21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station
« on: June 16, 2019, 10:07:35 AM »
Thanks for resurrecting my question, Cactus1549
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
22
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: South Pole as the FE center?
« on: June 15, 2019, 10:21:48 AM »In fact, that brings up a question I would like FE to explain:There is no "need" for the world to be the way it is - it just happens to be.
The original question should be not why does the north pole "need" to be in the centre - as you say, it doesn't need to be, it just happens to be. Like the UK doesn't need to be separated from Europe by water, it just happens to be (although hasn't always been). A better question is why do you believe that the north pole is at the centre of the flat earth. And I'd suggest the answer to that is because Rowbotham lived in the northern hemisphere. From that vantage point one can observe Polaris stationary (more or less) above the North Pole and other stars rotating around that point. So it makes sense, if you're going to create a FE model, to make that the centre. But if you're in the Southern hemisphere you'd see stars rotating in the opposite direction around some southern point.
Why do we see stars rotating counter-clockwise around Polaris in the northern hemisphere, but clockwise around a point near the Southern Cross in the southern hemisphere? I have lived in Europe and now live in Australia, and I have seen the stars do that. Surely, the stars can only rotate around 1 point, not 2?
Any FE explanations?
23
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Suns Motion, Concentric with the Polar Centre.
« on: June 12, 2019, 05:05:41 AM »http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za24.htmHe claims to have "proven" that the earth does not move, starting on page 63 of Earth Noy A Globe, where he talks about the movement of a ball thrown up vertically from a moving ship. According to SBR and the drawing on page 65, the ball retains the horizontal movement of the ship until it reaches its highest point, and then it falls back down vertically. That reminds me of what happens to cartoon characters who run off a cliff: they keep moving horizontally until the horizontal movement "expends itself", and then they plummet vertically. For those who had any doubt, Mythbusters proved convincingly that gravitational and horizontal movement of a bullet are completely unrelated:
Not for the first time, SBR opens his description with a non-valid statement by sayingQuoteAs the earth has been proved to be fixed, the motion of the sun is a visible reality
It's a very basic error that demolishes all the rest of his arguments about earth's lack of movement.
24
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« on: June 10, 2019, 10:17:49 AM »The shape of the Sun could not possibly be spherical.And just how does the ether/orgone energy alter the apparent shape the sun to make it look circular, regardless of where or when you are standing? I suppose that also depends on this question: what is the real shape of the sun, apart from "not spherical"? I also note that the PDF you linked (Galaev.pdf) does not even contain the word "orgone"..
The reason it appears circular when viewed from distance is the existence of a different index of refraction of ether for each latitude.
The ether is latitude dependent.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
"The measurements were latitude-dependent as well."
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf
On page 218, a formula for the latitude dependent ether drift.
The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula used by Michelson and Gale is also latitude dependent (ether drift formula).
The existence of the ether shows that there are latitude dependent indexes of refraction.
This changes everything.
And, maybe I'm too stupid, but just what is "orgone energy"? What is it used for? How is it measured?
25
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« on: June 09, 2019, 11:41:58 PM »
Re @Sandokhan's claim that the sun cannot be spherical.
If that is correct, please explain why, regardless of when or where we look at the sun, it always, without exception, looks circular. Regardless what it's real shape is, if it is not spherical, from certain positions the observed shape will not be circular. For example, if it is a disc, it will change from circular to elliptical when looked at from the side. In an extreme case it will look almost like a line. Whatever shape it is, it may look circular from one position on earth but, at the same time, from other positions it will look non-circular - unless it is a sphere.
To repeat: why does the sun always look circular?
If that is correct, please explain why, regardless of when or where we look at the sun, it always, without exception, looks circular. Regardless what it's real shape is, if it is not spherical, from certain positions the observed shape will not be circular. For example, if it is a disc, it will change from circular to elliptical when looked at from the side. In an extreme case it will look almost like a line. Whatever shape it is, it may look circular from one position on earth but, at the same time, from other positions it will look non-circular - unless it is a sphere.
To repeat: why does the sun always look circular?
26
Flat Earth Theory / What has the FE theory achieved?
« on: June 06, 2019, 10:16:26 AM »
This question is not about whether the earth is flat or not. Instead it is about which benefits us more: normal science, or flat earth science.
Modern science was started by Galileo and Newton, and has progressed steadily ever since. Along the line, science decided the shape of the earth, as well as of the rest of the universe. The various branches of science are all interrelated, i.e. they use each other’s ideas and methods. As a result, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is essential in modern medicine research. Quantum Physics and General Relativity are not only used to tell us the size and shape of the universe, they are also essential to the workings of your mobile phone. Hence, unless the universe is indeed 13.8 billion years old, with a 46 billion lightyear radius, your mobile phone would not work.
Science may not always get it right, but it corrects its mistakes. Think of phlogiston, N-rays, Piltdown man, cold fusion and many others. Because of this built-in error correction science progresses ever forward and always comes up with new things. Hence we have cars, aeroplanes, computers, mobile phones, stainless steel knives, fertilisers, etc. To put it in a nutshell, science improves the lives of people. Without the advances of science we would still be living the same way as we did 1000 years ago.
The flat earth theory has been around for the last 150 years or so, since Samuel Rowbotham. In that time quite a large number of people with different backgrounds have accepted it, for example the city of Zion under Voliva. Some of those people surely were scientists interested in improving people’s lives.
So my question is: what benefits has the flat earth theory brought to people? What important research could not have been achieved while believing in a round earth? Has anything important come out of flat earth research?
What benefits to society come from the flat earth theory?
Modern science was started by Galileo and Newton, and has progressed steadily ever since. Along the line, science decided the shape of the earth, as well as of the rest of the universe. The various branches of science are all interrelated, i.e. they use each other’s ideas and methods. As a result, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is essential in modern medicine research. Quantum Physics and General Relativity are not only used to tell us the size and shape of the universe, they are also essential to the workings of your mobile phone. Hence, unless the universe is indeed 13.8 billion years old, with a 46 billion lightyear radius, your mobile phone would not work.
Science may not always get it right, but it corrects its mistakes. Think of phlogiston, N-rays, Piltdown man, cold fusion and many others. Because of this built-in error correction science progresses ever forward and always comes up with new things. Hence we have cars, aeroplanes, computers, mobile phones, stainless steel knives, fertilisers, etc. To put it in a nutshell, science improves the lives of people. Without the advances of science we would still be living the same way as we did 1000 years ago.
The flat earth theory has been around for the last 150 years or so, since Samuel Rowbotham. In that time quite a large number of people with different backgrounds have accepted it, for example the city of Zion under Voliva. Some of those people surely were scientists interested in improving people’s lives.
So my question is: what benefits has the flat earth theory brought to people? What important research could not have been achieved while believing in a round earth? Has anything important come out of flat earth research?
What benefits to society come from the flat earth theory?
27
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Crisp clear horizon line
« on: June 05, 2019, 10:19:18 AM »
Does anyone want to comment about my observation on May 13 that the transmission lines seem to curve around a round earth? Any explanations, or did was this put in the too-hard-basket?
28
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.
« on: June 02, 2019, 10:10:47 AM »
@ICanScienceThat
The problem with Rowbotham's treatment of perspective is that he changes his definition of the vanishing point halfway through the discussion. First it's the theoretical point where infinite parallel lines seem to meet, but then he changes it to the distance where we can no longer perceive something. Rather sneaky, in my opinion.
The problem with Rowbotham's treatment of perspective is that he changes his definition of the vanishing point halfway through the discussion. First it's the theoretical point where infinite parallel lines seem to meet, but then he changes it to the distance where we can no longer perceive something. Rather sneaky, in my opinion.
29
Flat Earth Theory / Why does the International Space Staion appear when NASA says it will?
« on: June 02, 2019, 06:02:43 AM »
As I understand it, according to FE all satellites are hoaxes perpetrated by NASA, other space organisations, governments, businesses like SpaceX and numerous scientists who rely on satellite observations for their work. Let's accept this as given.
I that case, what exactly am I seeing when I look up in the sky at night and see the International Space Station flying past?
Not only that, I can go to NASA's website https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/ and find out exactly when the ISS will be visible at my location. The same website also shows where the ISS is at any moment in time. Other websites like CalSky ( https://www.calsky.com/cs.cgi/Satellites/4? )show the location of the ISS with even more precision. This enables any photographer to set up a camera with a telelens and take a photo of the ISS as it flies across the face of the sun and the moon, for example https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/05-seconds-in-the-sun
That photo of the ISS with the sun was obviously taken during the day, when the ISS is invisible to the naked eye and so the photographer had to rely entirely on NASA's predictions. These predictions in turn rely entirely on Newton's fake law of gravitation.
And it is not just the ISS that is visible. Other satellites can be seen too, just not as easily as the ISS. The first ones that were easily visible with the naked eye were the Echo communications satellites of 1960 and 1964. These were large (30 m diameter) metallised balloons, designed to reflect radio signals back to earth.
Why is it that no such celestial objects were seen before the fake space race started? Certainly the ancient Greeks and Chinese would have been aware of something as easily visible as the ISS. Why did they not mention it? Did it appear in the sky by magic around 2000? It cannot be mistaken for a star or planet as satellites travel much faster across the sky. And why do the photos taken by ground-based photographers show it looking remarkably like a man-made object? Of course, as FE often points out, photos can be faked. So these photographers must be among the millions of people who are secretly conspiring to make us believe in RE.
But then, what do I see when I look up into the sky? Perhaps the ISS and other satellites are just balloons at high altitude? In that case, please explain how any balloon can travel around the world (or fly a circle around the "central" north pole) every 90 minutes. Explain why it is so totally un-affected by variations in wind that NASA can tell us precisely where it is at every second. If they are neither balloons nor spacecraft, just what kind of new-fangled celestial object am I seeing?
To rephrase my questions:
1. What is the ISS?
2. What keeps it up there?
3. What gives NASA the ability to predict precisely where it is at all times?
4. Why did nothing like it appear in the sky before we started the satellite hoax?
5. Why do photographs of it show it looking the way NASA claims it has been built?
I that case, what exactly am I seeing when I look up in the sky at night and see the International Space Station flying past?
Not only that, I can go to NASA's website https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/ and find out exactly when the ISS will be visible at my location. The same website also shows where the ISS is at any moment in time. Other websites like CalSky ( https://www.calsky.com/cs.cgi/Satellites/4? )show the location of the ISS with even more precision. This enables any photographer to set up a camera with a telelens and take a photo of the ISS as it flies across the face of the sun and the moon, for example https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/05-seconds-in-the-sun
That photo of the ISS with the sun was obviously taken during the day, when the ISS is invisible to the naked eye and so the photographer had to rely entirely on NASA's predictions. These predictions in turn rely entirely on Newton's fake law of gravitation.
And it is not just the ISS that is visible. Other satellites can be seen too, just not as easily as the ISS. The first ones that were easily visible with the naked eye were the Echo communications satellites of 1960 and 1964. These were large (30 m diameter) metallised balloons, designed to reflect radio signals back to earth.
Why is it that no such celestial objects were seen before the fake space race started? Certainly the ancient Greeks and Chinese would have been aware of something as easily visible as the ISS. Why did they not mention it? Did it appear in the sky by magic around 2000? It cannot be mistaken for a star or planet as satellites travel much faster across the sky. And why do the photos taken by ground-based photographers show it looking remarkably like a man-made object? Of course, as FE often points out, photos can be faked. So these photographers must be among the millions of people who are secretly conspiring to make us believe in RE.
But then, what do I see when I look up into the sky? Perhaps the ISS and other satellites are just balloons at high altitude? In that case, please explain how any balloon can travel around the world (or fly a circle around the "central" north pole) every 90 minutes. Explain why it is so totally un-affected by variations in wind that NASA can tell us precisely where it is at every second. If they are neither balloons nor spacecraft, just what kind of new-fangled celestial object am I seeing?
To rephrase my questions:
1. What is the ISS?
2. What keeps it up there?
3. What gives NASA the ability to predict precisely where it is at all times?
4. Why did nothing like it appear in the sky before we started the satellite hoax?
5. Why do photographs of it show it looking the way NASA claims it has been built?
30
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does GPS work?
« on: June 01, 2019, 09:53:46 AM »In the interest of providing some possibilities I will give an option for the flat Earth.That's the difference between FE and RE. In RE, we can calculate where those rockets are going, and why they stay up there. RE can even tell us why GSO works the way it does. The same goes for the sun and moon. In FE, all you can do is to say that "they float up there". What keeps them there, angels perhaps? And I assume that, as angels are supernatural, we can't calculate what they'll do next. Does that mean that RE theory has figured out what makes angels tick?
What if, when rockets are shot up into the with satellites to go into orbit, they go up just as the rocket scientists think they do, but inside of going into an orbit around the globe shaped Earth, they fall into a circling overhead type path. This would be in the same sort of pattern that the sun and moon apparently travel in. If the sun and moon could do it, so could a satellite. Right?
I can't really think of how this would work in Geostationary Orbit. Maybe someone else can come up with that one.
31
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.
« on: June 01, 2019, 02:35:09 AM »If you read Rowbotham's "Earth not a globe!", he seems to think that the vanishing point is somehow defined by the optical resolution: once the distant object gets small enough that the eye can no longer resolve it, that object is at the vanishing point, according to him. Hence smaller objects reach the vanishing point before larger ones. Which is no more than obfuscation or, in plainer terms, bullshit. Unfortunately FEers seem to accept Rowbotham as gospel.Why the eye closer to the table couldn't see wider portion of the table?Perhaps I can help you there. Tom is talking about the resolution of the human eye. It's often ballparked at around 1/60th of a degree. Biological vision is a lot more complex than a digital camera, but the same principles apply. There's a certain "resolution" to it. Like a pixel in a camera. If 2 rays of light land on the same "pixel," they cannot be separated visually.
What would limit the sight to the narrower band?
If you are looking along a surface, all the points of that surface merge into a single line... in the extreme, they merge to a single pixel. But as you rise up and look down on the surface, the angle between the points gets larger, and the rays of light from them land on different "pixels" in your eye/camera.
That all makes sense right?
The book is full of impressive sounding bits that, on closer examination, are just rubbish. Read his description of what happens to a ball thrown up from a ship, if you want a good laugh. And then there are his claims about how moonlight differs from sunlight. According to him, moonlight cools things down - or it leaves the temperature unchanged, depending on which page you read.
32
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does GPS work?
« on: June 01, 2019, 02:13:25 AM »I wonder what you consider the cellular towers every couple miles to be? GPS is not from sats, no no its from ground based positioning for the most part. Balloons and aircraft contribute. Don't be swallowed by fiction, embrace facts.I live in Australia. Once you are away from the main cities and towns, there are LOTS of areas where there is zero mobile reception. Yet, GPS still works fine there. The same is true when you are on a ship in the middle of the ocean. It is clear that GPS works fine, even if there is no mobile service at all. Here's how I know this.
I have an off-line sat-nave app (HereWeGo) so that I can use GPS on my phone, wherever I am. I do not need on-line access to Google Maps (which would require mobile data access). I just need to make sure I have the necessary maps downloaded before I travel.
Now for the best part: you don't have to take my word for it. HereWeGo is free, and available for both Android and iPhone. Install it on your phone and download the map for your area (use WiFi for that, as the maps are big). Then take the SIM out of your phone, so that it cannot have access to mobile data, and you will see that HereWeGo still works (but it may warn you that it cannot check traffic info without mobile data).
As for "balloons and aircraft contribute", where are they? Are they all invisible? And are they absolutely everywhere? They would need to be to provide GPS at sea, in deserts - and in central Australia. Who is responsible for the upkeep and running of these huge flocks of craft? Where are they built and launched, in secret so we don't see it happening? Get real, mate.
33
Flat Earth Theory / How does GPS work?
« on: May 30, 2019, 04:25:01 AM »
I assume we can start by agreeing that GPS does indeed work. Your mobile phone or sat nav system know exactly where you are on earth, at all times. It's good enough to use while driving a car, and it has even been used to land airliners. GPS works, regardless of where you are on earth. Personally I have used it in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Europe, South Africa, and several islands in the middle of the Pacific. I have heard from other who used it in other countries, and have never heard anyone mention any area in which it does not work.
In round earth theories, GPS uses a bunch of satellites, and your phone finds its position by checking the timing of signals from at least 3 of those satellites.
I understand that, according to FE, all satellites are hoaxes. There cannot be anything circling the earth, because the earth is flat. So here is my question:
In FE, what makes GPS work?
Does it use invisible balloons, in sufficient quantity that at least 3 are always visible regardless of where you are on earth? Does it use gigantic transmitters that beam signals around the earth?
Tom Bishop mentions LORAN/eLORAN as being "interoperable with GPS", but that does not explain how my phone, which does not receive LORAN signals, does its trick. In fact, the frequencies used by LORAN are too low for use in a phone - you could not fit a LORAN antenna inside a phone. Also, LORAN has a limited range, and it does not have the accuracy of GPS.
So just how does GPS work according to FE?
In round earth theories, GPS uses a bunch of satellites, and your phone finds its position by checking the timing of signals from at least 3 of those satellites.
I understand that, according to FE, all satellites are hoaxes. There cannot be anything circling the earth, because the earth is flat. So here is my question:
In FE, what makes GPS work?
Does it use invisible balloons, in sufficient quantity that at least 3 are always visible regardless of where you are on earth? Does it use gigantic transmitters that beam signals around the earth?
Tom Bishop mentions LORAN/eLORAN as being "interoperable with GPS", but that does not explain how my phone, which does not receive LORAN signals, does its trick. In fact, the frequencies used by LORAN are too low for use in a phone - you could not fit a LORAN antenna inside a phone. Also, LORAN has a limited range, and it does not have the accuracy of GPS.
So just how does GPS work according to FE?
34
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?
« on: May 30, 2019, 04:01:48 AM »This seems to be related the subject. Atmospheric refraction as explained by the British Astronomical Association.The table in your link shows just how irrelevant diffraction is to my question: even with rays parallel to the earth's surface (0 degrees), the diffraction is less than 0.5 degrees. My question asks how the sun can be seen to set if it is at least 3 degrees above the horizon. Also, of course, diffraction would make us see the sun "set" even higher in the sky. According to the table, diffraction would add about 15' my minimum elevation, i.e. the setting sun never "sets" less than 3.25 degrees above the horizon.
https://britastro.org/node/17066
35
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?
« on: May 25, 2019, 01:40:24 AM »
The posted video of a coin disappearing behind the edge of the table is just mumbo-jumbo. You can clearly see that the camera is sitting BELOW the tabletop. And yes, even if the sun "sets" high up in the sky I will see it disappearing, as long as I'm sitting in a hole, or behind a mountain. But that does NOT work if I'm standing on a level plain, or at the beach. In that case, the sun would "set" while still high up in the sky.
And, even if the sun circling the earth is at ground level - which would be a bit uncomfortable for the people living under the sun ;-), no amount of hocus pocus will make it sink below the horizon if I am standing on a flat earth.
If I understand the video with the disappearing candle correctly, that's only a matter of pointing the camera upwards so that, as the candle moves away, if disappears from the frame. You can tell it is pointed upwards, because neither the carriage that the candle sits on, nor the table, is ever visible, even at the closest distance.
Re the star trail video, I thought FE despises theory, and only uses observation? So why are you using software simulation? Has anyone ever seen the "atmosplane"? Again, I thought you only use observation. Why do the real star trails look different from the simulated ones, doesn't that indicate your simulation is wrong?
And, even if the sun circling the earth is at ground level - which would be a bit uncomfortable for the people living under the sun ;-), no amount of hocus pocus will make it sink below the horizon if I am standing on a flat earth.
If I understand the video with the disappearing candle correctly, that's only a matter of pointing the camera upwards so that, as the candle moves away, if disappears from the frame. You can tell it is pointed upwards, because neither the carriage that the candle sits on, nor the table, is ever visible, even at the closest distance.
Re the star trail video, I thought FE despises theory, and only uses observation? So why are you using software simulation? Has anyone ever seen the "atmosplane"? Again, I thought you only use observation. Why do the real star trails look different from the simulated ones, doesn't that indicate your simulation is wrong?
36
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?
« on: May 23, 2019, 11:39:15 PM »Sorry Reer, you are wrong, about the Sun's altitude and viewing angle.That's why I said I used measurements that gave the best possible case for FE. With other measurements, such as yours, it only gets worse; that's also why I gave the example of sunset at 45 degrees elevation. And it's hard to pin FE down on any real measurements. The 700 miles I quotes comes from their own wiki https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun.
The FE statement for the Sun is 30 km in diameter, 3000 km in altitude. I made no calculations whatsoever, but it seems FErs use this altitude because it is the only possibility to flat a sphere with a very far away Sun with parallel rays and have the same shadows based on the oblate spheroid model. Also, the diameter is purely based on apparent size of view (angular size).
Then, based on your assumption, the Sun being over the ICE wall (worst case) and the observer being also over the 180° opposite ICE wall, the rectangle triangle would have a base of 20000 km and the vertical of 3000 km, what gives a (atan(3/20)) of 8.53 degrees. This would be the lowest inclination (altitude) the Sun would appear anywhere over the FE for an observer. Anywhere the observer or the Sun moves, the altitude will increase.
The best possible analogy for what is 8.5° of altitude, is looking to your home front door from the curb across the street. A regular door is about 80 inches tall, a regular city street is about 30 ft wide plus 15 ft from the curb to the door, total 45ft = 540 inches. It would be atan(80/540) = 8.4°.
So, just walk to the curb across the street and look back to the top of your home front door, that is the lowest altitude the Sun would be anywhere over FE.
Now, thinking about apparent size. If the FE Sun right over you will have "x" view diameter, and it is 3000 km of altitude, on that viewing experience Ice wall to Ice wall, the hypotenuse will be sqr(3000²+20000²) = 20223 km, the delta size = 3000/20223 = 0.15 or 15%. Suppose the apparent Sun size right over you is around a US Quarter Coin, at that longest distance it will be the size of your shirt button. That is big enough to be completely visible and shinning bright on the sky, mostly considering that (according to FE wiki) the Sun is a globe spinning, shinning in all directions, not only as a disc spotting light down, as it was said before. Notice that according to this size and altitude, vanishing point does not make it disappear at all. It would looks like a street lamp at 150ft (50m) away.
So, where is the night sun?
37
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Crisp clear horizon line
« on: May 13, 2019, 10:13:36 AM »Lake Pontchartrain transmission line, 15 miles, at 8" /mile² is 1800" (45.72m) down the horizon curvature.I love the way you can see the transmission line bend with the curvature of the earth. On the second photo you can clearly see that lines connecting the tops or bottoms of the poles start bending right from the beginning. Nowhere is it straight. There is nothing in FE "perspective" that can cause that bend. You must have PhotoShop'ed the photo ;-)
38
Flat Earth Theory / How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?
« on: May 11, 2019, 10:54:04 PM »
I cannot figure out how the sun can rise or set with the version of a flat earth as accepted by this website (the standard monopole flat earth map, https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Map.png).
The maps on this website do not contain any dimensions. However, from what I have been able to gather, the earth is a flat circular disc with a diameter of approximately 20,000 km. I get to this number by assuming that the equator is 10,000 km from the North Pole, and the southern ice wall is the same distance from the equator. At least, that is how your published maps look.
I have also seen various figures for the altitude of the sun, ranging from 1,100 km (700 mi) to 6,400 km (4,000 mi). For the rest of this question I will assume 1,100 km as that is the best case for FE; any higher figure makes sunset even more impossible.
Now let us consider how the sun looks for someone at the North Pole. The furthest that the sun can possibly be away from the North Pole is 20,000 km, assuming it ever got near the southern ice wall. No FE maps show the sun that far south, but again, this is the best scenario for FE. Now, if the sun is 1,100 km high at a distance of 20,000 km, the angle between the horizon and the sun is given by simple trigonometry, as follows:
A = atan(1100/20000) = 3 degrees
If we assume the sun sits at an altitude of 6,400 km then we get
A = atan(6400/20000) = 18 degrees
In other words, even in the best (for FE) case, we can NEVER see the sun less than 3 degrees above the horizon. If the observer is farther south, or if we look at the sun at sunset instead of at midnight, the observer will be closer to the sun, and hence the sun will appear even higher above the horizon. For example, if the sun is 4,000 km high, and the observer is 4,000 km away from it (horizontally) at sunset, then the sun will "set" at an elevation of 45 degrees above the horizon.
Hence my question: please explain how we can ever see the sun sink below the horizon. If any of my numbers are wildly wrong, please feel free to show me the correct calculations.
The maps on this website do not contain any dimensions. However, from what I have been able to gather, the earth is a flat circular disc with a diameter of approximately 20,000 km. I get to this number by assuming that the equator is 10,000 km from the North Pole, and the southern ice wall is the same distance from the equator. At least, that is how your published maps look.
I have also seen various figures for the altitude of the sun, ranging from 1,100 km (700 mi) to 6,400 km (4,000 mi). For the rest of this question I will assume 1,100 km as that is the best case for FE; any higher figure makes sunset even more impossible.
Now let us consider how the sun looks for someone at the North Pole. The furthest that the sun can possibly be away from the North Pole is 20,000 km, assuming it ever got near the southern ice wall. No FE maps show the sun that far south, but again, this is the best scenario for FE. Now, if the sun is 1,100 km high at a distance of 20,000 km, the angle between the horizon and the sun is given by simple trigonometry, as follows:
A = atan(1100/20000) = 3 degrees
If we assume the sun sits at an altitude of 6,400 km then we get
A = atan(6400/20000) = 18 degrees
In other words, even in the best (for FE) case, we can NEVER see the sun less than 3 degrees above the horizon. If the observer is farther south, or if we look at the sun at sunset instead of at midnight, the observer will be closer to the sun, and hence the sun will appear even higher above the horizon. For example, if the sun is 4,000 km high, and the observer is 4,000 km away from it (horizontally) at sunset, then the sun will "set" at an elevation of 45 degrees above the horizon.
Hence my question: please explain how we can ever see the sun sink below the horizon. If any of my numbers are wildly wrong, please feel free to show me the correct calculations.