#### BillO

##### An interesting challenge from Michael Toonz
« on: March 26, 2024, 12:53:47 PM »
*Edited*

He goes through the calculations to predict the sunset on a flat earth and uses an on-line calculator to do the same for a globe.  However, there is a discrepancy in the results that needs some explaining from the flat earth "perspective"

Any answers from him?

« Last Edit: March 26, 2024, 01:27:40 PM by BillO »

#### Action80

• 2906
##### Re: An interesting challenge from Michael Toonz
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2024, 04:02:56 PM »
He is assuming facts not in evidence when he offers up calculations based on a round earth. In reality, the sunset times reflect the sun's setting time over a flat earth. The angle measures are simply a transcription of a celestial sphere to locations below on the flat earth plane. And the sun really does not "set". It remains above the entire plane at all times. As it revolves over our heads, it becomes fully occluded by physical aspects of the celestial sphere.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

#### BillO

##### Re: An interesting challenge from Michael Toonz
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2024, 05:58:59 PM »
I see.

The calculations he offered WRT the "round" earth were from an on-line calculator.  The page with the calculator describes how the calculations are done.  The resulting prediction was correct.

The other calculations were done using one particular flat earth model and some simple grade 9 math.  As he pointed out, there seems to be some issue with which flat earth model to choose and what the elevation of the sun is as flat earther's themselves cannot agree on those important aspects of their "theory".

However, you mention "physical aspects of the celestial sphere".  Perhaps they would be a way to make a reliable prediction.  So, which physical aspects are we talking about and what is the mathematical model for their use?

#### Action80

• 2906
##### Re: An interesting challenge from Michael Toonz
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2024, 07:43:14 PM »
I see.

The calculations he offered WRT the "round" earth were from an on-line calculator.  The page with the calculator describes how the calculations are done.  The resulting prediction was correct.

The "round earth calculator" actually has the "celestial sphere," math.

The other calculations were done using one particular flat earth model and some simple grade 9 math.  As he pointed out, there seems to be some issue with which flat earth model to choose and what the elevation of the sun is as flat earther's themselves cannot agree on those important aspects of their "theory".

However, you mention "physical aspects of the celestial sphere".  Perhaps they would be a way to make a reliable prediction.  So, which physical aspects are we talking about and what is the mathematical model for their use?
The only issue with the math is how one chooses to label it. The math is the same.

One group believes the numbers are a result of a spherical earth, the other group knows it is the "celestial sphere" providing the basis for the numbers.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 16146
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: An interesting challenge from Michael Toonz
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2024, 11:19:06 PM »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume