[Erehps]

I'm South of the equator.

The "straight" line I observed, was not directly overhead at noon, but slightly to the North, casting short shadows in a Southerly direction. So therefore, the line of travel I observed was not straight up, directly overhead, and down. It followed an arc, a slight curve in its path across the sky, if you'd like to be specific.

I should have been clearer and just said continuous line.

I propose the experiment be repeated, but with a number of different people from different countries participating on the same day, photographing the sunrise with a nearby landmark, the sunset with a nearby landmark, and the shadow lengths at exactly noon. Then provide longitude and latitudes of actual location and same of the landmarks.

Pete, I conducted the layman experiment with an open mind. It was fun, but my observations could have been more detailed. The beauty is, I could repeat the experiment tomorrow if I like.

[Humble B]

We observe the path of the sun as circular. Every flat earth model (I know) shows a sun moving in an almost circular trajectory around a centre of rotation somewhere above the north pole. The globe model explains the circular motion of the sun as a result of a spinning earth. In both cases, the trajectory of the sun as observed from earth has to be circular, and is observed as circular.

This is "empirical knowledge" that can be used to figure out where the sun goes during the night.

Providentially all circles have one thing in common; they all have exactly the same shape, they only differ in size, but never in shape. And though we know the exact shape of every circle, we only have to know the location and positioning of a part of that circle to know exactly where the rest of that circle is.

Astronomers and mathematician in prehistoric times already knew this, and knew they could use this knowledge to know where a celestial body will be during the time it is invisible.: If the sun rises at the east, goes straight above your head at noon, and 6 hours later crosses the western horizon perpendicular, then every astronomer and mathematician knows that at midnight the sun will be right under his feet.

Is the sun at noon a few degrees north of the observers location, as in Erehps example, then at midnight the sun will be the same amount of degrees south of a location straight under his feet.




This empirical knowledge is what taught mankind thousands of years ago that the sun and the stars move “around” the earth and not “above” the earth as some ancient images show:





Those drawings are all artists impressions based solely on religious interpretations of religious writings, but not on observations. That's why they were never in the history supported by any empirical insights as gathered by astronomers and mathematicians. Empirical knowledge and empirical evidence never supported any flat earth model, but was precisely what showed our ancestors the globe.




Urania, the muse of astronomy holding a celestial globe.
Restored Roman copy of an original from the second century BC
Unearthed at Hadrian's Villa

[darkensign]

A curved path would prove FE. Straight path supports globe.

Unless you find yourself directly underneath the Sun, the path must be curved in RET. Since our friend did not disclose his location, we have to accept his conclusion as very unlikely to support RET.

Also, it's not helpful to jump into a well-developed discussion by just quoting an old post and declaring someone wrong. The points of contention have already been outlined and discussed to some extent. If you have something to add, by all means, do so.

Finally got around to writing this post.

This test works on the premise that the Sun follows different paths for a flat or a heliocentric model.

The heliocentric model states that the day/night cycle is due to the rotation of the Earth. Now, the distance between the ground and the axis of rotation is 6,371km at the equator. The distance between the Sun and Earth, however is approx 150,000,000km, that's *23,544* times further. This means that, despite the fact we're not _exactly_ on the axis of rotation, we're effectively so close to it that we can say the entire Earth is near the middle of the imaginary circle being drawn by the Sun as it moves through the sky.

The flat Earth concept states that the Sun travels above the Earth between the tropics with the centre of its circular path being somewhere directly above the North pole. In other words, we're only at the centre of this imaginary circle drawn by the Sun's path when we're pretty much at the North pole.

Now, acquire something like a hula-hoop or a lid of a cooking pot, just something round. Then, something like this: https://imgur.com/Z9RgwOD - just something that you can turn about an axis. I'll call it a pointer.

Position your pointer directly under the centre of the circle. Position it so that its axis of rotation (the lower stick in the image) points at the centre of the circle while the upper stick points at the edge. You can now rotate your pointer and you'll note that it always points at the edge, no matter how much you turn it.

Now move the pointer so it's NOT directly under the centre of the circle, maybe directly under and edge or even outside it.  Now try turning it. Notice something? Your pointer will only have a couple of incidental angles where it points at the edge of the circle. No matter how you try to orient it, it can never trace the edge of the circle the whole way round.

We can use this fact to tell whether the Sun is very far away or local.

We need an equatorial mount. You can buy one if you want or you can just make something simple and dirty like the following. Try to build something like this: https://imgur.com/rL6CDb1 - build it out of whatever you like. The important part is at the top - I'll call this the pointer. You need to be able to rotate the top section, it needs two vertical posts and each post needs a tab attached. The idea is that you can align the two vertical posts and two tabs such that their shadows align, like so: https://imgur.com/CJc6n3G - notice that they all align to look like the shadow of a cross on the wall.

Now for the actual test. This can be done any time of day, any day of the year, anywhere in the world so long as you can actually see the Sun. You'll need a compass, a spirit level, a protractor and something to rest your equatorial mount on. Use your compass to find North and South. You'll want your mount to be as closely aligned to North-South as possible. Next, find out your latitude. A GPS app will do. Tilt your mount so that the axis is tilted North/South an equal amount as your latitude. eg, if you're 50°N, then you'll need to tilt your axis 50° towards the North. Next, align the two vertical posts. Next, align the tabs so you get the cross formation I mentioned earlier.

Your equatorial mount is calibrated and ready to test.

Every few minutes (just about anything is fine, could be 5min or 60 - it's up to you), check the alignment with the Sun. Rotate your pointer so the vertical posts align. Notice that you will not need to adjust the tabs for the remainder of the day, indicating that you're pointing at the Sun while only rotating about a single independent axis of motion.

There you have it. Irrefutable proof that the Sun is very far away and not a mere few thousand miles above the surface of the Earth.

[Rickthebrick]

This is more an observation than an experiment which you can do at your own convenience anywhere.

The sun does a number of things at both sunrise and sunset every day which is extremely relevant to the flat Earth and globe Earth concepts.

Take note of the size, shape, and color of the sun as it next rises and sets.

Ok, I have to admit I was doubting the flat earth for a while. Every model they tried to produce was flawed in every aspect. Especially when it comes to the sun. I mean come on, if the sun was that close and the earth was flat you would see it differently depending on where you were on the earth. Then people started showing photos and videos of clouds being behind the sun. Which doesn't make a lick of sense? If the sun is 3000-5000 miles high how could it ever be in front of a cloud? Clouds only go a few miles high. If the sun was truly in front of clouds then it would have to be much much much closer than fet originally thought. So I decided to take your challenge and monitor the sunrise and sunset. I have to say what I saw was mind-blowing. FET had it right but at the same time wrong. The earth is closer than 93,000,000 miles to the sun. A lot closer! The sun, bare with me, is actually 15-40 feet above the earth with a diameter of 1-3 feet and I have the proof. So back to the sun being in front of the clouds, it makes sense now, it is in front of the clouds but way closer. Anyone can prove this. Take a basketball and hold it out in front of you at arm's length. Notice how the clouds are behind it but yet the ball is still large. Now before you go saying I'm crazy just take a look at my proof. I have pictures of the sun rising in front of some power lines. How could the sun be in front of the powerlines if, in fact, it was 93 million miles away? It couldn't. I have to thank you Erpes for having me look into this. You alone sparked the fire that ends the debate. Enjoy the photo proof!

Photo share thanks to Image BB.

https://ibb.co/bBfMSU

And for anyone wanting to doubt me, explain to me how clouds could ever be behind the sun when the sun is 3000miles high and clouds are only 1 to 4 miles high. See, this also explains why we have large sunsets. FET believes the sun is moving away to a point of not being able to see it. My method explains why we have large sunrises and even larger sunsets. The sun is deflating. Prove me wrong if you think you can.

[juner]

Ok, I have to admit I was doubting the flat earth for a while. Every model they tried to produce was flawed in every aspect. Especially when it comes to the sun. I mean come on, if the sun was that close and the earth was flat you would see it differently depending on where you were on the earth. Then people started showing photos and videos of clouds being behind the sun. Which doesn't make a lick of sense? If the sun is 3000-5000 miles high how could it ever be in front of a cloud? Clouds only go a few miles high. If the sun was truly in front of clouds then it would have to be much much much closer than fet originally thought. So I decided to take your challenge and monitor the sunrise and sunset. I have to say what I saw was mind-blowing. FET had it right but at the same time wrong. The earth is closer than 93,000,000 miles to the sun. A lot closer! The sun, bare with me, is actually 15-40 feet above the earth with a diameter of 1-3 feet and I have the proof. So back to the sun being in front of the clouds, it makes sense now, it is in front of the clouds but way closer. Anyone can prove this. Take a basketball and hold it out in front of you at arm's length. Notice how the clouds are behind it but yet the ball is still large. Now before you go saying I'm crazy just take a look at my proof. I have pictures of the sun rising in front of some power lines. How could the sun be in front of the powerlines if, in fact, it was 93 million miles away? It couldn't. I have to thank you Erpes for having me look into this. You alone sparked the fire that ends the debate. Enjoy the photo proof!

Photo share thanks to Image BB.

https://ibb.co/bBfMSU

And for anyone wanting to doubt me, explain to me how clouds could ever be behind the sun when the sun is 3000miles high and clouds are only 1 to 4 miles high. See, this also explains why we have large sunsets. FET believes the sun is moving away to a point of not being able to see it. My method explains why we have large sunrises and even larger sunsets. The sun is deflating. Prove me wrong if you think you can.

Keep shitposting in CN/AR. Warned.

[HorstFue]

Next, find out your latitude. A GPS app will do. Tilt your mount so that the axis is tilted North/South an equal amount as your latitude. eg, if you're 50°N, then you'll need to tilt your axis 50° towards the North.

Small correction, shouldn't the tilt be more like (90° - lat) ?  So for lat=50°N, tilt should be 40°.
(You don't need an equatorial mount at the north pole)

[darkensign]

Yes, I think I hammed that description up a little bit. This experiment is extremely simple, but I'm tempted to make a video for it just to make sure potential points of confusion like this are properly handled.

[RonJ]

I have observed the sun under a couple of different scenarios.  First on a trip from Southern California to Asia in the winter.  We left Southern California by ship and headed mostly Northbound towards Alaska.  We transited from the Pacific Ocean into the Bering Sea near Unimak Island.  The ship proceeded going North West bound for a while before turning in a more Southerly direction.  I did notice a very pronounced shortening of the day.  Since I was a ships crew member I was expected to be on the job at 7:45 AM each morning, it was always dark when I got to the bridge.  While we were at our farthest Northerly position I noticed that it would be dark outside until about 10 AM and we would have a sunset at about 3 PM.  As we continued South towards Japan and China the days got much longer and we were back to our normal day and night routine.  A trip along the same route during the summer would be different.  The sun would not set until way after supper, maybe not until about 10PM and it would be very bright outside in the very early morning.  Two facts seem to leap out of my actual observations on many trips of a similar nature.  The ship proceeded on a very strange circular route far the the North as it was the shortest distance between California and Asia.  Shipping companies stay in business because they haul their cargo over the shortest distances possible to save on fuel and deliver the goods in the most profitable manner.  Additionally, since the earth is a globe and the axis is tilted at about 23 degrees to the plane of the ecliptic, we see a very noticeable difference in our daylight hours during the 10 day journey.  The strange route we usually took was called a great circle route and only makes sense if the actual earth is a sphere.  You can convince yourself of this by using a globe and a piece of string.  All I know is what I've seen for myself.  We had tables of the time of sunrise and sunset.  Those tables depended on the day of the year and the latitude of your position. It's nice to see the sun rise out of the sea just at the precise time the table said it would happen.  I don't know how anyone could fake that.  A flat earth would be easier for a seamen in several ways, but alas, it's not the way we see it.

[ShootingStar]

My comments on your observations:

1. Yes the distance between the Sun and the Earth remains largely constant so there will be do discernable change in the size of the Sun. Often people say the Sun 'looks' bigger when it is near the horizon but that is purely down to a combination of a slight magnifying effect from atmospheric light refraction and an optical illusion caused by objects of known size such as trees and buildings being more in the light of sight of the Sun. The same effect occurs when the Moon is low down near the horizon.

2. Yes the Sun is a remarkably stable star considering the battle going inside it between gravity trying to compress the Sun and gas pressure trying to expand it. This is a balancing act called hydrostatic equilibrium. There are several dedicated satellites monitoring the Sun continuously and these would detect any significant changes in the Suns size or other physical characteristics very quickly. This is important for predicting 'space weather' which in turn can help us prepare for any violent solar flares or CMEs.

3. For any observer on Earth the sky looks like a huge dome. The 'dome' we see is part of the celestial 'sphere' which appears to rotate from east to west because the Earth is rotating from west to east. The Suns movement across the sky is due to the rotation of the Earth. However the Suns position also moves relative to the stars (drifts eastwards) along the ecliptic and that is due to the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Explain the latter in FET!

4. I would strongly discourage looking anywhere near the Sun at anytime without suitable filters. It is NEVER safe to look directly at the Sun without such filters.

5. Yes indeed it does!  Especially after a major volcanic eruption which scatters large amounts of dust and debris into the atmosphere.