, yet admittedly does not believe in the flat earth?
How does that work exactly?
How do you, a denialist, present a model of something you deny exists to begin with?
I do not think that is possible, without extreme bias for one, and I totally reject that depiction.
have you not ever observed this? Anyone can drive in a car and watch cars driving the other direction speed toward you. They move at a crawl, until they're right by you, and quickly pass.
Are any of those objects overhead or 32 miles across or 5000 km away? I have watched jets overhead and calculated their movement. Seems pretty constant from time of first appearance to time of disappearance.
About 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .9% argon, and .1% trace gasses.
And soot, foreign particles, total water vapor, etc., etc...?
4. 3 are physical dimensions, 1 is time.
And that is all that you can be sure of?
How expansive is time?
String theorists are
Okay, it is an open subject with possible application to FE.
No idea, I don't study string theory.
See above answer...
He bases the model off of the accounts he takes from FEs online. Simple. He either went to this wiki, or asked around, and proceeded to make a model based on what he got as answers. It's not that hard. Why don't you make a sim, then, if apparently those who don't believe in FE can't make accurate FE models?
You present a model you deny exists because you can? I see no problem with this. Who cares if I, or OP, doesn't believe in FE. What does that have to do with anything? Can OP still not make a sim? Just because he doesn't agree, doesn't mean he doesn't know the basic claims. It's not bias unless you make it yourself, and you agree with that side. If you made a sim, then it'd be bias.
I've also seen jets fly above. They really do change speed. It's gradual, but noticeable. You said you've made calculations. Would you mind posting them here?
As for soot, water vapor, etc, no. Those are small. Water vapor makes about .25% of the atmosphere, on average, but can be as much as 5% in hotter climates. At the very least, it constitutes .001%.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
For foreign particles, which would probably be better classified as aerosols, there is no number I could find, but it is likely very low, otherwise it'd be too harmful to breathe in even the "cleanest" air. May I ask though, why are these important for any of this?
Onto dimensions. Yes, those are the dimensions we can directly observe. Do you have evidence of more? We know we live in a physical world of 3 dimensions, and an observable of 4. Time is expansive. How far exactly? Well, we're not sure. Our best calculations and estimates from our observations put the age of the Universe at 13.9 billion years old. But, it's possible time existed before that, or it's always existed. We just don't know. Again, why does this matter?
In what way does string theory apply to FE?
-
He bases the model off of the accounts he takes from FEs online. Simple. He either went to this wiki, or asked around, and proceeded to make a model based on what he got as answers. It's not that hard.
How do you know?
Why don't you make a sim, then, if apparently those who don't believe in FE can't make accurate FE models?
I do not see a need to do so at this point, except in reference to the way the Sun shines on the AEP.
You present a model you deny exists because you can? I see no problem with this. Who cares if I, or OP, doesn't believe in FE. What does that have to do with anything? Can OP still not make a sim? Just because he doesn't agree, doesn't mean he doesn't know the basic claims. It's not bias unless you make it yourself, and you agree with that side. If you made a sim, then it'd be bias.
Thanks for admitting it is biased and not likely an accurate representation.
I've also seen jets fly above. They really do change speed. It's gradual, but noticeable. You said you've made calculations. Would you mind posting them here?
A jet flying at 300 mph is flying at 300 mph.
I do not know where you live but I live near Ohare and Midway in Chicago. From the time a plane first appears in the East till the time it disappears in the West (I happen to live directly under the approach corridor) the planes' perceived speed happens to remain relatively consistent in the sky.
I was using a calculator and a watch, taking notes. Did not save any of them.
And again, what type of experience do you have observing objects in the sky that are 32 miles across and 5000 km in altitude?
As for soot, water vapor, etc, no. Those are small. Water vapor makes about .25% of the atmosphere, on average, but can be as much as 5% in hotter climates. At the very least, it constitutes .001%.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
For foreign particles, which would probably be better classified as aerosols, there is no number I could find, but it is likely very low, otherwise it'd be too harmful to breathe in even the "cleanest" air. May I ask though, why are these important for any of this?
What effect would the presence of these in the atmoplane have on observations?
Could they provide distortion of any sort?
Especially the water?
You are going to sit here and type out the words, "As for soot, water vapor, etc, no."
Sorry, but you are so wrong it is ridiculous.
Onto dimensions. Yes, those are the dimensions we can directly observe. Do you have evidence of more? We know we live in a physical world of 3 dimensions, and an observable of 4. Time is expansive. How far exactly? Well, we're not sure. Our best calculations and estimates from our observations put the age of the Universe at 13.9 billion years old. But, it's possible time existed before that, or it's always existed. We just don't know. Again, why does this matter?
In what way does string theory apply to FE?
I don't know why it matters. It could matter though...
If the dimensions are found to be real.
The point is these subjects (potential) are considered worthwhile fields of inquiry that could be impacting the current discussion.
-
You don't need to believe in a certain model to simulate it.
He gives the parameters he put into his simulation at the start of the video, it seems to be based on some of the things I've read on here
If flat earthers are serious about developing a flat earth model that actually works then they should be engaging with this sort of thing.
I still haven't heard an explanation of how the sun's light is focused so that we can't see it across the whole plane.
-
He bases the model off of the accounts he takes from FEs online. Simple. He either went to this wiki, or asked around, and proceeded to make a model based on what he got as answers. It's not that hard.
How do you know?
Why don't you make a sim, then, if apparently those who don't believe in FE can't make accurate FE models?
I do not see a need to do so at this point, except in reference to the way the Sun shines on the AEP.
You present a model you deny exists because you can? I see no problem with this. Who cares if I, or OP, doesn't believe in FE. What does that have to do with anything? Can OP still not make a sim? Just because he doesn't agree, doesn't mean he doesn't know the basic claims. It's not bias unless you make it yourself, and you agree with that side. If you made a sim, then it'd be bias.
Thanks for admitting it is biased and not likely an accurate representation.
I've also seen jets fly above. They really do change speed. It's gradual, but noticeable. You said you've made calculations. Would you mind posting them here?
A jet flying at 300 mph is flying at 300 mph.
I do not know where you live but I live near Ohare and Midway in Chicago. From the time a plane first appears in the East till the time it disappears in the West (I happen to live directly under the approach corridor) the planes' perceived speed happens to remain relatively consistent in the sky.
I was using a calculator and a watch, taking notes. Did not save any of them.
And again, what type of experience do you have observing objects in the sky that are 32 miles across and 5000 km in altitude?
As for soot, water vapor, etc, no. Those are small. Water vapor makes about .25% of the atmosphere, on average, but can be as much as 5% in hotter climates. At the very least, it constitutes .001%.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
For foreign particles, which would probably be better classified as aerosols, there is no number I could find, but it is likely very low, otherwise it'd be too harmful to breathe in even the "cleanest" air. May I ask though, why are these important for any of this?
What effect would the presence of these in the atmoplane have on observations?
Could they provide distortion of any sort?
Especially the water?
You are going to sit here and type out the words, "As for soot, water vapor, etc, no."
Sorry, but you are so wrong it is ridiculous.
Onto dimensions. Yes, those are the dimensions we can directly observe. Do you have evidence of more? We know we live in a physical world of 3 dimensions, and an observable of 4. Time is expansive. How far exactly? Well, we're not sure. Our best calculations and estimates from our observations put the age of the Universe at 13.9 billion years old. But, it's possible time existed before that, or it's always existed. We just don't know. Again, why does this matter?
In what way does string theory apply to FE?
I don't know why it matters. It could matter though...
If the dimensions are found to be real.
The point is these subjects (potential) are considered worthwhile fields of inquiry that could be impacting the current discussion.
1. I know because it says so in the first second of the video. He lists the metrics. Earth diameter: 25K miles. Sun/Moon diameter: 32 miles. Sun/Moon distance: 3K miles. Dome 100 miles above sun/moon. All of these numbers, which are used in the video, are stated on the wiki at wiki.tfes.org.
2. Then, if you don't see a need to make your own sim, I don't believe you have the right to criticize a RE for making a sim. The RE at least did something.
3. I never said it was biased. I never said it was inaccurate. He bases his metrics literally on what is in your wiki. It can't be inaccurate. Explain your reasoning.
4. I live west of Philly. I have about 60+ planes fly overhead every day. I actually just watched one fly overhead 15 minutes ago. I don't know if you're looking at something else, but the plane I watched did gradually increase its speed in the sky as it came toward me, and then slowed as it went away. Perspective isn't selective. You said you had a calculator and watch. For what? Those wouldn't help to measure the speed of the plane. The plane is likely maintaining a constant speed in the sky. We don't need to measure that. What you do measure is its apparent location in the sky, and how its angle in the sky changes over time. Take a sextant, or some other device to measure the angle of the plane. Use the watch and measure the plane's position in equal intervals, about 3-5 seconds, I'd say. You will notice the biggest change in angle when the plane is closest to you.
There are no experiments where we can measure a 32-mile object 3000 miles away, but we can do similar experiments scaled down. Take a 32-inch object 3000 inches away (250 feet), and try the experiment. Or a 32-centimeter object 3000 cm away (98 feet). It doesn't matter. Like I said, perspective isn't selective. Watch the simulation again. Those metrics are correct. You will see a change in the apparent speed of the sun as it hovers overhead.
5. The only thing that could distort the presence of objects in the atmosphere is water vapor. Particles would just act as barriers, and the composition of the atmosphere doesn't change. Water vapor, though, does, but the distortion of the atmosphere is minimal. I don't understand your ad-hominem attacks though. You say I am "so wrong it's ridiculous," yet you haven't demonstrated how, because I'm not wrong. How am I wrong? Am I wrong about water vapor providing some changes to the atmosphere? Am i wrong about the composition of the atmosphere? Am i wrong about how a moving object will appear to be moving the quickest when it is nearest to you? Oh wait, no. I am not wrong about any of that.
6. I never claimed those dimensions to be real. It's possible that they are real. It's possible they're not. Who knows? I don't. We know time to be real. We know the 3 physical dimensions to be real. I don't understand the tangent argument you're trying to make. In what way does the amount of dimensions relate to the apparent speed of the sun? I don't think it does. I think you're trying to curve the argument away from the main focus so that you can "trap" me.
In conclusion, you're making some bad arguments. For starters, you keep asking if I've ever observed a 32-mile object 3000 miles (5000 km) in the sky. No, I haven't, but that isn't the point. I don't want to straw man, but it seems to me that you're trying to claim that an object like that might not appear to change is apparent speed. That is blatantly wrong. Every object will change its apparent speed if its distance to the observer changes. That is perspective. It's impossible to avoid unless the actual speed of the object changes. The sun will change its apparent speed in the sky if it hovers above us at 3000 miles and moves around above once daily. There's no exceptions.
Second, you claim I'm wrong about something with the composition of the atmosphere. I'm not wrong. You claims aren't based in anything. What am I wrong about?
Finally, it seems to me that you're trying to change the argument to a side that you might be able to win in, but not because I don't know what I am talking about, but simply because the amount of human knowledge in that subject is limited, and claims during an argument about that subject would be entirely hypothetical.
-
1. I know because it says so in the first second of the video. He lists the metrics. Earth diameter: 25K miles. Sun/Moon diameter: 32 miles. Sun/Moon distance: 3K miles. Dome 100 miles above sun/moon. All of these numbers, which are used in the video, are stated on the wiki at wiki.tfes.org.
Speed?
2. Then, if you don't see a need to make your own sim, I don't believe you have the right to criticize a RE for making a sim. The RE at least did something.
Horse hockey.
First, I claimed I did not see a need to make a sim now.
Second, I have zero intent on ever making a movie in Hollywood but that does not relieve or remove my right to be critical of any movie. I can still remain critical of the sim, also.
3. I never said it was biased. I never said it was inaccurate. He bases his metrics literally on what is in your wiki. It can't be inaccurate. Explain your reasoning.
He can state he used this or used that...How do you know that is true?
4. I live west of Philly. I have about 60+ planes fly overhead every day. I actually just watched one fly overhead 15 minutes ago. I don't know if you're looking at something else, but the plane I watched did gradually increase its speed in the sky as it came toward me, and then slowed as it went away. Perspective isn't selective.
Ask Stevie Wonder if that is true...
You said you had a calculator and watch. For what? Those wouldn't help to measure the speed of the plane. The plane is likely maintaining a constant speed in the sky. We don't need to measure that. What you do measure is its apparent location in the sky, and how its angle in the sky changes over time. Take a sextant, or some other device to measure the angle of the plane. Use the watch and measure the plane's position in equal intervals, about 3-5 seconds, I'd say. You will notice the biggest change in angle when the plane is closest to you.
So?
You tell me I do not need a watch, do use a watch...wtf man?
There are no experiments where we can measure a 32-mile object 3000 miles away, but we can do similar experiments scaled down. Take a 32-inch object 3000 inches away (250 feet), and try the experiment. Or a 32-centimeter object 3000 cm away (98 feet). It doesn't matter. Like I said, perspective isn't selective. Watch the simulation again. Those metrics are correct. You will see a change in the apparent speed of the sun as it hovers overhead.
And again, you do not know the metrics are correct.
5. The only thing that could distort the presence of objects in the atmosphere is water vapor.
Horse hockey.
There could be suspended particles of glass in the atmoplane...
Particles would just act as barriers, and the composition of the atmosphere doesn't change. Water vapor, though, does, but the distortion of the atmosphere is minimal.
Horse hockey.
What is the composition of the atmoplane at 10km, 20km, 30km...
I don't understand your ad-hominem attacks though. You say I am "so wrong it's ridiculous," yet you haven't demonstrated how, because I'm not wrong. How am I wrong? Am I wrong about water vapor providing some changes to the atmosphere? Am i wrong about the composition of the atmosphere? Am i wrong about how a moving object will appear to be moving the quickest when it is nearest to you? Oh wait, no. I am not wrong about any of that.
Yeah, you are.
6. I never claimed those dimensions to be real. It's possible that they are real. It's possible they're not. Who knows? I don't. We know time to be real. We know the 3 physical dimensions to be real. I don't understand the tangent argument you're trying to make. In what way does the amount of dimensions relate to the apparent speed of the sun? I don't think it does. I think you're trying to curve the argument away from the main focus so that you can "trap" me.
Right or wrong, real or not real, you acknowledge possible existence.
That possible existence could affect perception, even down to individual perception.
In conclusion, you're making some bad arguments. For starters, you keep asking if I've ever observed a 32-mile object 3000 miles (5000 km) in the sky. No, I haven't, but that isn't the point.
That is the point. You have no prior experience, you are biased against the idea to begin with, and therefore cannot be relied upon as providing any sort of worthwhile testimony toward a rational model.
I don't want to straw man...
Good, then don't...
but it seems to me that you're trying to claim that an object like that might not appear to change is apparent speed. That is blatantly wrong. Every object will change its apparent speed if its distance to the observer changes. That is perspective. It's impossible to avoid unless the actual speed of the object changes. The sun will change its apparent speed in the sky if it hovers above us at 3000 miles and moves around above once daily. There's no exceptions.
Ah...damn man...you strawman anyway...
So, the Sun does not change its distance to us in the heliocentric model?
Where does the cut off point occur (distance wise)?
Second, you claim I'm wrong about something with the composition of the atmosphere. I'm not wrong. You claims aren't based in anything. What am I wrong about?
Almost all of it...
Finally, it seems to me that you're trying to change the argument to a side that you might be able to win in, but not because I don't know what I am talking about, but simply because the amount of human knowledge in that subject is limited, and claims during an argument about that subject would be entirely hypothetical.
Nope...
Settle your errors in the whole damn thing...
-
rant
Lay off the personal attacks. Warned.
-
1. I know because it says so in the first second of the video. He lists the metrics. Earth diameter: 25K miles. Sun/Moon diameter: 32 miles. Sun/Moon distance: 3K miles. Dome 100 miles above sun/moon. All of these numbers, which are used in the video, are stated on the wiki at wiki.tfes.org.
Speed?
2. Then, if you don't see a need to make your own sim, I don't believe you have the right to criticize a RE for making a sim. The RE at least did something.
Horse hockey.
First, I claimed I did not see a need to make a sim now.
Second, I have zero intent on ever making a movie in Hollywood but that does not relieve or remove my right to be critical of any movie. I can still remain critical of the sim, also.
3. I never said it was biased. I never said it was inaccurate. He bases his metrics literally on what is in your wiki. It can't be inaccurate. Explain your reasoning.
He can state he used this or used that...How do you know that is true?
4. I live west of Philly. I have about 60+ planes fly overhead every day. I actually just watched one fly overhead 15 minutes ago. I don't know if you're looking at something else, but the plane I watched did gradually increase its speed in the sky as it came toward me, and then slowed as it went away. Perspective isn't selective.
Ask Stevie Wonder if that is true...
You said you had a calculator and watch. For what? Those wouldn't help to measure the speed of the plane. The plane is likely maintaining a constant speed in the sky. We don't need to measure that. What you do measure is its apparent location in the sky, and how its angle in the sky changes over time. Take a sextant, or some other device to measure the angle of the plane. Use the watch and measure the plane's position in equal intervals, about 3-5 seconds, I'd say. You will notice the biggest change in angle when the plane is closest to you.
So?
You tell me I do not need a watch, do use a watch...wtf man?
There are no experiments where we can measure a 32-mile object 3000 miles away, but we can do similar experiments scaled down. Take a 32-inch object 3000 inches away (250 feet), and try the experiment. Or a 32-centimeter object 3000 cm away (98 feet). It doesn't matter. Like I said, perspective isn't selective. Watch the simulation again. Those metrics are correct. You will see a change in the apparent speed of the sun as it hovers overhead.
And again, you do not know the metrics are correct.
5. The only thing that could distort the presence of objects in the atmosphere is water vapor.
Horse hockey.
There could be suspended particles of glass in the atmoplane...
Particles would just act as barriers, and the composition of the atmosphere doesn't change. Water vapor, though, does, but the distortion of the atmosphere is minimal.
Horse hockey.
What is the composition of the atmoplane at 10km, 20km, 30km...
I don't understand your ad-hominem attacks though. You say I am "so wrong it's ridiculous," yet you haven't demonstrated how, because I'm not wrong. How am I wrong? Am I wrong about water vapor providing some changes to the atmosphere? Am i wrong about the composition of the atmosphere? Am i wrong about how a moving object will appear to be moving the quickest when it is nearest to you? Oh wait, no. I am not wrong about any of that.
Yeah, you are.
6. I never claimed those dimensions to be real. It's possible that they are real. It's possible they're not. Who knows? I don't. We know time to be real. We know the 3 physical dimensions to be real. I don't understand the tangent argument you're trying to make. In what way does the amount of dimensions relate to the apparent speed of the sun? I don't think it does. I think you're trying to curve the argument away from the main focus so that you can "trap" me.
Right or wrong, real or not real, you acknowledge possible existence.
That possible existence could affect perception, even down to individual perception.
In conclusion, you're making some bad arguments. For starters, you keep asking if I've ever observed a 32-mile object 3000 miles (5000 km) in the sky. No, I haven't, but that isn't the point.
That is the point. You have no prior experience, you are biased against the idea to begin with, and therefore cannot be relied upon as providing any sort of worthwhile testimony toward a rational model.
I don't want to straw man...
Good, then don't...
but it seems to me that you're trying to claim that an object like that might not appear to change is apparent speed. That is blatantly wrong. Every object will change its apparent speed if its distance to the observer changes. That is perspective. It's impossible to avoid unless the actual speed of the object changes. The sun will change its apparent speed in the sky if it hovers above us at 3000 miles and moves around above once daily. There's no exceptions.
Ah...damn man...you strawman anyway...
So, the Sun does not change its distance to us in the heliocentric model?
Where does the cut off point occur (distance wise)?
Second, you claim I'm wrong about something with the composition of the atmosphere. I'm not wrong. You claims aren't based in anything. What am I wrong about?
Almost all of it...
Finally, it seems to me that you're trying to change the argument to a side that you might be able to win in, but not because I don't know what I am talking about, but simply because the amount of human knowledge in that subject is limited, and claims during an argument about that subject would be entirely hypothetical.
Nope...
Settle your errors in the whole damn thing...
1. Speed can be found doing calculations. Let's base it off the sun being directly over the equator. You can adjust accordingly depending on where you want the sun to be. The equator is halfway between the north pole and south pole (or edge of flat earth). If the diameter of the earth is 25K miles, and the equator is halfway on the radius, then the diameter of the circle the sun moves around is 12.5K miles. The circumference of a circle is D*pi, so the sun moves 39,250 miles every day. 39,250 miles every 24 hours is about 1635 mph. That's quite fast.
2. I know you didn't claim to need to make a sim. I'm saying you should. If you're getting caught up, as you did earlier, in the fact that a RE made a sim of the FE, then you should just make your own. It wouldn't be any different than the RE's sim, because you'd both use the same metrics. Also, when did I claim you specifically aren't allowed to make critiques? I said you shouldn't complain because it can be turned right back onto you, and your complaints aren't strong. I never said you CAN'T complain.
3. I don't know, ask him if he really used that or this, and then ask for proof. OR, make your own, so that you KNOW you will be making an accurate simulation.
4. So you have no argument? Ok. And I made the mistake of saying you didn't need a watch for your observations. Disregard the watch. Your observations still wouldn't have worked. But you still didn't address the other part. You're cherry picking there. And finally, what do you mean I don't know that the metrics are correct? I scaled down the model that your wiki claims the FE to be, from miles, to inches. There's no error there.
5. Ok, how much glass is in the atmosphere then? How much of an effect would it have? As for composition, it remains relatively the same until you hit 10km: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition But, usually, you aren't going to be above 10km (33K feet), because you aren't climbing mount everest, and I can guarantee you 95% of people don't fly for the majority of their lives. Why does the composition of the atmosphere matter for this argument at those heights? And why is it "horse hockey?" that aerosol particles act as barriers to light?
And, may I take a moment for the last part of number 5? "Yeah you are." Wow, what a well-constructed, mature, evidence-riddled argument. Just kidding. How am I wrong? Where am I wrong? What is your proof that I am wrong?
6. How would the existence of these dimensions change the light from the sun, then? Why don't they change the light reflecting off of or emitted from other objects? If they do, why would the light change for certain objects, or the distortion be selective?
7. Yes, I have no experience with observing a 32-mile object at 3000 miles BUT i do have experience observing other objects on Earth that the same rules would apply to. You haven't observed anything like what you claim either, so you can't be relied on as a testimonial either.
I didn't straw man. And the distance to the sun on a heliocentric, and correct, model, ranges between 91.4 million miles (147.1 million km) and 94.5 million miles (152.1 million km), with an average being 93 million miles, or 150 million km. This is on a yearly basis. The sun changes its distance, but not in the same way as a moving object like the sun on a FE model, or a plane in the air. Your location to the sun based on the Earth's rotation adds almost no change, and even less if you aren't at the equator. Your distance would be furthest from it during midnight, then, when observing, it'd be furthest during sunrise and sunset. The earth's radius is 4K miles, so you'd be 4K miles closer. 4K miles over 93 million is a .004% change. The sun's apparent diameter, though, between the earth's closest and furthest point IS noticeable and measurable. Here's the difference: http://www.perseus.gr/Images/solar-scenic-aph-peri.jpg It's tiny.
By cutoff point, I'm assuming you mean the last point we can observe it on a normal day. This is sunset. If I'm wrong, please do correct me.
8. Again, what am I wrong about. Don't just say "almost all of it." Explain.
9. Settle what errors in what thing?