Post by: Sceptom on January 11, 2015, 11:16:23 AM
I'm not sure this question has been asked before, I browsed some pages on this forum and didn't find it.
My question is related to the length of the day on a flat earth. I've seen on the wiki, "How do you explain day/night cycles and seasons? (http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F)", the sun makes a small circle during Summer in the northern hemiplane, and a large circle during winter in the same hemiplane.
But there are at least two problems with that:
1. the length of a day is not the same during summer or winter. The total distance the sun has to make is different in a small and a large circle. So that means that a day that lasts (in total) 24 hours in the northern summer, lasts longer during the northern winter.
Or maybe you believe that the sun goes faster as the circle gets bigger, so that any time a full day is 24h? This could be an explanation, but then you have to explain why the sun runs at different speeds...
2. But even then, regardless of the speed of the sun, the southern summer does not seem to be as it should be. Take Australia for example: the sun makes a large circle, and when it hovers Australia, the distance covered is quite small compared to the rest of the circle. This implies that the day is much shorter than the night. But we actually observe that in the summer, it's the opposite: the night is shorter than the day.
Obviously, I got something wrong with the animation in the wiki.
How is it explained with the flat earth theory?
Thanks.
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2015, 11:48:26 AM
Assume the diameter of the earth is 40,008km and the distance from the North pole to the equator is 10,002km and the sun is moving between 23°26′14.4″ S and 23°26′14.4″ North of the equator. The Summer and winter Solstices provide your two limits.
*Note: The Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the sun and once every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds with respect to the stars in round earth theory so you need to use the full 24 hours for speed, we want the sun speed. (we explain the difference between the two with celestial gearing, or the prime mover ... first theorised by Aristotle and later elaborated on by Thomas Aquinas in his cosmological arguments, as a "first cause" of existence.)
Below is the diagram of how the sun moves over the earth relative to the seasons
(http://i26.tinypic.com/hrja7c.png)
Below Wilbur Voliva shows how the sun orbits directly above the earth 3000 miles up.
(http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg)
Below is the Flammarion woodcut depicting a man lifting the curtain of the sky to see the gears that drive the heavens.
(http://www.hawkmusic.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Flammarion_Woodcut_Completed_copy.315190928_large.jpg)
Post by: Sceptom on January 11, 2015, 12:17:55 PM
Is there any explanation for this change of speed?
Unfortunately, your answer does not address the second part of my question, the one for which I really couldn't find an explanation myself.
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2015, 12:30:12 PM
I already explained the change of speed, celestial gears. All of the heavenly bodies ... planets, stars, comets, sun, moon etc are driven by an invisible gearing system first discovered by Aristotle and documented in his book Metaphysics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)).
The second part of your query is already answered because the sun goes faster when directly over the southern hemisphere.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2015, 01:00:20 PM
No, it doesn't run twice as fast. It would have to run 2*pi times as fast if the circle was 2 times larger.That's incorrect, no matter how you interpret "2 times larger".
If we're talking about radii: The circumference of a circle is
If we're talking about areas: The area of a circle is
Consequently, depending on interpretation, the sun will either run twice as fast, or
You could also more intuitively think of his in terms of angular and linear speeds. The angular speed doesn't change (the sun still makes a full circle in 24 hours), but since the radius changes, the linear speed scales with it linearly. See: http://www.efm.leeds.ac.uk/CIVE/CIVE1140/section01/index.html
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2015, 01:16:58 PM
And I guess the op is asking about speed over the earth linearly. Its a fun little challenge to work out based on the day today. :-)
Post by: Sceptom on January 11, 2015, 01:24:13 PM
Actually, we can talk about the angular speed of the sun, which should remain constant all year, so that any time of the year, one complete revolution is 24h. [EDIT: pizaaplanet got there before me, but indeed angular speed is more relevant here]
But anyway, the question is not anymore on the first part of the question (how and why the sun speed changes) but on the second part which is still unanswered. It doesn't change anything that the sun goes faster in the southern hemisphere during (southern) summer. The problem is still there.
On the animation in the wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif), the sun gives daylight in a (roughly) 60° arc if you stand right below the sun's path. So anyone in Australia (for instance) will get daylight when the sun covers 60° of a complete revolution. But a complete revolution is 360°. So night should be 5 times longer than the day in Australia during summer... which is not what we observe.
How is it explained?
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2015, 01:28:54 PM
Rowbotham draws a better depiction although probably still a little small.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig60.jpg)
And yes, you can still get longer nights than some days, but that is what happens in winter.
Post by: inquisitive on January 11, 2015, 02:01:45 PM
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2015, 02:37:21 PM
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
As noted in the book Huainanzi,[58] in the 2nd century BC Chinese astronomers effectively inverted Eratosthenes' calculation of the curvature of the Earth to calculate the height of the sun above the earth. By assuming the earth was flat ...
Eratosthenes used sticks in the ground and measured the shadows to work out the size of the earth.
Post by: Sceptom on January 11, 2015, 02:46:55 PM
The animation isn't very good. It makes the spot light too small.
Rowbotham draws a better depiction although probably still a little small.
In Rowbotham's graph, you still have the same problem. I've attached the picture with modifications. Let's take the green circle: it represents the daylight of the sun during southern summer at a specific spot. While the sun goes along the red arc, the blue spot gets daylight. But again, this red arc represents only a quarter of the sun's full path. So you get daylight for 6h, and the 18h left are night... during summer... which is not what we observe.
In fact, if you wanted a longer day than night (during southern summer), the spot light would be huge. So big, in fact, that the north pole would always be within the spot. Thus there would never be night in the north pole (and other northern part of the world) while it's summer in the southern hemiplane, which is not what we observe.
Plus, the only way to enlarge the spot would be to have the sun at a higher altitude. But then, it would be colder, not warmer during winter... which is not what we observe.
How can you explain that...?
Post by: Sceptom on January 11, 2015, 10:46:25 PM
Could it be that it points to a fundamental flaw of FE theory?
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2015, 11:33:23 PM
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1258.msg56594#msg56594
I assumed you'd have read it and responded. you didn't, I guessed you were happy.
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 11:35:37 PM
Quote
In Rowbotham's graph, you still have the same problem. I've attached the picture with modifications. Let's take the green circle: it represents the daylight of the sun during southern summer at a specific spot. While the sun goes along the red arc, the blue spot gets daylight. But again, this red arc represents only a quarter of the sun's full path. So you get daylight for 6h, and the 18h left are night... during summer... which is not what we observe.
In fact, if you wanted a longer day than night (during southern summer), the spot light would be huge. So big, in fact, that the north pole would always be within the spot. Thus there would never be night in the north pole (and other northern part of the world) while it's summer in the southern hemiplane, which is not what we observe.
Plus, the only way to enlarge the spot would be to have the sun at a higher altitude. But then, it would be colder, not warmer during winter... which is not what we observe.
How can you explain that...?
The expanded explanation is that the spotlight changes shape throughout the year due to refraction and the varrying height of the sun throughout the year.
First, if no atmosphere existed, no doubt the light of the sun would diffuse over the whole earth at once, and alternations of light and darkness could not exist.
Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by Snell's Law bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the sun--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versâ--the effect is a non-uniform area of sun-light.
For a striking example of Snell's Law we simply need to put a straw into a glass of water:
(http://www.spiritualliving.net/straw%20glass%20smalll.jpg)
As we can see, the light from behind the glass is bent downwards as it passes through the thick medium of the water. While this is an extreme example, it shows that light is malleable, able to bend and conform based on existing conditions. When the light of the sun moves from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere of the earth it is gradually compelled downwards into the surface. The refractive index of air is a bit less than water, and so the effect will me more gradual, taking place over tens of thousands of miles instead of abruptly like the above image.
This considered, lets designate some facts.
Fact: Cold air is denser than warm air, and has therefore a greater refractive index.1
Fact: The sun is higher over the earth in its Northern Annulus and closer to the earth during its Southern Annulus.2
During Equinox the sun is positioned over the equator, the majority of its warmth spread over the ring of the equator. The sun is at it's middle point between hemispheres. The atmosphere in this area around the equator is at its highest temperature and therefore, since warm air has less of a refractive index than cold air, light can progress further through the atmosphere without bending towards the ground. This results in the spotlight of the sun conforming to the shape of the hottest areas. The end result gives the spotlight of the sun an oval shape taking up roughly one half of the earth:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/254yo1f.png)
When the Sun is over the North and at its highest altitude the spotlight is small and circular. This is because the sun is far from the earth and not heating the atmosphere up very much. At this time the entire Southern Hemisphere is in its Winter, and since cold air is denser than warm air, the refractive index is higher and light cannot proceed without being redirected into the earth. Since the earth is colder, the light is restricted to a smaller circle where summer exists in the North.
When the sun is over the South and close to the earth the sun is heating up the Southern Hemisphere, giving the spotlight a wide crescent shape. The shape is a crescent because when the sun is over the South it is winter in the North and the sun's light cannot penetrate the density of the Northern Hemisphere's winter.
The shape of the spotlight defines the time it will take for the sun to set. If the spotlight is small, the sun will appear to pass over the earth quickly. If the spotlight is large, the sun will take appear to take a longer time to pass over the earth. In the above illustration the Sun's spotlight is neither small or large - but at it's median.
1 Fourth paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Mirages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage)
2 See the Sun's Analemma (http://cdn.hotstockmarket.com/8/81/500x1000px-LL-81bc5324_CompleteAnalemmaSiz600.jpeg) which demonstrates the height of the sun over the course of the year.
Post by: Sentient Pizza on January 12, 2015, 08:20:27 PM
Tom please show a version that also displays summer sunlight distribution for the southern/outer Hemiplane, and the mathematics that allow you to predict and create these illustrations.
Post by: Thork on January 12, 2015, 08:24:58 PM
How about you produce calculations to disprove it? Do you think you can just turn up here and demand our FErs spend hours humouring your every inane and lazy request because the ones at the other site are now bored of your trolling?
Tom please show a version that also displays summer sunlight distribution for the southern/outer Hemiplane, and the mathematics that allow you to predict and create these illustrations.
Debate is a two way thing. You'll get out what you put in. If you generate content, you'll receive substantiated replies. Lazy one liners will likely see you ignored.
Post by: Sentient Pizza on January 12, 2015, 08:59:34 PM
How about you produce calculations to disprove it? Do you think you can just turn up here and demand our FErs spend hours humouring your every inane and lazy request because the ones at the other site are now bored of your trolling?
Tom please show a version that also displays summer sunlight distribution for the southern/outer Hemiplane, and the mathematics that allow you to predict and create these illustrations.
Debate is a two way thing. You'll get out what you put in. If you generate content, you'll receive substantiated replies. Lazy one liners will likely see you ignored.
Wow Thork. I'm not sure what I did to ruffle your feathers. Whatever it is I apologize.
I Have made very few posts in general and don't recall doing any trolling or having members on the other site have any issues with me.
I can produce the mathematics that show predictions for Round earth daylight. I can point you to countless websites, books, studies, and all other manner of things that you will likely not accept. That is not the intent of this thread is it? this thread is called "The length of the day on a flat earth". Tom provided a large-ish post with nothing to support his claim. I was asking for the information required to duplicate his claims so I could verify for myself. If the information was readily available somewhere else I would have looked other places first.
My apologies Thork. I thought the question I asked was on par with the level of evidence and standards this community expects.
My request to tom still stands.
Post by: Sceptom on January 12, 2015, 10:35:16 PM
Tom answered this in another thread today.Well, your assumption was wrong.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1258.msg56594#msg56594
I assumed you'd have read it and responded. you didn't, I guessed you were happy.
Post by: Sceptom on January 12, 2015, 10:37:05 PM
I'm not sure if you know or agree with the concept of burden of proof.How about you produce calculations to disprove it? Do you think you can just turn up here and demand our FErs spend hours humouring your every inane and lazy request because the ones at the other site are now bored of your trolling?
Tom please show a version that also displays summer sunlight distribution for the southern/outer Hemiplane, and the mathematics that allow you to predict and create these illustrations.
Debate is a two way thing. You'll get out what you put in. If you generate content, you'll receive substantiated replies. Lazy one liners will likely see you ignored.
Post by: Thork on January 12, 2015, 10:52:01 PM
And you can go about proving earth is round equally as vociferously as you demand we prove that it is flat.I'm not sure if you know or agree with the concept of burden of proof.How about you produce calculations to disprove it? Do you think you can just turn up here and demand our FErs spend hours humouring your every inane and lazy request because the ones at the other site are now bored of your trolling?
Tom please show a version that also displays summer sunlight distribution for the southern/outer Hemiplane, and the mathematics that allow you to predict and create these illustrations.
Debate is a two way thing. You'll get out what you put in. If you generate content, you'll receive substantiated replies. Lazy one liners will likely see you ignored.
Post by: Sceptom on January 12, 2015, 11:17:17 PM
I can't respond to it now, but will do in the next days.
Post by: Sceptom on January 14, 2015, 10:39:16 PM
The expanded explanation is that the spotlight changes shape throughout the year due to refraction and the varrying height of the sun throughout the year.Well, that actually made sense somehow... cold air has a higher refractive index than hot air, so the spot is not a perfect circle, it's a bit squeezed because the air is colder in the north and far south.
[...]
Fact: Cold air is denser than warm air, and has therefore a greater refractive index.1
Fact: The sun is higher over the earth in its Northern Annulus and closer to the earth during its Southern Annulus.2
During Equinox the sun is positioned over the equator, the majority of its warmth spread over the ring of the equator. The sun is at it's middle point between hemispheres. The atmosphere in this area around the equator is at its highest temperature and therefore, since warm air has less of a refractive index than cold air, light can progress further through the atmosphere without bending towards the ground. This results in the spotlight of the sun conforming to the shape of the hottest areas. The end result gives the spotlight of the sun an oval shape taking up roughly one half of the earth:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/254yo1f.png)
When the Sun is over the North and at its highest altitude the spotlight is small and circular. This is because the sun is far from the earth and not heating the atmosphere up very much. At this time the entire Southern Hemisphere is in its Winter, and since cold air is denser than warm air, the refractive index is higher and light cannot proceed without being redirected into the earth. Since the earth is colder, the light is restricted to a smaller circle where summer exists in the North.
When the sun is over the South and close to the earth the sun is heating up the Southern Hemisphere, giving the spotlight a wide crescent shape. The shape is a crescent because when the sun is over the South it is winter in the North and the sun's light cannot penetrate the density of the Northern Hemisphere's winter.
Except that the refractive index for air is around 1.00027 at 20°C (and 1 atm) and 1.00030 at -10°C (and 1 atm). That's a difference of less than 0.003% and yet you expect to believe that it's enough to transform the shape of the spot from a perfect circle to the oval represented in your picture?
But even then, let's say that it is the case. I'm still wondering why you would present such a picture and pretend that it accurately represents daylight during some time of the year.
Let's consider Australia. At latitude 30° south, Australia gets between a bit more than 10h and 14h of daylight, depending on the time of the year (winter solstice and summer solstice respectively). Yet, if I follow the 30° S latitude up to the spot in your picture, I count only 9h. It doesn't fit reality.
In fact, if you had to produce a spot that accurately represents the length of the day during the solstice of June, you'd get the spot in yellow (or something close to that) in the first attachment.
And in the second attachment, I drew the spot for the solstice of December (in red).
You're trying to tell me that the sun spot changes so drastically, only because of the 0.003% difference in the air refractive index change?
It's as I said on this thread or another one: to make FE theory work, you need magic. A magic sun or maybe a magic atmosphere. Probably both...
Post by: inquisitive on January 14, 2015, 11:22:53 PM
The proof is found by following and measuring the position around the earth at different times,see sun rise and set tables,And you can go about proving earth is round equally as vociferously as you demand we prove that it is flat.I'm not sure if you know or agree with the concept of burden of proof.How about you produce calculations to disprove it? Do you think you can just turn up here and demand our FErs spend hours humouring your every inane and lazy request because the ones at the other site are now bored of your trolling?
Tom please show a version that also displays summer sunlight distribution for the southern/outer Hemiplane, and the mathematics that allow you to predict and create these illustrations.
Debate is a two way thing. You'll get out what you put in. If you generate content, you'll receive substantiated replies. Lazy one liners will likely see you ignored.
Post by: Sceptom on January 18, 2015, 07:56:16 PM
Post by: model 29 on January 18, 2015, 09:32:20 PM
*values based on known surface distance from n. pole.
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2015, 09:52:37 PM
Well, that actually made sense somehow... cold air has a higher refractive index than hot air, so the spot is not a perfect circle, it's a bit squeezed because the air is colder in the north and far south.
Except that the refractive index for air is around 1.00027 at 20°C (and 1 atm) and 1.00030 at -10°C (and 1 atm). That's a difference of less than 0.003% and yet you expect to believe that it's enough to transform the shape of the spot from a perfect circle to the oval represented in your picture?
But even then, let's say that it is the case. I'm still wondering why you would present such a picture and pretend that it accurately represents daylight during some time of the year.
Let's consider Australia. At latitude 30° south, Australia gets between a bit more than 10h and 14h of daylight, depending on the time of the year (winter solstice and summer solstice respectively). Yet, if I follow the 30° S latitude up to the spot in your picture, I count only 9h. It doesn't fit reality.
In fact, if you had to produce a spot that accurately represents the length of the day during the solstice of June, you'd get the spot in yellow (or something close to that) in the first attachment.
And in the second attachment, I drew the spot for the solstice of December (in red).
You're trying to tell me that the sun spot changes so drastically, only because of the 0.003% difference in the air refractive index change?
It's as I said on this thread or another one: to make FE theory work, you need magic. A magic sun or maybe a magic atmosphere. Probably both...
The refractive index is small, but the space is over tens of thousands of miles. Even over the distance of a few miles, when light air passes between cold air and warm air, or between warm air and cold air, there is a large effect:
(http://www.astronomycafe.net/weird/lights/mirage3.jpg)
(http://epod.usra.edu/.a/6a0105371bb32c970b017d3c93d329970c-pi)
(http://epod.usra.edu/.a/6a0105371bb32c970b0120a90385f7970b-750wi)
As per the midnight sun in Antarctica, there is some dispute whether it actually occurs.
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2015, 01:58:49 AM
As per the midnight sun in Antarctica, there is some dispute whether it actually occurs.
The controversy is about as substantial and relevant as the Creationist-Evolutionist debate.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 19, 2015, 02:14:45 AM
The controversy is about as substantial and relevant as the Creationist-Evolutionist debate.So, rigidly dividing a 300-something-million nation (which also happens to be a third of the so-called western world) into thee major camps, with both sides of the debate often being given equal time in schools?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Views_on_Evolution.svg)
I mean, that's a pretty poor choice of words if you were trying to imply that there is no substantial or relevant controversy around the subject.
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2015, 02:30:21 AM
The controversy is about as substantial and relevant as the Creationist-Evolutionist debate.So, rigidly dividing a 300-something-million nation (which also happens to be a third of the so-called western world) into thee major camps, with both sides of the debate often being given equal time in schools?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Views_on_Evolution.svg)
I mean, that's a pretty poor choice of words if you were trying to imply that there is no substantial or relevant controversy around the subject.
Well I am not about to let an Argumentum ad Populum determine the relevance of the contraversy. That being said there is no substantial contraversy. Evolution has a plethora of evidence to support it and creationism has a dearth. Everything else is noise. The same can be said for the Midnight Sun "contraversy".
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 19, 2015, 02:43:16 AM
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2015, 03:28:03 AM
Post by: markjo on January 19, 2015, 04:45:29 AM
As per the midnight sun in Antarctica, there is some dispute whether it actually occurs.Only among those for whom it would be inconvenient to explain with their worldview.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 19, 2015, 05:18:56 AM
My point is more about relevance and substance, not about whether or not there is a controversy. That there is a controversy about the midnight sun has no bearing on the truth of the matter: that it has been witnessed by thousands and thousands of people, studied, documented and modeled.Ah, so your remarks on the relevancy of the controversy can be thoroughly dismissed on the basis that they're irrelevant, since you're speaking from one camp of it with no pretension of objectivity?
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2015, 11:54:12 AM
My point is more about relevance and substance, not about whether or not there is a controversy. That there is a controversy about the midnight sun has no bearing on the truth of the matter: that it has been witnessed by thousands and thousands of people, studied, documented and modeled.Ah, so your remarks on the relevancy of the controversy can be thoroughly dismissed on the basis that they're irrelevant, since you're speaking from one camp of it with no pretension of objectivity?
My comment was obviously editorial so do what you will. I have seen little evidence of any dispute with the midnight sun anywhere except on this forum. That would make Tom's comment strictly true, but it does not lend the assertion that there is no Midnight Sun any credence.
Post by: Sceptom on January 19, 2015, 06:01:40 PM
And this effect is supposed to explain not only the shift between the yellow spot and the red spot in my previous figures, but also why does this effect seems to work differently when it's summer or winter in any hemisphere... ?Well, that actually made sense somehow... cold air has a higher refractive index than hot air, so the spot is not a perfect circle, it's a bit squeezed because the air is colder in the north and far south.
Except that the refractive index for air is around 1.00027 at 20°C (and 1 atm) and 1.00030 at -10°C (and 1 atm). That's a difference of less than 0.003% and yet you expect to believe that it's enough to transform the shape of the spot from a perfect circle to the oval represented in your picture?
But even then, let's say that it is the case. I'm still wondering why you would present such a picture and pretend that it accurately represents daylight during some time of the year.
Let's consider Australia. At latitude 30° south, Australia gets between a bit more than 10h and 14h of daylight, depending on the time of the year (winter solstice and summer solstice respectively). Yet, if I follow the 30° S latitude up to the spot in your picture, I count only 9h. It doesn't fit reality.
In fact, if you had to produce a spot that accurately represents the length of the day during the solstice of June, you'd get the spot in yellow (or something close to that) in the first attachment.
And in the second attachment, I drew the spot for the solstice of December (in red).
You're trying to tell me that the sun spot changes so drastically, only because of the 0.003% difference in the air refractive index change?
It's as I said on this thread or another one: to make FE theory work, you need magic. A magic sun or maybe a magic atmosphere. Probably both...
The refractive index is small, but the space is over tens of thousands of miles. Even over the distance of a few miles, when light air passes between cold air and warm air, or between warm air and cold air, there is a large effect
Sorry if I'm not convinced. The alternative explanation - that you're wrong - is far more likely.
Quote
As per the midnight sun in Antarctica, there is some dispute whether it actually occurs.No, there isn't.
Post by: Sentient Pizza on January 19, 2015, 09:13:56 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop link=topic=2241.msg57452#msg57452
The refractive index is small, but the space is over tens of thousands of miles. Even over the distance of a few miles, when light air passes between cold air and warm air, or between warm air and cold air, there is a large effect:
OK Tom. Please provide the model for your "large effect" over a few miles. Posting a picture of mirages is hardly the kind of effect you are claiming happens to sunlight as it meets the ground. In fact it seems downright dishonest to claim that a visual effect (caused by what happens to light as it passes through a boundary layer with a great temperature variation) could be responsible for the shape of the spotlight claimed by FE.
Please provide the basis that allows you to create an illustration depicting the illuminated areas of the disk. It's cant be that hard if you were able to produce the illustration yourself.
All we want to do is cross reference the results of the model against observations we can make in reality. If your model can even get within a few minutes of reality, in any location on the surface, I think it would stand as a great evidence for a flat earth. Do you not want the great conspiracy unraveled?
Post by: Sceptom on February 08, 2015, 10:43:03 PM
I was curious to see how FEers defend their theory and posted a series of threads on this forum. I'm actually a bit disappointed, I thought the answers would be far more filled with details, and calculations, and graphs, and everything that would have proved that it's a solid thing. I have only found vague replies, if any, which didn't fully adressed the difficulties of FET or did it only superficially.
This thread is a perfect example of this.
As I'm now bored with this forum, this will be my last post. I consider that I have proven FET false on this thread. I'll still come back from time to time if there are any valid rebuttals to my refutation.
Take care!
Post by: Thork on February 08, 2015, 11:29:16 PM
Hi all,Your posts are full of 2 or three lines of text that take you a minute to write. And yet you expected responses "filled with details, and calculations, and graphs". Do you expect Flat Earthers to plough masses of time in to servicing the first thing that pops into someone's head? You get out what you put in. We also have a wealth of information on our wiki and library, where we have all those details. If you can't be bothered to read them, why would anyone bother to rewrite them all for you?
I was curious to see how FEers defend their theory and posted a series of threads on this forum. I'm actually a bit disappointed, I thought the answers would be far more filled with details, and calculations, and graphs, and everything that would have proved that it's a solid thing. I have only found vague replies, if any, which didn't fully adressed the difficulties of FET or did it only superficially.
This thread is a perfect example of this.
As I'm now bored with this forum, this will be my last post. I consider that I have proven FET false on this thread. I'll still come back from time to time if there are any valid rebuttals to my refutation.
Take care!
Post by: Sentient Pizza on February 09, 2015, 08:43:27 PM
Your posts are full of 2 or three lines of text that take you a minute to write.That is how questions work Thork. The requested information is in the answer not the question.
And yet you expected responses "filled with details, and calculations, and graphs". Do you expect Flat Earthers to plough masses of time in to servicing the first thing that pops into someone's head?2 things here:
1 - Both you and tom came up with graphics and made statements but neither one produced the supporting models. Presumably if you can generate the graphics you can also provide the models so we can do the same.
2 - Since the "council" is interested in doing a re-work (or whatever it ends up being) of ENAG and the current uderstanding of FET; this is a perfect opportunity to flesh out the supporting evidence as is advocated by Tom.
You get out what you put in.You keep posting this statement as a fall back point. Have you considered that YOU (flatists) are getting out what YOU are putting in? The complete lack of fleshed out hypothesis is garnering the complete lack of belief and understaning form the RE side? Maybe if you guys (flatists) actually posted evidence there would be constructive discourse.
We also have a wealth of information on our wiki and library, where we have all those details. If you can't be bothered to read them, why would anyone bother to rewrite them all for you?Incorrect. There is only a minuscule list of baseless assertions and their very half baked supporting ideas. More accurately your statement should be "There is a small amount of content in our library. We accept this as plenty of evidence even though we fully know none of it stands up to any amount of scrutiny when compared to actual observed phenomena. We will direct you there as though it makes our case for us when we are tired of dodging and escaping specific questions that we have no way to answer."
Now would you like to provide the model that explains the sunrise and sunset times on the flat earth? Or would you like to concede that you have no model to explain the question asked in Skeptoms' OP?
Post by: Sceptom on March 26, 2015, 10:25:17 PM
Until then, it proves FET is false. There's a second post that does that too (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2521.0).
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 26, 2015, 10:51:42 PM
Just a small reminder that this post still has no answer.You will find that petty attempts at taunting us don't encourage discussion. It discourages it. The fact that you think something's been proven does very little to actually prove it, and your opinions are incredibly unimportant here.
Until then, it proves FET is false. There's a second post that does that too (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2521.0).
Post by: Sceptom on March 26, 2015, 10:56:17 PM
Thank you for yet another admission that FET is not capable of answering my questions. If you could, you would not waste a single post complaining about my taunting attitude (which I totally admit), you would be too happy to refute my post.Just a small reminder that this post still has no answer.You will find that petty attempts at taunting us don't encourage discussion. It discourages it. The fact that you think something's been proven does very little to actually prove it, and your opinions are incredibly unimportant here.
Until then, it proves FET is false. There's a second post that does that too (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2521.0).
Each non-answer I receive from such petty attempts is further proof that FET is false. So please, do complain...
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 26, 2015, 11:03:48 PM
Post by: Tau on March 27, 2015, 01:10:41 AM
Thank you for yet another admission that FET is not capable of answering my questions. If you could, you would not waste a single post complaining about my taunting attitude (which I totally admit), you would be too happy to refute my post.Just a small reminder that this post still has no answer.You will find that petty attempts at taunting us don't encourage discussion. It discourages it. The fact that you think something's been proven does very little to actually prove it, and your opinions are incredibly unimportant here.
Until then, it proves FET is false. There's a second post that does that too (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2521.0).
Each non-answer I receive from such petty attempts is further proof that FET is false. So please, do complain...
I know you like to want to superior, but Thork answered all of your questions quite patiently. Then you got
Quote from: Sceptom
bored with this forumand left. If you'd like to state what question you feel went unanswered I'd be happy to either answer it for you or quote the person who did. But don't be a dick about it. Nobody likes that.
Post by: Sceptom on March 27, 2015, 09:53:44 PM
- I asked a question about the length of the day during winter and summer in any one hemisphere, in 2 parts: one about the speed of the sun, the other about the daylight time for summer in the southern hemisphere.
- For the first part, Thork answered that, indeed, the sun changes speed (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56480#msg56480) as it changes its radius from summer to winter (in the northern hemisphere) (with the wrong math but whatever...)
- He didn't answer the why the speed of the sun changes, nor anyone else, but I didn't insist on that part. (Well, to be fair, he probably thinks he did answer that with his "celestial gears" answer. But it's just as answering "God did it", which is really not an answer at all. I guess FEers are satisfied with such non-explanations)
- He didn't answer the second part so I asked again (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56481#msg56481), and he tried to answer something but obviously didn't really understand the question. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56482#msg56482)
- I explained in more details why his response didn't answer my question. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56492#msg56492)
- Thork then understood the question and gave a response (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56493#msg56493), but didn't bother to check whether it actually solved the problem.
- Not only, it didn't, but it created more problems to solve, as I explained (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56501#msg56501).
- Then, he handed the problem over to Tom Bishop, who proved to be more sophisticated than Thork in his response. Tom talked about the air refraction which presumably modifies the shape of the sun spot. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56597#msg56597)
- Unfortunately, he didn't check the actual difference in air refraction between hot and cold air. He didn't wonder why his air refraction explanation would work so differently at different times of the year. I provided figures and graphs depicting the spot at the two solstices. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56968#msg56968)
- Then Tom's sophistication lost quite a bit of its appeal when he argued that the effect would accumulate because of the large distances (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg57452#msg57452) (it doesn't: the refraction only occurs at the interface between two different environments.) and also used images of mirages as if it served his point.
- He also failed to answer Sentient Pizza's request (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg57693#msg57693) for a more detailed model of how all this would supposedly work
In short, I only got responses that failed to answer the original question.
So, there you have, Tausami.
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2015, 03:00:17 AM
Post by: Rama Set on March 28, 2015, 01:30:40 PM
Why wouldn't light rays, deflected at an angle, continue to deviate and cause the effect to increase over distance?
It would depend I would think. Once the light ray enters a medium, it's course would deviate, but once the initial deviation occurs, it is no longer altered by refraction. But I suppose depending on the temperature gradient it could continue to deviate. This gradient would change drastically day to day though so could be relied upon to explain a season long variation.
Post by: Sceptom on March 28, 2015, 01:40:48 PM
Why wouldn't light rays, deflected at an angle, continue to deviate and cause the effect to increase over distance?Because physics.
Refraction occurs at the interface between two media, as in the example of the straw in the glass of water you showed in an earlier post. In the air above, no refraction occurs, in the water below, no refraction occurs. Refraction is only happening at the interface between the two.
If you had two massive clumps of air, one is cold, say 0°C, the other warm, say 30°C. Light would refract when going from the warm air to the cold air (or vice-versa), with a refractive index of x, but within each clump, there's no refraction. Now, imagine that each clump is further divided into two smaller clumps so you now have three interfaces: 0°C --> 10°C --> 20°C --> 30°C. Light would refract three times as it goes from one clump to another. OK, but the refractive index is also divided by three, x/3, so the total amount of refraction doesn't change. Continue to divide into smaller portions so that you get a continuum of temperature, but you also have smaller and smaller refractive indices between each portion. The refraction is thus not cumulative.
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2015, 06:59:47 PM
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/af9e689ca4cf0d8cd17e5ebfe7d546cff96a5cb3.gif)
The distance between segments A and C is different at 1cm away from point B, than it is at 2 inches away from point B. The distance between A and C grew with distance.
Post by: Sceptom on March 28, 2015, 07:00:39 PM
If a line deviates from its position, into a new angle, the divergence from its original position will grow with distance. Consider the following illustration:So?
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/af9e689ca4cf0d8cd17e5ebfe7d546cff96a5cb3.gif)
The distance between segments A and C is different at 1cm away from point B, than it is at 2 inches away from point B. The distance between A and C grew with distance.
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2015, 07:01:39 PM
Post by: Sceptom on March 28, 2015, 07:59:17 PM
So the effect would increase over distance.I'm sorry but I fail to see how your explanation with the angle is related to the effect increasing over distance. Could you go into more details? perhaps with a graph or something?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2015, 08:16:19 PM
Post by: Tau on March 28, 2015, 08:50:09 PM
OK, let's rewind and summarize the content of this thread so far (ignoring digressions):
- I asked a question about the length of the day during winter and summer in any one hemisphere, in 2 parts: one about the speed of the sun, the other about the daylight time for summer in the southern hemisphere.
- For the first part, Thork answered that, indeed, the sun changes speed (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56480#msg56480) as it changes its radius from summer to winter (in the northern hemisphere) (with the wrong math but whatever...)
- He didn't answer the why the speed of the sun changes, nor anyone else, but I didn't insist on that part. (Well, to be fair, he probably thinks he did answer that with his "celestial gears" answer. But it's just as answering "God did it", which is really not an answer at all. I guess FEers are satisfied with such non-explanations)
- He didn't answer the second part so I asked again (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56481#msg56481), and he tried to answer something but obviously didn't really understand the question. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56482#msg56482)
- I explained in more details why his response didn't answer my question. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56492#msg56492)
- Thork then understood the question and gave a response (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56493#msg56493), but didn't bother to check whether it actually solved the problem.
- Not only, it didn't, but it created more problems to solve, as I explained (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56501#msg56501).
- Then, he handed the problem over to Tom Bishop, who proved to be more sophisticated than Thork in his response. Tom talked about the air refraction which presumably modifies the shape of the sun spot. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56597#msg56597)
- Unfortunately, he didn't check the actual difference in air refraction between hot and cold air. He didn't wonder why his air refraction explanation would work so differently at different times of the year. I provided figures and graphs depicting the spot at the two solstices. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56968#msg56968)
- Then Tom's sophistication lost quite a bit of its appeal when he argued that the effect would accumulate because of the large distances (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg57452#msg57452) (it doesn't: the refraction only occurs at the interface between two different environments.) and also used images of mirages as if it served his point.
- He also failed to answer Sentient Pizza's request (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg57693#msg57693) for a more detailed model of how all this would supposedly work
In short, I only got responses that failed to answer the original question.
So, there you have, Tausami.
So what I'm reading here is that you completely discounted every answer you've been given because you didn't like them and/or refused to do more research about them. Thork's theory of celestial gears is actually quite well defined, even if you don't like it. Personally, I prefer the Aetheric whirlwind theory. You can read about both of them in the Wiki. But please don't be so condescending about it.
Post by: Sceptom on March 29, 2015, 08:09:56 AM
So what I'm reading here is that you completely discounted every answer you've been given because you didn't like them and/or refused to do more research about themNope, I discounted them because they were wrong, as I explained each time, sometimes with a high level of detail. But if you disagree, please show me that my justifications for rejecting their responses were wrong.
Thork's theory of celestial gears is actually quite well defined, even if you don't like it. Personally, I prefer the Aetheric whirlwind theory. You can read about both of them in the Wiki. But please don't be so condescending about it.Again, that part about the sun changing speed and why was quickly abandoned as it was not very relevant for the issue I wanted to discuss. This is typical of the discussions in this forum: FEers always miss the point by trying to subtly (or not so in some cases) redefining the question so that it's easier for them to argue.
And also, I don't know what to think about Thork's theory of celestial gears as he didn't even bother to provide a link to describe it (and the wiki contains maybe one or two sentences about it). Thork, and probably other FEers, seem to think that someone who makes a claim doesn't have to argue for it; he just states it, and it becomes true. And whenever anyone asks him to provide arguments and sources, he accuses them of being lazy. That's not how discussions work. If I was claiming that Russell's teapot does exist, you would be right to ask me for arguments and evidence. And if I told you to do your research yourself (you super lazy bastard), then you would be right to consider me an idiot.
Post by: Sceptom on March 29, 2015, 08:19:56 AM
I just posted an illustration showing that a change in angle increases in deviation with distance. What are you having trouble understanding?How it relates to the spot of the sun changing shape from this (northern summer solstice):
(http://i59.tinypic.com/j93oyh.jpg)
to that (northern winter solstice):
(http://i57.tinypic.com/28gy0xt.jpg)
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 29, 2015, 12:28:33 PM
It doesn't, because, contrary to your fantasies, such a change never occurs.I just posted an illustration showing that a change in angle increases in deviation with distance. What are you having trouble understanding?How it relates to the spot of the sun changing shape from this (northern summer solstice):
(http://i59.tinypic.com/j93oyh.jpg)
to that (northern winter solstice):
(http://i57.tinypic.com/28gy0xt.jpg)
Post by: Sceptom on March 29, 2015, 07:44:05 PM
Of course, it doesn't since the earth is round and day/light and seasons cycles are explained by the rotation of the earth on its axis and around the sun.It doesn't, because, contrary to your fantasies, such a change never occurs.I just posted an illustration showing that a change in angle increases in deviation with distance. What are you having trouble understanding?How it relates to the spot of the sun changing shape from this (northern summer solstice):
(http://i59.tinypic.com/j93oyh.jpg)
to that (northern winter solstice):
(http://i57.tinypic.com/28gy0xt.jpg)
But in FET, in order to account for the daylight time during the year, the sun spot necessarily has to go from the yellow shape to the red one. Yet, I've seen so far no explanation for such a drastic change.
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 29, 2015, 10:18:27 PM
Post by: Sceptom on March 30, 2015, 08:09:21 AM
I addressed how that is explained on that map earlier in this thread when it was brought up. I don't even use that map as my main go-to flat earth map, anyway. I typically use the one where Antarctica is a continent.Your so-called explanations were refuted.
And what is this map you prefer to use? could you show it?
Post by: joshualuther on April 26, 2017, 01:28:00 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYK3IZjGF8c
Post by: Nirmala on April 26, 2017, 03:24:49 PM
I addressed how that is explained on that map earlier in this thread when it was brought up. I don't even use that map as my main go-to flat earth map, anyway. I typically use the one where Antarctica is a continent.Your so-called explanations were refuted.
And what is this map you prefer to use? could you show it?
Similar problems with the areas of daylight and the path of the sun on the alternative bipolar map Tom Bishop is referring to are explored on these threads:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.0
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6072.0
Post by: Nirmala on April 30, 2017, 03:01:19 PM
I addressed how that is explained on that map earlier in this thread when it was brought up. I don't even use that map as my main go-to flat earth map, anyway. I typically use the one where Antarctica is a continent.
It seems to me that you use both maps at different points. Which model do you personally actually believe in: the unipolar flat earth with an ice ring around it, or a bipolar flat earth with Anarctica as a separate continent that can be circumnavigated? And if the latter, then what is beyond the edge of the bipolar flat map? Another ice ring? An infinite ocean in perpetual darkness? Or are you undecided about which model is true?
I know I have asked these questions on another thread, but I am still waiting for an answer. It seems strange for someone to argue from a unipolar model and a bipolar model in the same thread as they often contradict each other, especially on a topic like this thread's topic.
Post by: despat on April 25, 2018, 05:12:14 AM
I addressed how that is explained on that map earlier in this thread when it was brought up. I don't even use that map as my main go-to flat earth map, anyway. I typically use the one where Antarctica is a continent.
It seems to me that you use both maps at different points. Which model do you personally actually believe in: the unipolar flat earth with an ice ring around it, or a bipolar flat earth with Anarctica as a separate continent that can be circumnavigated? And if the latter, then what is beyond the edge of the bipolar flat map? Another ice ring? An infinite ocean in perpetual darkness? Or are you undecided about which model is true?
I know I have asked these questions on another thread, but I am still waiting for an answer. It seems strange for someone to argue from a unipolar model and a bipolar model in the same thread as they often contradict each other, especially on a topic like this thread's topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNefFfo4EpU
It's a 7 year long research done by many scientists to find the real shape of our earth. They're either all very good liars or we actually live on a flat earth where BIGGER LIERS have constructed a false "Global" reality to hid something from us. I wouldn't be surpised, ONE BIG LIE (Moon landing) and all the puffed up pride has just led to series of lies that have gone too far (that's it's not funny anymore).
Post by: Tumeni on April 25, 2018, 07:32:01 AM
Here you go.
VID
It's a 7 year long research done by many scientists to find the real shape of our earth.
There's no proof they are or were "scientists". No statement of qualifications, no indication of what work they've done, etc.
They're either all very good liars or we actually live on a flat earth where BIGGER LIERS have constructed a false "Global" reality to hid something from us. I wouldn't be surpised, ONE BIG LIE (Moon landing) and all the puffed up pride has just led to series of lies that have gone too far (that's it's not funny anymore).
It's a mockumentary. A Spinal Tap for flat-earthers.
A bunch of high-profile FEers on YouTube mirrored it on the day of release, and within a couple of days, they'd pulled it because they realised they'd been had.
Look on YouTube. Not hard to find retractions and backpedalling.
It supposedly took 7 years to make, but nobody ages during this.
At one point, they claim a reading of 15 km, but this is voiced over a display which shows 1.5km
It even has a Cast List in the end credits, and most of the cast seem to be the extended family of the lead role.
The lead role has intitials 'UFO'
Googling provides NO data for any of the cast, apart from the 'Music Critic' listed. Wouldn't you expect SOMETHING about them, IF they were real scientists ...?
Post by: Machinist22 on April 19, 2019, 03:46:22 AM
Post by: QED on April 19, 2019, 12:58:34 PM
Nope, you are right, the sun speed changes. I actually have an excel calculator that works out the speed of the sun on any given day. (I'm a geek and enjoy making such things.) Unfortunately I can't upload a file to a forum post. But you have all the information you need to do it.
Assume the diameter of the earth is 40,008km and the distance from the North pole to the equator is 10,002km and the sun is moving between 23°26′14.4″ S and 23°26′14.4″ North of the equator. The Summer and winter Solstices provide your two limits.
*Note: The Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the sun and once every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds with respect to the stars in round earth theory so you need to use the full 24 hours for speed, we want the sun speed. (we explain the difference between the two with celestial gearing, or the prime mover ... first theorised by Aristotle and later elaborated on by Thomas Aquinas in his cosmological arguments, as a "first cause" of existence.)
Below is the diagram of how the sun moves over the earth relative to the seasons
(http://i26.tinypic.com/hrja7c.png)
Below Wilbur Voliva shows how the sun orbits directly above the earth 3000 miles up.
(http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flatmap.jpg)
Below is the Flammarion woodcut depicting a man lifting the curtain of the sky to see the gears that drive the heavens.
(http://www.hawkmusic.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Flammarion_Woodcut_Completed_copy.315190928_large.jpg)
You have the calculations? Dude! Why are you keeping this secret?
Can’t ya make a google drive? Or a online repository?
If you can demonstrate that a day/night cycle on a FE is viable - then that is huge! If independently verified it represents a solid step forward. From this data, actual trajectories could be mapped out.
Has any FEer requested to see this, or do they just take your word for it?
Well done, BTW.
Post by: spherical on April 29, 2019, 09:19:41 PM
Considering the FE Sun circles over the FE disc once every 24 hours, then it must cover more than 180 degrees of the southern FE land at any specific time during southern summer. Can any FEr please, draw a specific geometric shape over the FE map, even crude, showing this coverage ?
Additional text:
The big problems for FE is the southern hemisphere, always, this is why both, FEr or REr, we need to stress any issue in attempt to clarify any doubts through the scientific way. There are plenty of FE issues there, direction of rotation and visibility of the stars, lands dimensions and ocean distances between them, times of flight, Sun presenting itself 360° all around during summer (the killer issue), etc.
I was raised watching the Crux Constellation every night, rotating in the sky, stars Acrux (the 12th brightest star in the sky), Alpha Crucis magnitude 0.77. It is on declination -63°, due the Earth's curvature it can not be seem north of latitude 27°N. It was my first telescope observation at 6 yrs old, we didn't have so much light pollution at that time, skies were really black and clean. The Crux is a circumpolar constellation at 34°S, it means it is visible all year round in the south, and its position is the opposite of Cassiopeia in the Northern sky. There is an image of the Crux on the rocks of Machu Picchu in Peru, the Inca knew it as Chakana. It is also presented on the Australian and Brazilian flag, its name was used as Brazilian currency denomination for quite some time. There is a trick to use the Crux to exactly locate the South Pole, it was an important navigation tool before GPS, as the North Star was for the northern hemisphere.
(http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/thecrux.jpg) (http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/flag_brazil.jpg) (http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/flag_australia.jpg)
Post by: rodriados on April 30, 2019, 12:38:24 AM
To have a summer day longer than 12 hours in Australia, South Africa or South of Argentina, even Uruguay (I was born close to Uruguay), the Sun's light must hit the exactly same point in the ground for more than 12 consecutive hours, changing angle of incidence, of course.
Considering the FE Sun circles over the FE disc once every 24 hours, then it must cover more than 180 degrees of the southern FE land at any specific time during southern summer. Can any FEr please, draw a specific geometric shape over the FE map, even crude, showing this coverage ?
Additional text:
The big problems for FE is the southern hemisphere, always, this is why both, FEr or REr, we need to stress any issue in attempt to clarify any doubts through the scientific way. There are plenty of FE issues there, direction of rotation and visibility of the stars, lands dimensions and ocean distances between them, times of flight, Sun presenting itself 360° all around during summer (the killer issue), etc.
I was raised watching the Crux Constellation every night, rotating in the sky, stars Acrux (the 12th brightest star in the sky), Alpha Crucis magnitude 0.77. It is on declination -63°, due the Earth's curvature it can not be seem north of latitude 27°N. It was my first telescope observation at 6 yrs old, we didn't have so much light pollution at that time, skies were really black and clean. The Crux is a circumpolar constellation at 34°S, it means it is visible all year round in the south, and its position is the opposite of Cassiopeia in the Northern sky. There is an image of the Crux on the rocks of Machu Picchu in Peru, the Inca knew it as Chakana. It is also presented on the Australian and Brazilian flag, its name was used as Brazilian currency denomination for quite some time. There is a trick to use the Crux to exactly locate the South Pole, it was an important navigation tool before GPS, as the North Star was for the northern hemisphere.
(http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/thecrux.jpg) (http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/flag_brazil.jpg) (http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/flag_australia.jpg)
Where were you born at?
Also, it's interesting to note that although the Southern sky rotates in an opposite direction to that of the Northern sky, if you compare the position of stars everyday at the same time throughout a year (for instance zodiacal constellations), you will note their change in position is the same in both Hemispheres...
This phenomenon is unintuitive on a Flat Earth, to say the least.
Post by: spherical on April 30, 2019, 04:24:57 AM
Where were you born at?
I was born in the Southernmost state of Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul, it makes division with Uruguai (33.7°S) and Argentina. The three countries share a great area known as "Pampas", plains with fantastic cattle with low muscle, the cowboys on horses are known as "gauchos". Rio Grande do Sul was basically colonized by Portuguese on the 18th century, and then heavily by Italians and Germans later on the 19th century. The cold weather is perfect for cultive of grapes, so, great wineries can be find there. They export very good lean meat and very good wines. The US steakhouse chain Texas de Brazil is based on our traditions. I could not hold myself, the climate, culture, genetic mix and influence of the southern stars, produce fantastic women, one is the actual supermodel Gisele Bündchen, also in 1963 a Miss Universe Ieda Maria Vargas, and of course my wife. The cold climate and chilling nights call for a good hot tea, made with grind leaves of "erva mate", we call "chimarrão", everybody drinks it, all the time. Impossible to put a group of friends together without sharing a "chimarrão" and stories, anytime, anyplace. That metallic straw, we call "pump", has a large round metallic filter at bottom, gold tip on top (to keep clean and free of microbes) and some has precious jewels in the middle, it is used to suck the tea from the bottom of the recipient, named "cuia", it is made of natural plant, known as "cabaça americana", origins in Africa. Impossible to see a "gaucho" without his "chimarrão" at hand.
(https://www.visiteobrasil.com.br/galerias/carac8-rio-grande-do-sul-chimarrao/631-100258-culinaria-gaucha-chimarrao-gaucho-foto-alex-silvagr.jpg)
Post by: rodriados on April 30, 2019, 07:52:51 PM
Where were you born at?
I was born in the Southernmost state of Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul, it makes division with Uruguai (33.7°S) and Argentina. The three countries share a great area known as "Pampas", plains with fantastic cattle with low muscle, the cowboys on horses are known as "gauchos". Rio Grande do Sul was basically colonized by Portuguese on the 18th century, and then heavily by Italians and Germans later on the 19th century. The cold weather is perfect for cultive of grapes, so, great wineries can be find there. They export very good lean meat and very good wines. The US steakhouse chain Texas de Brazil is based on our traditions. I could not hold myself, the climate, culture, genetic mix and influence of the southern stars, produce fantastic women, one is the actual supermodel Gisele Bündchen, also in 1963 a Miss Universe Ieda Maria Vargas, and of course my wife. The cold climate and chilling nights call for a good hot tea, made with grind leaves of "erva mate", we call "chimarrão", everybody drinks it, all the time. Impossible to put a group of friends together without sharing a "chimarrão" and stories, anytime, anyplace. That metallic straw, we call "pump", has a large round metallic filter at bottom, gold tip on top (to keep clean and free of microbes) and some has precious jewels in the middle, it is used to suck the tea from the bottom of the recipient, named "cuia", it is made of natural plant, known as "cabaça americana", origins in Africa. Impossible to see a "gaucho" without his "chimarrão" at hand.
(https://www.visiteobrasil.com.br/galerias/carac8-rio-grande-do-sul-chimarrao/631-100258-culinaria-gaucha-chimarrao-gaucho-foto-alex-silvagr.jpg)
I am from Mato Grosso do Sul - for non-Brazilians it is in the Midwestern region of Brazil, bordering Paraguay and Bolivia - and we have a huge "gaucho" community in the state! It's quite common to see people drinking "chimarrão", but "tereré" is much more widespread. The only difference I see between the two is that "tereré" is actually made of cold water!
To bring the conversation back on topic, as I also lived in Arizona for some years, I saw myself that during certain periods of the year the Southern Hemisphere sees longer days than the Northern Hemisphere. I remember being dark in San Francisco, California around 4:30 pm, something that I have never seen happening here in Brazil! How would this make any sense in a Flat Earth?
Note: I have never been anywhere south of São Paulo, Brazil, which lies exactly on the Tropic of Capricorn. On the other hand, I have been much further north than the Tropic of Cancer, as the mainland US lies completely north of it.
Post by: inquisitive on May 01, 2019, 07:15:23 AM
I addressed how that is explained on that map earlier in this thread when it was brought up. I don't even use that map as my main go-to flat earth map, anyway. I typically use the one where Antarctica is a continent.How do you know that map is correct?
Post by: EarthNotFlat on May 04, 2019, 03:47:57 PM
My mistake. I noticed that I posted it in the wrong thread. I moved it here.QuoteIn Rowbotham's graph, you still have the same problem. I've attached the picture with modifications. Let's take the green circle: it represents the daylight of the sun during southern summer at a specific spot. While the sun goes along the red arc, the blue spot gets daylight. But again, this red arc represents only a quarter of the sun's full path. So you get daylight for 6h, and the 18h left are night... during summer... which is not what we observe.
In fact, if you wanted a longer day than night (during southern summer), the spot light would be huge. So big, in fact, that the north pole would always be within the spot. Thus there would never be night in the north pole (and other northern part of the world) while it's summer in the southern hemiplane, which is not what we observe.
Plus, the only way to enlarge the spot would be to have the sun at a higher altitude. But then, it would be colder, not warmer during winter... which is not what we observe.
How can you explain that...?
The expanded explanation is that the spotlight changes shape throughout the year due to refraction and the varrying height of the sun throughout the year.
First, if no atmosphere existed, no doubt the light of the sun would diffuse over the whole earth at once, and alternations of light and darkness could not exist.
Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by Snell's Law bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the sun--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versâ--the effect is a non-uniform area of sun-light.
For a striking example of Snell's Law we simply need to put a straw into a glass of water:
(http://www.spiritualliving.net/straw%20glass%20smalll.jpg)
As we can see, the light from behind the glass is bent downwards as it passes through the thick medium of the water. While this is an extreme example, it shows that light is malleable, able to bend and conform based on existing conditions. When the light of the sun moves from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere of the earth it is gradually compelled downwards into the surface. The refractive index of air is a bit less than water, and so the effect will me more gradual, taking place over tens of thousands of miles instead of abruptly like the above image.
This considered, lets designate some facts.
Fact: Cold air is denser than warm air, and has therefore a greater refractive index.1
Fact: The sun is higher over the earth in its Northern Annulus and closer to the earth during its Southern Annulus.2
During Equinox the sun is positioned over the equator, the majority of its warmth spread over the ring of the equator. The sun is at it's middle point between hemispheres. The atmosphere in this area around the equator is at its highest temperature and therefore, since warm air has less of a refractive index than cold air, light can progress further through the atmosphere without bending towards the ground. This results in the spotlight of the sun conforming to the shape of the hottest areas. The end result gives the spotlight of the sun an oval shape taking up roughly one half of the earth:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/254yo1f.png)
When the Sun is over the North and at its highest altitude the spotlight is small and circular. This is because the sun is far from the earth and not heating the atmosphere up very much. At this time the entire Southern Hemisphere is in its Winter, and since cold air is denser than warm air, the refractive index is higher and light cannot proceed without being redirected into the earth. Since the earth is colder, the light is restricted to a smaller circle where summer exists in the North.
When the sun is over the South and close to the earth the sun is heating up the Southern Hemisphere, giving the spotlight a wide crescent shape. The shape is a crescent because when the sun is over the South it is winter in the North and the sun's light cannot penetrate the density of the Northern Hemisphere's winter.
The shape of the spotlight defines the time it will take for the sun to set. If the spotlight is small, the sun will appear to pass over the earth quickly. If the spotlight is large, the sun will take appear to take a longer time to pass over the earth. In the above illustration the Sun's spotlight is neither small or large - but at it's median.
1 Fourth paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Mirages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage)
2 See the Sun's Analemma (http://cdn.hotstockmarket.com/8/81/500x1000px-LL-81bc5324_CompleteAnalemmaSiz600.jpeg) which demonstrates the height of the sun over the course of the year.
In your illustration, the red area is less than half of the total area of your flat earth drawing, so if you're saying that that's the spotlight, then it doesn't match observations.
I know of a video that explains and debunks how the seasons and night and day work on a flat earth, its a response to globebusters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XONAgf9Eg9U
Post by: spherical on May 07, 2019, 10:00:36 PM
Sunrise in Orlando, FL, USA: 6:40 AM
Sunset in Orlando, FL, USA: 8:04 PM
Wednesday, May 8, 2019 (EDT)
Yesterday I observed the magnificent Sunset right at my backdoor at 280° exactly at 8:04pm, see the record below.
(http://www.guidetrack.com/FE/compass.jpg)
On June 21st, it will be 13 hours, 57 minutes and 40 seconds... from 6:28am to 8:26pm, it is almost 14 hours of visible Sun.
On the FE map, it will represent almost 210° of the circle with latitude 28.5°N.
It means, an FE observer at latitude 28.5°N would be able to see the sunrise at 36° and the sunset at 324°, but it is not where I will see the Sun at the same latitude 28.5°N, it will rise at 63°ENE and set at 297°WNW, the angle difference is brutal, due the FE flat circular equator line.
So, or my compass and Timeanddate.Com are wrong, or something else is wrong.