If the earth was flat, we would expect there to only be rotation around the vertical axis
If the earth was flat, we would expect there to only be rotation around the vertical axis
Why?
If the earth was flat, we would expect there to only be rotation around the vertical axis
Why?
That's how the model works, isn't it? Is there a flat earth model where the earth or stars don't rotate around the vertical axis?
Stars rotate counter-clockwise around Polaris in the North, rotate clockwise around the South celestial pole in the South and rise from the East and sets to the West near the equator. It looks like what we would seen in a rolling airplane where North as the head, South as the tail and equator as the passenger windows. On a unipolar map of a flat Earth, stars only rotate around 1 central pole, anyone in the equator or the opposite pole would see stars rotating at a vertical axis only. It would look like looking up on an airplane yawing. Bipolar map? How can stars magically reappear in the East after they set in the West?If the earth was flat, we would expect there to only be rotation around the vertical axis
Why?
That's how the model works, isn't it? Is there a flat earth model where the earth or stars don't rotate around the vertical axis?
What's wrong with the movement that can't occur on a Flat Earth?
Bipolar map? How can stars magically reappear in the East after they set in the West?
What's wrong with the movement that can't occur on a Flat Earth?
The bipolar map of flat Earth:Bipolar map? How can stars magically reappear in the East after they set in the West?
I'm not sure what you mean by this last sentence. The rest of your post is correct though.
1. The image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis. (Like a plane doing a barrel roll)
2. The flat earth (or the stars/sun/moon) supposedly only rotates around a vertical axis. (Like a spinning top)
If you disagree with statement 2, please provide your alternative theory.
1. The image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis. (Like a plane doing a barrel roll)
2. The flat earth (or the stars/sun/moon) supposedly only rotates around a vertical axis. (Like a spinning top)
If you disagree with statement 2, please provide your alternative theory.
Only a small portion of the sky can be seen at once, and if you look to the East the sun or a star can be seen to fall vertically into the horizon.
1. The image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis. (Like a plane doing a barrel roll)
2. The flat earth (or the stars/sun/moon) supposedly only rotates around a vertical axis. (Like a spinning top)
If you disagree with statement 2, please provide your alternative theory.
Only a small portion of the sky can be seen at once, and if you look to the East the sun or a star can be seen to fall vertically into the horizon.
Correct on both counts. How are either of those things relevant though?
There is no reason for why a star cannot travel both horizontally or vertically in the sky.
There is no reason for why a star cannot travel both horizontally or vertically in the sky.
You are still completely missing the point. Do you understand what an axis of rotation is? Do you understand the difference between roll and yaw?
What's impossible about either movement?
What's impossible about either movement?
1. Flat earth models only include rotation around the vertical axis.
2. This image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis.
I am doing my best to explain this in the most simplistic way possible. Which of the above statements do you not agree with or understand? Be specific about why you do not agree with or understand it.
What's impossible about either movement?
1. Flat earth models only include rotation around the vertical axis.
2. This image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis.
I am doing my best to explain this in the most simplistic way possible. Which of the above statements do you not agree with or understand? Be specific about why you do not agree with or understand it.
But not all of the sky can be seen at the same time, so depending on where you look the stars can be seen to be traveling vertically into the horizon.
1. The image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis. (Like a plane doinga barrel roll)
1. The image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis. (Like a plane doinga barrel roll)
cough cough, an aileron roll, cough cough
What's impossible about either movement?
1. Flat earth models only include rotation around the vertical axis.
2. This image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis.
I am doing my best to explain this in the most simplistic way possible. Which of the above statements do you not agree with or understand? Be specific about why you do not agree with or understand it.
But not all of the sky can be seen at the same time, so depending on where you look the stars can be seen to be traveling vertically into the horizon.
So you disagree with point number 2?
Let me make sure I understand your point: You are saying that this photo is not demonstrating rotation around a horizontal axis. Only a vertical axis. Is this correct?
If you look to the West you will see the sun generally set vertically into the horizon once it passes over. The same holds with the stars.
So you disagree with point number 2?
Let me make sure I understand your point: You are saying that this photo is not demonstrating rotation around a horizontal axis. Only a vertical axis. Is this correct?
If you look to the West you will see the sun generally set vertically into the horizon once it passes over. The same holds with the stars.
1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).
1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).
I believe in the bi-polar model (http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents) with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.
Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).
I believe in the bi-polar model (http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents) with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.
Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).
I believe in the bi-polar model (http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents) with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.
Tom citing an argument using classical perspective. The pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?1. In the flat earth model, the stars are rotating around a vertical axis centered at the North Pole (do you agree?).
I believe in the bi-polar model (http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents) with two celestial systems located over the North and South Poles.
Perspective
The Sun Sets just Fine on a Flat Earth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE)
p. 202
"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."
Irrelevant, i'm saying if a star/planet/Moon/Sun sets in the west as seen on Ecuador, how does it suppose to rise on the east as seen on Borneo?Sure it partially fix the problem, but what is the mechanism of stars, planets, Moon and the Sun to disappear from one end and appear on the other?
Perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
Tom citing an argument using classical perspective. The pinnacle of hypocrisy.
I watched the video, I don't see any flaws in the logic.
Tom citing an argument using classical perspective. The pinnacle of hypocrisy.
I watched the video, I don't see any flaws in the logic.
I feel like the video is creating a false dilemma which stems from a misinterpretation of the geometric drawing he dismissed. That drawing is an accurate side view of the viewing angles of the sun, obviously not to scale. From the perspective of the observer the sun's path would follow the perspective lines from his photo too, I don't think anyone disputes this. Most everyone would agree that the sun would eventually converge with the horizon as well, but that is probably about as far as the agreement will go.
For his argument to have any sort of meaning it needs to be attached to real figures. How far would the sun have to travel to converge with the horizon? At what altitude and based on what terrestrial distances would this model work? Why doesn't the sun change apparent size through this entire process? Most importantly, and this is not dealt with in the slightest in his argument, why does the sun disappear from the bottom up when objects converging on a vanishing point shrink in size until becoming merged with all else in the FOV at that depth of field?
So, sure his logic is alright, but he is not making the case he thinks he is.
I feel like the video is creating a false dilemma which stems from a misinterpretation of the geometric drawing he dismissed. That drawing is an accurate side view of the viewing angles of the sun, obviously not to scale. From the perspective of the observer the sun's path would follow the perspective lines from his photo too, I don't think anyone disputes this. Most everyone would agree that the sun would eventually converge with the horizon as well, but that is probably about as far as the agreement will go.
For his argument to have any sort of meaning it needs to be attached to real figures. How far would the sun have to travel to converge with the horizon? At what altitude and based on what terrestrial distances would this model work? Why doesn't the sun change apparent size through this entire process? Most importantly, and this is not dealt with in the slightest in his argument, why does the sun disappear from the bottom up when objects converging on a vanishing point shrink in size until becoming merged with all else in the FOV at that depth of field?
So, sure his logic is alright, but he is not making the case he thinks he is.
The thing is, we've never seen an object that is as massive, and as bright as the Sun travel parallel to the ground, into the distance, to observe what it would or wouldn't look like. Why doesn't the Sun change change apparent size as we rotate away from it? Shouldn't it be observable? Why doesn't it change apparent size as we are closer according to our elliptical orbit?
Your assertion that objects shrink into obscurity due to perspective is not correct. A boat is the most obvious example of that not being the case. A boat doesn't shrink to obscurity, it supposedly goes under the horizon.
Also, if the horizon is the Earth curving away from you, as most people seem to believe, shouldn't things in the distance progressively "rotate" away from you? As in a distant skyline, the building should no longer be level, up and down, but more so titled back? Shouldn't the ship we say is going "over" the horizon be skewed?
Now imagine this. You're looking at a ship halfway covered by the horizon... now imagine the distance between you and that ship is the radius of a circle (lets say 3 miles), now swing that radius to your left and right along sea level, forming a arc. If the ship was to your right or left, 3 miles away along that arc, would it be below a horizon? Why would it or wouldn't it be?
I have absolutely no clue on what you are talking about. The stars and everything else make no sense to me, but.... if I can see something over 100 miles away which is supposed to be out of my line of sight then I start to ask questions, how the hell on earth can i see it???? Switch Lore Lore Lore from vertical to horizontal makes 666, and what in the dictionary does horizontal mean?? Loving all my "Brothers". Peace.