[uru38]

This is a simple investigation/ concept that I'm sure has come up before in flat Earth vs globe Earth discourse, but I'd like some further clarification from the flat Earth camp:

• It's well established that during the equinoxes on a globe Earth, the sun will rise due east or 90 degrees azimuth when observed from any point on the Earth (give or take ~10 degrees due to refraction).
• What is the expected azimuth for the sun to rise when viewed from a given point on a flat Earth and what is the explanation for this? My guess at the moment is that the azimuth of the sun should decrease non-linearly when measured from north as the observer's latitude decreases, but I'd like some input from a flat Earther.

Finally, we can easily investigate this by observing the sun during the coming equinox on the 20th March and compare these to the two models above. Any thoughts?

[inquisitive]

This is a simple investigation/ concept that I'm sure has come up before in flat Earth vs globe Earth discourse, but I'd like some further clarification from the flat Earth camp:

• It's well established that during the equinoxes on a globe Earth, the sun will rise due east or 90 degrees azimuth when observed from any point on the Earth (give or take ~10 degrees due to refraction).
• What is the expected azimuth for the sun to rise when viewed from a given point on a flat Earth and what is the explanation for this? My guess at the moment is that the azimuth of the sun should decrease non-linearly when measured from north as the observer's latitude decreases, but I'd like some input from a flat Earther.

Finally, we can easily investigate this by observing the sun during the coming equinox on the 20th March and compare these to the two models above. Any thoughts?

Previous suggestions of measuring the angle of the sun have been ignored,

[uru38]

That's a shame.
I'd at least like a flat earther to explain a model that they feel best describes what we'd observe on a flat earth. I haven't been able to find any such explanation/ model anywhere online. I feel observations of the sun are a pivotal piece of evidence in any model for the shape of the Earth whilst also being one of the easiest, direct consequence to investigate.

[TomFoolery]

That's a shame.
I'd at least like a flat earther to explain a model that they feel best describes what we'd observe on a flat earth. I haven't been able to find any such explanation/ model anywhere online. I feel observations of the sun are a pivotal piece of evidence in any model for the shape of the Earth whilst also being one of the easiest, direct consequence to investigate.

You have to realize that this is one of the areas where we have not yet solved the puzzle.
Generally we like the approach of trusting our senses, and when we go to the beach and look out at the ocean, it looks flat, so we take that as pretty good proof that it's flat.

But the sun does cause a bit of an issue because by that same stance, our senses definitely tell us that it sets right down on the surface of the earth.
But obviously that can't be, otherwise, well, it'd be in somebody's back yard some place.

So starting to ask about exact angles really isn't going to work when we don't even have a general idea of where it is going at night, or why it gets so dark at night, or why the sun sheers off bottom half first when it sets on the horizon.

But we are aware that ships vanish in the distance bottom half first, so we got some ideas about an electromagnetic acceleration of light which gives the false appearance of them going 'over the curve.'

So perhaps that can also be extended to the sun,  but maybe some others will chime in. I only got into flat earth this year.

[manicminer]

Tomfoolery,

Your last post kind of highlights the problems with FET. It creates difficulties where difficulties simply don't exist.  You mention about the Sun. Our senses tell us it sets right down on the surface of the Earth.  Yes it sets over the horizon as the Earth rotates away from the line of sight.  Simple. It reappears over the opposite horizon a few hours later as the Earth rotates back towards the line of sight.

One theory explains that perfectly well, the other doesn't.  So doesn't that suggest to you perhaps that one theory is wrong?  You can't make something true just because you want it to be.  I can't make a round peg fit into a square hole just because I want it to.

[uru38]

But we are aware that ships vanish in the distance bottom half first, so we got some ideas about an electromagnetic acceleration of light which gives the false appearance of them going 'over the curve.'

So perhaps that can also be extended to the sun,  but maybe some others will chime in. I only got into flat earth this year.

Thanks for the reply Tom. I think I'm familiar with EA but correct me if I'm wrong/ elaborate on your answer: the EA model as it's currently set out shouldn't affect the viewed azimuth of an object only it's perceived height. With this, I also can't see how any EA model would be able to perfectly make it look as if we're situated on a sphere when in fact we're sitting on a flat plane when talking about viewed angles of the sun - that just seems nonsensical (insert Ockam's razor).

Are there any other possible explanations that you know of?

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Why are we mentioning EA, when the Wiki doesn't even give a solid understanding of the "proposal" (literally what the Wiki states it as).  Then there is some reference to some long and nasty equation (such mystery). And a Bishop constant, which no one has a value for and hasn't been experimentally obtained - at least going by the Wiki.

In several discussions, we (REers) have been referred to the Wiki to satisfy our thirst for knowledge on the FE theory, but when we get there, there isn't much to go on.

So for now, I think it is safe to say that we can ignore electromagnetic acceleration as a device behind a sunset.

[TomFoolery]

Thanks for the reply Tom. I think I'm familiar with EA but correct me if I'm wrong/ elaborate on your answer: the EA model as it's currently set out shouldn't affect the viewed azimuth of an object only it's perceived height. With this, I also can't see how any EA model would be able to perfectly make it look as if we're situated on a sphere when in fact we're sitting on a flat plane when talking about viewed angles of the sun - that just seems nonsensical (insert Ockam's razor).

Are there any other possible explanations that you know of?

Electromagnetic Acceleration (EA) could conceivably affect the viewed azimuth of the sun, depending on exactly which vector components were present in the electromagnetic acceleration between the object and the observer.
Now I must mention I do not fully understand EA.
From what I've seen, they are showing a curve where the sinking ship effect has some compounding effect where for example, doubling the distance more than doubles the sinkage.
I do not yet understand how that works while trying to understand it in the terms of lenses:

For example, if the light is bent 1 degree in the first thousand miles, and one degree in the next thousand miles, then the total bend would be 2 degrees in two thousand miles.
But there seems to be a compounding or logarithmic component that I am not understanding.

Perhaps Tom Bishop or our resident math genius sandokhan can chime in here and clarify EA for us, and address whether it can also work in the azimuthal plane.

This effect bends light upward in a parabolic path: https://wiki.tfes.org/Optics

The formula for it is shown here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

However that formula references the Bishop constant which has not yet been determined it seems.

And Dr. Tom Bishop is probably working hard on that constant right now because I know he's very particular and even a 0.045% error is a huge error: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg184007#msg184007
And he's also very wise to insist that formulas be proved: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13731.msg184146#msg184146

Personally I'm looking for some time and a nice day, because I recently purchased an old theodolite off of ebay and repaired it: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg184027#msg184027

I'm thinking of going out and measuring the distance vs the drop of the ship as it goes away from me to see if I can come up with a formula that matches it. Maybe I can find the illusive Bishop Constant.

[TomFoolery]

Why are we mentioning EA, when the Wiki doesn't even give a solid understanding of the "proposal" (literally what the Wiki states it as).  Then there is some reference to some long and nasty equation (such mystery). And a Bishop constant, which no one has a value for and hasn't been experimentally obtained - at least going by the Wiki.

In several discussions, we (REers) have been referred to the Wiki to satisfy our thirst for knowledge on the FE theory, but when we get there, there isn't much to go on.

So for now, I think it is safe to say that we can ignore electromagnetic acceleration as a device behind a sunset.

I realize it is a young area of research and we haven't got all the answers yet.
But if electromagnetic acceleration can cause a ship to appear to sink below where it really is, then why couldn't it also work for the sun? If ships vanish out of sight due to EA, then why not the sun?

[WellRoundedIndividual]

I totally understand the theory of the claim. I have no problem with it. I have a problem with the fact that it is just a claim with some random formula. There are regular dismissals of RE evidence because of lack of demonstration of how the formula was developed and the lack of "FE acceptable" experimental results to support the development of any of those formulas.
So on those grounds, I am dismissing EA. It's a claim. That's all. Until someone shows evidence from experiments, the mathematical steps to arrive at said equation, and the device to measure EA.

[TomFoolery]

I totally understand the theory of the claim. I have no problem with it. I have a problem with the fact that it is just a claim with some random formula. There are regular dismissals of RE evidence because of lack of demonstration of how the formula was developed and the lack of "FE acceptable" experimental results to support the development of any of those formulas.
So on those grounds, I am dismissing EA. It's a claim. That's all. Until someone shows evidence from experiments, the mathematical steps to arrive at said equation, and the device to measure EA.

Fair enough.

[uru38]

As WellRoundedIndividual mentions, EA at the moment is only a claimed model based on one poorly conducted experiment.

As for your assertions that EA can be used to describe apparent lateral movements of the sun - I'm sorry but I'm still not convinced by any 'vector component' argument, though I'm happy to discuss more in case I'm mistaken.

Here's my two cents for why EA can't be used in this case: EA describes an apparent change in the height of the sun as the observer moves closer or farther from the sun (and vice versa). However, in our case, we need to observe an apparent lateral movement of the sun (change in azimuth) based on a change in observer latitude. For each case, the relationship between the observer's position and the smudge factor that needs to be produced by EA theory is completely different. One deals with the observer moving towards the sun whilst one deals with the observer moving (almost) laterally with respect to the sun. Essentially, if EA is to be used to describe sun sets in the flat earth model, these are two completely separate phenomena that need to be described separately by two different theories.

Just to note, there is currently one theory that does model both phenomena (and plenty more) perfectly - the globe Earth model. So unless I'm mistaken in my above reasoning, or other more sound flat earth models are presented, I find the globe Earth model much more convincing.

[Tom Bishop]

This is a simple investigation/ concept that I'm sure has come up before in flat Earth vs globe Earth discourse, but I'd like some further clarification from the flat Earth camp:

• It's well established that during the equinoxes on a globe Earth, the sun will rise due east or 90 degrees azimuth when observed from any point on the Earth (give or take ~10 degrees due to refraction).
• What is the expected azimuth for the sun to rise when viewed from a given point on a flat Earth and what is the explanation for this? My guess at the moment is that the azimuth of the sun should decrease non-linearly when measured from north as the observer's latitude decreases, but I'd like some input from a flat Earther.

Finally, we can easily investigate this by observing the sun during the coming equinox on the 20th March and compare these to the two models above. Any thoughts?

The Equinox explanation is right here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox#A_Flat_Earth_Equinox

[TomFoolery]

This is a simple investigation/ concept that I'm sure has come up before in flat Earth vs globe Earth discourse, but I'd like some further clarification from the flat Earth camp:

• It's well established that during the equinoxes on a globe Earth, the sun will rise due east or 90 degrees azimuth when observed from any point on the Earth (give or take ~10 degrees due to refraction).
• What is the expected azimuth for the sun to rise when viewed from a given point on a flat Earth and what is the explanation for this? My guess at the moment is that the azimuth of the sun should decrease non-linearly when measured from north as the observer's latitude decreases, but I'd like some input from a flat Earther.

Finally, we can easily investigate this by observing the sun during the coming equinox on the 20th March and compare these to the two models above. Any thoughts?

The Equinox explanation is right here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox#A_Flat_Earth_Equinox

So I'm trying to wrap my head around all this. This is a big idea for a small head, OK?

If I'm a few thousand miles north of the equator, and the sun is "rising" (Aproaching, along the equator ring) a few thousand miles above the ground, the sun is going to appear far to the right of east, right? Like a lot more than several diameters worth?
Or do I need to build a scale model of the flat earth with a revolving sun. I guess if I can build a cavendish experiment I could build a model flat earth.

Furthermore the wiki says:

The atmolayer is not perfectly transparent. At night when we look out at where the sun would be across the plane of the earth we are looking into hundreds of miles of fog, and thus the sun is dark and unseen.

Help me understand that one. So when the sun sets, it's actually just reaching a distance where suddenly the fog obscures it 100%?
It takes what, 2 minutes, from the time it touches the horizon until it's obscured entirely?

So do I understand correctly that it's visible for let's say 12 hours, and for 6 of those hours it's getting farther and farther then when it's 6 hours away, suddenly 2 more minutes and it reaches a critical distance where it goes from very bright to out of sight? (And yet it's still shining on the clouds for some time?)
And that raises another interesting question, if the sun is so far that we can't see it directly on account of the fog, then how come it's light is still bright enough to hit the clouds with enough light that they can be seen?

I'm also still struggling with the apparent position of the sun when it "sets" or "rises" -- right down on the horizon.
Must be sinking ship effect.

Wow all I can see is we need a scale model.

I can build one, I just need the dimensions of the flat earth, the height of the sun and moon. I can do the rest.

[stack]

Here's a debunk model that presents a bunch of conundrums:

[TomFoolery]

Here's a debunk model that presents a bunch of conundrums:

Yeah, that's why Mark Sargent says:

"A basic dome structure, made up of advanced high density material, thousands of miles wide, and at least a hundred miles in height, the ceiling of said structure, being projected upon, by an ultra high definition system, using super LED technology, and a combination of 2D and 3D imaging, to simulate all celestial bodies, including sun, moon, stars, and so on."

But wait, is a simulation sort of an illusion?

[stack]

Here's a debunk model that presents a bunch of conundrums:

Yeah, that's why Mark Sargent says:

"A basic dome structure, made up of advanced high density material, thousands of miles wide, and at least a hundred miles in height, the ceiling of said structure, being projected upon, by an ultra high definition system, using super LED technology, and a combination of 2D and 3D imaging, to simulate all celestial bodies, including sun, moon, stars, and so on."

But wait, is a simulation sort of an illusion?

One could argue a simulation as illusion. There's also another smaller faction of the FE model adherents, a bi-polar FE model. Which presents it's own sets of issues, not withstanding a figure 8 sun/moon path, retreating on itself, not observed but fitted. So there's that. Like I mentioned, a conundrum, but not unworthy of demonstration, experimentation, and 'tackling', as it were. Keep at it. And don't be daunted by naysayers on either side. You're the only one doing any experiments around these parts and that should be lauded, no matter which POV you represent.

[manicminer]

One could argue a simulation as illusion

Yes that is technically true but given how much time and money airlines invest a lot in training pilots using simulators these days, that is a major reliance on an 'illusion'. I guess it depends on how you distinguish between the definitions of simulation and illusion.  I agree that a simulator is essentially creating an illusion of sorts but an illusion that is pretty damn close to real world experience.  It has to be for obvious reasons.

[TomFoolery]

One could argue a simulation as illusion

Yes that is technically true but given how much time and money airlines invest a lot in training pilots using simulators these days, that is a major reliance on an 'illusion'. I guess it depends on how you distinguish between the definitions of simulation and illusion.  I agree that a simulator is essentially creating an illusion of sorts but an illusion that is pretty damn close to real world experience.  It has to be for obvious reasons.

And I guess an important question is whether the customers know it's a simulation. In the case of flight training, the people inside the dome know it's a training simulator. There's no intent to deceive the observers, only their senses for the purpose of practicing those reflexes.