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.


Messages - uru38

Pages: [1]
1
It’s hard to imagine. Pictures help. I also think these will be good’uns
An x-ray video would be nicer, but I don’t think that’s doable... not safely.

I apologise. I had the impression that you would only ever trust images. I've encountered that rhetoric before in scientific discussions. Not to preach to the choir but: counter to 'common sense' images from scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) should always be interpreted with a pinch of salt and quantitative images formed from diffrational techniques such as surface X-ray diffraction (SXRD) or general crystallographic techniques are much more reliable. Also not to be too pedantic but crystallography is as 'doable' as STM or AFM.

I completely agree! It would be really cool if FuzzyLollipop would share some images of their own! If you can't wait for that though there's plenty of publish data for atomic scale investigations of [surface] structures with plenty of STM and AFM images and images produced from more involved techniques such as SXRD, photoelectron diffraction (XPD) or X-ray standing waves (XSW).

2
Wow. I'm in shock. Thanks for the same link again Tom Bishop. I was going to ask for some clarification because most of what is written on that Wiki doesn't make any sense. Others have already asked though and something has now become clear to me: you're in such deep intellectual denial I don't think you'll ever be convinced otherwise. Either that or you really don't understand the issue of the Sun's position at equinox and likely other issues with flat Earth theory.

3
Tom brings up an interesting point. If it can’t be seen, is it there? Some folks here would be skeptical of your tools and what you tell us they are showing. Good luck.
I would like to still see the pictures, tho.

Why does everything have to be a picture?

4
As WellRoundedIndividual mentions, EA at the moment is only a claimed model based on one poorly conducted experiment.

As for your assertions that EA can be used to describe apparent lateral movements of the sun - I'm sorry but I'm still not convinced by any 'vector component' argument, though I'm happy to discuss more in case I'm mistaken.

Here's my two cents for why EA can't be used in this case: EA describes an apparent change in the height of the sun as the observer moves closer or farther from the sun (and vice versa). However, in our case, we need to observe an apparent lateral movement of the sun (change in azimuth) based on a change in observer latitude. For each case, the relationship between the observer's position and the smudge factor that needs to be produced by EA theory is completely different. One deals with the observer moving towards the sun whilst one deals with the observer moving (almost) laterally with respect to the sun. Essentially, if EA is to be used to describe sun sets in the flat earth model, these are two completely separate phenomena that need to be described separately by two different theories.

Just to note, there is currently one theory that does model both phenomena (and plenty more) perfectly - the globe Earth model. So unless I'm mistaken in my above reasoning, or other more sound flat earth models are presented, I find the globe Earth model much more convincing.

5
But we are aware that ships vanish in the distance bottom half first, so we got some ideas about an electromagnetic acceleration of light which gives the false appearance of them going 'over the curve.'

So perhaps that can also be extended to the sun,  but maybe some others will chime in. I only got into flat earth this year.

Thanks for the reply Tom. I think I'm familiar with EA but correct me if I'm wrong/ elaborate on your answer: the EA model as it's currently set out shouldn't affect the viewed azimuth of an object only it's perceived height. With this, I also can't see how any EA model would be able to perfectly make it look as if we're situated on a sphere when in fact we're sitting on a flat plane when talking about viewed angles of the sun - that just seems nonsensical (insert Ockam's razor).

Are there any other possible explanations that you know of?

6
That's a shame.
I'd at least like a flat earther to explain a model that they feel best describes what we'd observe on a flat earth. I haven't been able to find any such explanation/ model anywhere online. I feel observations of the sun are a pivotal piece of evidence in any model for the shape of the Earth whilst also being one of the easiest, direct consequence to investigate.

7
This is a simple investigation/ concept that I'm sure has come up before in flat Earth vs globe Earth discourse, but I'd like some further clarification from the flat Earth camp:
  • It's well established that during the equinoxes on a globe Earth, the sun will rise due east or 90 degrees azimuth when observed from any point on the Earth (give or take ~10 degrees due to refraction).
  • What is the expected azimuth for the sun to rise when viewed from a given point on a flat Earth and what is the explanation for this? My guess at the moment is that the azimuth of the sun should decrease non-linearly when measured from north as the observer's latitude decreases, but I'd like some input from a flat Earther.
Finally, we can easily investigate this by observing the sun during the coming equinox on the 20th March and compare these to the two models above. Any thoughts?

8
Awesome I think that's a great idea. We just need a flat earther to outline what would be expected for a flat Earth model and then we can compare this, and the expectations for a globe earth, to the results. I'll make a post in the investigations forum.

9
Hey manicminer,
Yes I believe that's the flat earth explanation for seasons. But I'm simply talking about observing the sun to rise east for any observer. On a flat Earth those living in south america would see the sun rise at an azimuth of smaller than 45 degrees from north which isn't observed even with the consideration of changes due to atmospheric refraction. Tom's link does try and give an explanation:

Quote
When the edge of the sun's area of light intersects the observer's circle of vision it will approach from the East, or near the East. The apparent sun at sunrise is on the rim of the sun's area of light and is racing upon the atmolayer along the equator or the observer's latitude line to the observer. However straight the observer's latitude line is in his or her local area where the observer can see will be how the sun appears in its initial bearing.

But I'm not understanding any of that and so I was hoping I could get some clarification here (maybe even with some diagrams). Maybe bendy light plays a role but again, I haven't yet been able to find an explanation of such affects anywhere.

Can any flat Earthers help me out?

10

Actually, we have a Wiki article on the subject of the Equinox.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

Thanks for the reply Tom but I believe the point still stands. There is no explanation as to why the sun should be viewed east anywhere (even at the equator) on a flat Earth during a sunrise.

11
I can't find an explanation anywhere online, including on your wiki, as to why the sun is viewed to set (or rise) exactly east (or west) for all observers on a flat earth during the equinoxes. I believe this would be exactly what is expected on a spherical earth. I was wondering if anyone could elaborate on any flat earth explanation here. Thanks in advance.

Edit: I meant to write "rising" in the title not setting. Have now corrected it.

Pages: [1]