The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Bobby Shafto on December 26, 2018, 04:45:32 PM
-
This sunrise taken from Pic du Canigó in late May 2015 in the French Pyrenees with sun rising over the Alps 240 miles away. (Photo credit: Beyond Horizons (https://beyondhorizons.eu/)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zGk7azlHt2w/XB1oImP7znI/AAAAAAAAAI0/vqYe8aioLs8kTZ6Nv4qHNrYIbkTL6amcwCLcBGAs/s1600/Canigo%2B2.jpg)
The sun here was overhead the earth over 6200 miles away from Canigó, at a latitude of N19° as it was transiting over the South China Sea.
I got the location of the sun from TimeandDate.Com. How TimeandDate produced that data shouldn't be relevant, as long as there's no controversy over the truth of that data. As long as no one assumes that TimeandDate is using a globe model to derive its data, is everyone -- particularly flat earth proponents -- okay with that resource, or is there another preferred source for sun locating data on a particular date and time?
If there are no objections to the sun data itself, regardless of its deriviation: the three points -- photographer in the Pyranees, peak in the Alps and sun's zenith over the South China Sea -- align using a globe model.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/xdbm7o.jpg)
--------------------------
A similar photo was taken a few years earlier by that group; this one of the setting sun over the Pyrenees at a different time of year (February vice May).
This is a photo of the setting sun taken from the plateau below Montagne Sainte-Victoire in south of France, near Marseille.
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/scrs08.jpg)
Taken on February 2nd, 2012 at 17:58 local time.
TimeandDate puts the location of the sun at that time at S16° 50', W71° 05'.
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/wvpkhw.jpg)
According to the photograph, these points should be in alignment:
Photographer @ N43°31', E05°35' (red star above)
Pic du Canigó @ N42°31', E02°27' (blue star above)
Sun @ S16° 50', W71° 05' (sun icon above)
I can show the alignment on a globe earth:
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/vdden9.jpg)
----------------------
I have not been able to get them to align on any existing flat earth models.
I invite anyone to show me how that can be accomplished.
Or, if not, can anyone explain what incorrect assumption I might be making to expect a model of the earth to plot the alignment we can see in the photographs?
-
I do not see any reason to object to the data, given its derivation process. You're using data for where the Sun would be if the Earth were round as per the mainstream model. You are also forgetting that in most FE models, optics isn't quite as straight-forward as you assume. It is not particularly surprising to me that if you assume the Round Earth model, you're going to arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is round.
I continue not to see why this thread would belong in the upper fora. You've introduced no new information compared to your last thread, and your assumptions are exactly what they were before, and they've already been challenged. If you are not willing to adjust your arguments to persuade those who disagree, why are you here?
-
I got the location of the sun from TimeandDate.Com
In other words, you assumed a round earth model, then created the location of the sun based on that model, and are now complaining it doesn't match a flat earth. This is circular logic. You can't make assumptions to prove your assumptions. You need to be viewing the location directly, not mathematically obtaining the location based on formulae you don't know or understand.
-
I do not see any reason to object to the data, given its derivation process. You're using data for where the Sun would be if the Earth were round as per the mainstream model.
So TimeAndDate is a globe earth data source. It is not "pattern-based" as Tom has alleged?
If so, you're right. Using "data for where the Sun would be if the Earth were round" would obviously favor a round earth model.
So TimeandDate is out. So is Stellarium since that is (I assume) also data based on a globe earth model. (Do all flat earthers agree on this or do others feel Timeanddate data is okay and agnostic about the model since data is pattern-based?)
You are also forgetting that in most FE models, optics isn't quite as straight-forward as you assume. It is not particularly surprising to me that if you assume the Round Earth model, you're going to arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is round.
I assume it because I've seen no FE model claim optics is "bendy" in the lateral direction. If I'm making incorrect assumptions, I invite you to show me how it should be, or can be, done in the FE model rather than just tell me I'm not doing it right or assuming things.
I continue not to see why this thread would belong in the upper fora. You've introduced no new information compared to your last thread, and your assumptions are exactly what they were before, and they've already been challenged. If you are not willing to adjust your arguments to persuade those who disagree, why are you here?
The information isn't new. But the information wasn't the reason why the previous topic was moved to AR. It was my refusal to respond to critics. I'm responding now to correct that. The information is worth of an upper forum discussion. Isn't it? It can be a good discussion.
-
I got the location of the sun from TimeandDate.Com
In other words, you assumed a round earth model, then created the location of the sun based on that model, and are now complaining it doesn't match a flat earth. This is circular logic. You can't make assumptions to prove your assumptions. You need to be viewing the location directly, not mathematically obtaining the location based on formulae you don't know or understand.
I didn't think I was assuming a round earth model. Like I stated above in response to Pete, I assumed everyone -- flat earther and globe earther alike -- was okay with the sun data provided by TimeandDate.
That's apparently not true. TimeandDate is based on a round earth model? It's not just pattern-based information?
I'm also not complaining about the Flat Earth Model. I'm asking for a flat earth explanation for how those points on earth can be aligned. I can do it with a globe. I can't with a flat earth. This time, I didn't say it can't be done. I said I can't do it. I'm asking you to show me how.
If the sun is depicted in the wrong place, then where should it be? What source does a flat earth model use to position the correct location of the sun?
-
FET uses the position of the sun as evidence of the position of the sun, not a website.
-
FET uses the position of the sun as evidence of the position of the sun, not a website.
Really?
Using FET's method, where over the earth was the sun in this photograph (February 2nd, 2012 at 17:58 in South of France)
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/scrs08.jpg)
-
Using FET's method, where over the earth was the sun in this photograph (February 2nd, 2012 at 17:58 in South of France)
That's a fantastic question, but you're asking it nearly 7 years too late for anyone to go out and check for you.
-
Using FET's method, where over the earth was the sun in this photograph (February 2nd, 2012 at 17:58 in South of France)
That's a fantastic question, but you're asking it nearly 7 years too late for anyone to go out and check for you.
That's an amazing answer. Brings to mind a zetetic experiment we can perform that won't suffer from such an obstacle.
Stand by.
Disregard for now. Tom Bishop presented an excellent exercise to answer this point. If it should prove not fruitful, we can revisit the zetetic observation I was thinking about.
-
I do not see any reason to object to the data, given its derivation process. You're using data for where the Sun would be if the Earth were round as per the mainstream model. You are also forgetting that in most FE models, optics isn't quite as straight-forward as you assume. It is not particularly surprising to me that if you assume the Round Earth model, you're going to arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is round.
I continue not to see why this thread would belong in the upper fora. You've introduced no new information compared to your last thread, and your assumptions are exactly what they were before, and they've already been challenged. If you are not willing to adjust your arguments to persuade those who disagree, why are you here?
Both FET and RET agree on the time where the sun should be at its zenith. Both are based on the same patterns. The FE model also has the earth moving in a circle around one of the tropics, depending on season.
So the objection that the logic is circular is ill-founded. We are here to discuss assumptions and theory, are we not?
FET uses the position of the sun as evidence of the position of the sun, not a website.
Website is based on the patterns of a sun circling around a flat earth.
-
TimeandDate puts the location of the sun at that time at S16° 50', W71° 05'.
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/wvpkhw.jpg)
According to the photograph, these points should be in alignment:
Photographer @ N43°31', E05°35' (red star above)
Pic du Canigó @ N42°31', E02°27' (blue star above)
Sun @ S16° 50', W71° 05' (sun icon above)
I can show the alignment on a globe earth:
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/vdden9.jpg)
The NOAA Solar Calculator (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/) shows the following. See the red line below:
(https://i.imgur.com/eY970tc.jpg)
Lat-Lon converter here (https://www.latlong.net/degrees-minutes-seconds-to-decimal-degrees)
Suncalc also echos the same (http://suncalc.net/#/43.6381,4.8798,3/2012.02.02/10:44):
(https://i.imgur.com/EqYg1R3.png)
-
Are you saying Suncalc and NOAA web resources are acceptably agnostic as to their underlying earth shape model?
Or just that globe-based models aren't consistent (per you) and thus none are reliable sources of sun position data?
-
Are you saying Suncalc and NOAA web resources are acceptably agnostic as to their underlying earth shape model?
Or just that globe-based models aren't consistent (per you) and thus none are reliable sources of sun position data?
It's almost like Tom already told you these websites are based on predictive models and not on a singular, accurate round earth model.
-
Are you saying Suncalc and NOAA web resources are acceptably agnostic as to their underlying earth shape model?
Or just that globe-based models aren't consistent (per you) and thus none are reliable sources of sun position data?
It's almost like Tom already told you these websites are based on predictive models and not on a singular, accurate round earth model.
Is Rushy right about what you mean, Tom? They're based on globe earth models but they aren't consistent?
TimeandDate puts the location of the sun at that time at S16° 50', W71° 05'.
The NOAA Solar Calculator (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/) shows the following. See the red line below:
(Tom's image deleted from quote for display clarity. To view, see original quoted post.)
The NOAA Solar Calculator shows the sun to be directly overhead at the sun coordinates given above, which happens to be solar noon there just at the time the photograph was taken.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gxNdtH6HwEk/XCPdu5G4cpI/AAAAAAAAAKc/VHhpyj4UWsgW1s_L1wX1lwJYIg11ffsZwCLcBGAs/s1600/NOAA.jpg)
And here's the NOAA bearing line overlayed with a globe-based map.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EMemIv0h2RY/XCPV_e2pMoI/AAAAAAAAAKI/DxwkVQZHMeg3V-LaMOxAG34ZVNJgi6UbgCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/NOAA%2BGoogle%2BCompare.jpg)
-
Okay, let us now use that very same logic for how the sun is rising and setting for today, December 26th, 2018, at the tip of Argentina:
Reminder: The sun moves North-South between the Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn over the course of the year:
(https://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/newart/imagee.gif)
According to the SunCalc, for an observer at the tip of Argentina the sun is rising up from the south today:
http://suncalc.net/#/-50.9082,-70.3546,3/2018.12.26/00:23
(https://i.imgur.com/9oDvlUN.png)
NOAA Solar Calculator:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/
(https://i.imgur.com/ET79sTe.png)
Now lets go to Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/@-45.1185898,18.1299733,2.47z) and, using the measuring tool, lets see what that line for the sunrise looks like on a globe, to get that line to connect to somewhere on the Tropic of Capricorn:
(https://i.imgur.com/8qDGDEe.png)
If the earth is a globe, with a far away sun, which travels North-South between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, could you help me understand why the sun would be rising up over Antarctica (or near it, depending on positioning) for an observer at the tip of Argentina today?
Feel free to play around with the measuring tool on the Google Maps website. It is accessible through by right-clicking on the map. For my replication of the angles, the path either passed over Antarctica, or was near it. I believe that explaining this point would be crucial for many of the assumptions we are making here on this topic.
-
Sure. Give me a few minutes to gen up some graphics. I anticipate we'll find that the direct line of sight on a globe doesn't cross over Antarctica. Suncalc's bearing line relates to the graphic overlay and not the projection of the earth. But hang on, I'll explain better and show how it works on a globe.
In the meantime, perhaps you can take a moment yourself and clarify the answer to my earlier question and which Rushy answered for you. Is he correct about what your point is about these Web sites?
-
Sure. Give me a few minutes to gen up some graphics. I anticipate we'll find that the direct line of sight on a globe doesn't cross over Antarctica. Suncalc's bearing line relates to the graphic overlay and not the projection of the earth. But hang on, I'll explain better and show how it works on a globe.
In the meantime, perhaps you can take a moment yourself and clarify the answer to my earlier question and which Rushy answered for you. Is he correct about what your point is about these Web sites?
Surely this is available online, Tom could look it up.
-
If the earth is a globe, with a far away sun, which travels North-South between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, could you help me understand why the sun would be rising up over Antarctica (or near it, depending on positioning) for an observer at the tip of Argentina today?
Feel free to play around with the measuring tool on the Google Maps website. It is accessible through by right-clicking on the map. For my replication of the angles, the path either passed over Antarctica, or was near it. I believe that explaining this point would be crucial for many of the assumptions we are making here on this topic.
I used Punta Arenas in Chile as an observer's location. I also used Suncalc to roughly find where it thinks the Sun was when it was rising from the vantage point of someone in Punta Arenas: just a hair north of the Tropic of Capricorn, west of Madigascar:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oxKR1TRCXF8/XCQMU8uHCUI/AAAAAAAAALM/GdT3xSuvcZIUtWCYFLEQXMNNVu64mrBIACLcBGAs/s1600/TB1b.jpg)
The green horizontal line is the Tropic of Capricorn. Look at how it plots on Google Maps:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oZGlwn8duag/XCQO9r5kAGI/AAAAAAAAALk/U_lbZyItptA_CvuCyQaCtMsj-sVaTlFiwCLcBGAs/s1600/TB2b.jpg)
Overlay those two:
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JBjKDkAqmXU/XCQQebA7JzI/AAAAAAAAALw/Qjn1a7yawSwBmnDgJ0_huFZETAGgBIzCQCLcBGAs/s1600/TB6.jpg)
Look at it depicted on a globe graphic rather than a projection of a globe:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_B8EksAN2rc/XCQR270e3LI/AAAAAAAAAMI/6bRFqhTX2tEmBnpOlsUU5h36vxUhmzbPQCLcBGAs/s1600/TB7.jpg)
The path between Punta Arenas and the sun location over a globe earth when it is seen rising in Punta Arenas this morning was a great circle. It's straight on a globe, and becomes warped into a curve when projected onto a flat surface. It does not cross over Antarctica.
Does that makes sense?
-
Sure, that might be more reflective of the location of the rising sun under that suncalc model.
But, if the earth is a globe and the sun is so far north, why would an observer at the tip of Argentina see the sun rise from just north of Antarctica?
One would think that the sun wouldn't rise from such a southern angle south of the sun.
-
Because that's the direct line of sight on a globe.
Take a globe. Stretch a string from Punta Arenas to that spot on the Tropic of Capricorn just west of Madagascar. That's the path.
One would think that the sun wouldn't rise from such a southern angle south of the sun.
One might think that if he's thinking the earth is flat. But whether you believe it is or isn't, to understand this you have to think as if the earth is a globe. Then it should make sense.
IF the earth is a globe, the sun WILL rise in southern Chile and Argentina and the Falklands from that angle even when the sun is on the Tropic of Capricorn. That's evidence of a globe.
Now, the question for you is, do you believe Suncalc is right? Does the sun really rise from the ESE, contrary to what one might think?
-
Because that's the direct line of sight on a globe.
Take a globe. Stretch a string from Punta Arenas to that spot on the Tropic of Capricorn just west of Madagascar. That's the path.
We can make straight lines between any two points on that globe. That doesn't mean that the sun can rise out of the North Pole if it is circling the equator.
-
Because that's the direct line of sight on a globe.
Take a globe. Stretch a string from Punta Arenas to that spot on the Tropic of Capricorn just west of Madagascar. That's the path.
We can make straight lines between any two points on that globe. That doesn't mean that the sun can rise out of the North Pole if it is circling the equator.
That's correct. It doesn't mean that. I don't know how to respond to that otherwise. I don't understand how that follows what I'm explaining.
Edit: Maybe the error is "any two points." We're not taking "any two points." We're taking a point where sunrise is being observed and a point on the earth over which the sun is when that sunrise is being observed.
-
I wanted to see if my estimate using SunCalc of the sun's position at the time of sunrise in Punta Arenas was corroborated by TimeandDate and the NOAA Solar Calculator.
TimeandDate provided me with a sun location of -23.37, 56.35. Check.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QrUpvODA6hI/XCQW72zsJcI/AAAAAAAAAMs/pWROPtuXGGwOUVKRDYTgnyyvHce2U-kAACLcBGAs/s1600/TB8.jpg)
NOAA Solar Calculator says the sun was at an elevation of 89.98° over that spot at that time. Check.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mcyT5r2C_Fs/XCQW7ygJbPI/AAAAAAAAAMw/2UOtUT_8JeoF8BBJUFRoXAYA5-3Eyl7qACLcBGAs/s1600/TB9.jpg)
-
Here's a rough approximation of what the observation would look like in Bilsin's FE model:
(https://i.imgur.com/EuW6M5R.png)
-
Here is the earth. The lines of latitude represent East and West:
(https://i.imgur.com/CFYU9vU.png)
Now, at Winter Solstice the earth is tilted by 23.5 degrees, giving summer to the south:
(https://i.imgur.com/zRpu31b.png)
The maximum angle the sun can be below East is 23.5 degrees:
(https://i.imgur.com/P4n9iQx.png)
Yet, we saw that the sun was rising from an angle below East lower than that.
From Suncalc:
(https://i.imgur.com/S8L4Dvu.png)
Time and Date has the sun rising from 135 Degrees East of North:
(https://i.imgur.com/Rp71hZe.png)
East is 90 degrees East of North.
90 + 23.5 = 113.5 Degrees East of North. 113.5 Degrees should be the max. Yet we see above that, according to these tools, the sun is rising from 135 Degrees East from North.
Why is the sun appearing so far south?
-
Why is the sun appearing so far south?
I don't know how else to explain it. Let me think on how else to illustrate it or get the point across.
In the meantime, answer me this? Do you deny that the sun IS actually rising on that bearing? Are you saying that Suncalc is wrong?
-
Here is the earth. The lines of latitude represent East and West:
<snip>
Why is the sun appearing so far south?
Don't forget that, except or the equator, lines of latitude are not great circles and therefore are not useful for representing lines of sight.
-
Here is the earth. The lines of latitude represent East and West:
<snip>
Why is the sun appearing so far south?
Don't forget that, except or the equator, lines of latitude are not great circles and therefore are not useful for representing lines of sight.
I think to your point, I went into google earth, arrived at Punta Arenas. Oriented my view so that I was facing due East. Then drew a line of sight line heading East making sure I maintained 90 degrees from start to finish. Here's what my due East line of sight looks like (Red line):
(https://i.imgur.com/pRaNGCy.jpg)
-
Since when did you have to travel North to go East?
-
In the meantime, answer me this? Do you deny that the sun IS actually rising on that bearing? Are you saying that Suncalc is wrong?
Here's a comparable situation to Punta Arenas near the Winter Solstice.
This is what SunCalc says was the direction of the setting sun from a spot near Nenana, Alaska a week past the 2017 Summer Solstice, according to SunCalc.
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/2pypcew.jpg)
Agreed? Same question ought to be applicable. How can the sun appear to be setting so far north when it is near the Tropic of Cancer (over Saudi Arabia, according to Suncalc).
Nenana is further north (N64+°) than Punta Arenas is south (S53°).
Is SunCalc's data trustworthy?
I'm presenting this scenario because I wasn't in Punta Arenas this morning, but I was passing through Nenana, AK at 12:55AM on 28 June, 2017 and took this photo:
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/2qd1tgo.jpg)
EXIF Data:
Wednesday, June 28, 2017 12:55 AM
64.6061861,-149.0889583
That's just past sunset looking toward the NNW when the sun is near the Tropic of Cancer. Suncalc is right.
So back to the question: How is that possible?
On a globe:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/fk8611.jpg)
On a flat earth:
?
-
Since when did you have to travel North to go East?
The point of stack's illustration is that if you start out eastward at that latitude on a globe, going in a straight line will "curve" to the north. To stay on an easterly heading, you'd have to continue to bear to the right. That's the globe. I feel like you're trying to make sense of a globe by thinking it should behave like a flat coordinate system.
Can we at least agree that however Suncalc is coming up with its data, it's accurate? I've provided photographic evidence that it's correct for Alaska & sun at Tropic of Cancer, as Suncalc produced.
If we can do that, then let's spend a little time trying to make sense of it on a flat earth. Not being able to understand how it makes sense on a globe doesn't mean it works on a flat earth by default. Since I initiated this topic, I've been asking for how it can work on a flat earth. Trying to bust the globe doesn't answer that question. At least I've tried to help you understand the globe. Would you mind taking some time to help me understand how it can work on a flat earth?
I'm not trying to squelch your questioning how it works on a globe earth. I like trying to explain it. But I think it's only fair that you do the same for me. How can the sun be setting so far north from Nenana near the Summer Solstice and so far south from Punta Arenas near the Winter Solstice according to a flat earth model?
-
It's very difficult to come up with a good visual demonstration that can easily be understood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLRA87TKXLM
You can appreciate how at the Antarctic circle in December there is no azimuth for sun rise & sun set because the Sun is up 24 hours a day. Then as you progress North the sunrise & sunset azimuths are very close to South and the angle starts to open up as you progress North. You can see this with SunCalc. There's probably an equation for this phenomenon that would accurately describe the azimuth angles but I haven't discovered it yet. In the mean time you can see what it happening in the video. Try to imagine yourself on the globe starting out at the Antarctic Circle. You would be in sunlight 24 hours a day. Now go North a ways. You would see the sun set at one azimuth and then rise a hour later at very close to the same azimuth. Since the earth rotates at a constant rate the further North you went the bigger the 'slice of the pie' would become and the bigger the angle would become between the sun set azimuth and the sun rise azimuth.
-
The maximum angle the sun can be below East is 23.5 degrees:
(https://i.imgur.com/P4n9iQx.png)
East is 90 degrees East of North.
[snip]
90 + 23.5 = 113.5 Degrees East of North. 113.5 Degrees should be the max...
I think I see one source of confusion in this incorrect arithmetic/reasoning.
The 23.5° axial tilt is a seasonal thing. It doesn't change much during the course of a day. It's influence on the sun is to give us seasons, which is a earth-orbiting-sun consequence.
The sun's changing azimuth and elevation on a daily basis is due to a different parameter: earth's rotation and is dependent on latitude on the sphere.
To help visualize how azimuth (bearing) changes during the course of a day, he's a few snaps of a globe earth rotating through a 10-hour period from sunrise. The column on the left is a view from the sun's "bird's eye" view. The column on the right is the side view with the sun off to the right:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/1z2hl6o.jpg)
At any point during the day, the shortest straight line distance across the sphere is a great circle arc between the sun's zenith point and Punta Arenas. See how it shifts as the earth rotates with the sun staying above the Tropic of Capricorn and how it's direction away from Punta Arenas can be southerly when the sun is overhead Madagascar, but then drift quickly northward as the sun rises and the great circle distance becomes shorter.
There's some of the same concept here as the Moon Terminator Illusion we hashed out a few months ago.
Anyway, maybe that graphic above will help segregate the different influences of axial tilt/sun orbit and earth rotation/bearing drift.
-
I believe that the argument with polar views you are posting, with the line going across the Northern or Southern areas, are implicitly assuming that the earth is flat and that the sun is close to the earth.
One can make a line on a globe between Cincinnati and China across the Northern Polar area, but that doesn't mean that the sun can come out of the North Pole. In fact, one can make a line that goes to the South of Cincinnati, around the Southern Polar area to China, just as straight, but that doesn't mean that the sun is going to come out of the South Pole.
The geometry of the Sun-Earth system and the angle of the light rays and the earth seem to say that there are limits to how far north and how far south the sun should appear to the observer.
-
I believe that the argument with polar views you are posting with the line going across the Northern or Southern areas are implicitly assuming that the earth is flat and that the sun is close to the earth.
Have you carried out some measurements of the angle of the sun from various locations?
-
To solve the mystery I think you will have to do the following:
1) In Ushuaia, Argentina sunrise was at about 0153 GMT (say 0200) on 12/22/2018
2) Find the location over the earth of the Sun's zenith point at 0200 on 12/22/2018. It will be over the Tropic of Capricorn quite a ways to the East.
3) Find the great circle route between those two points. The route will have an azimuth and distance.
Keep in mind that you don't want to mix up all your time zones. Probably it would be best to do everything in GMT. Once you do that you will probably come up with an azimuth that goes a lot further South of East than you would initially suspect because the great circle route is always the shortest distance between two points on a globe. That doesn't mean that the Sun isn't anywhere but directly over the position of the zenith point at that instant of time. It just means that the direction you have to look to see it rise might surprise you.
Since at that time of the year the sky is always lit 24 hours a day to the South of Ushuaia it shouldn't be surprising to see the sky brighten up in a Southerly direction very early in the morning and fool you into thinking that the sun is actually rising over Antarctica.
-
I believe that the argument with polar views you are posting, with the line going across the Northern or Southern areas, are implicitly assuming that the earth is flat and that the sun is close to the earth.
That is not implicit. To the contrary. If you are at a high enough latitude and the sun is at a high latitude in the same hemisphere but on the other side of the globe, you'll see it over the pole. On earth, that latitude is marked by the Arctic (and Antarctic) Circle. It's why the sun doesn't set to those above the Artic Circle when the sun is transiting at the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer. Likewise for the Antarctic Circle and the Tropic of Capricorn.
I can see how that could work on a flat bipolar model of earth, although not at the lines of bearing observed.
I can see how that could work on a flat AE model of the earth, but only for northern latitudes. Southern latitudes appear impossible. And again, the bearings are wrong.
At least as I work it out. If I'm doing it wrong, someone - a sincere advocate for a flat earth model preferably -- should step up and show me how to do it right. 6 days of me asking this question...
One can make a line on a globe between Cincinnati and China across the Northern Polar area, but that doesn't mean that the sun can come out of the North Pole.
Why would one randomly make a line between Cincinnati and China over the Northern Pola area? Is the sun over Cincinnati and an observer in China seeing the sun (or vice versa)?
In fact, one can make a line that goes to the South of Cincinnati, around the Southern Polar area to China, just as straight, but that doesn't mean that the sun is going to come out of the South Pole.
And that's no surprise, because that's just randomly connecting two points.
The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth. That's on endpoint. Then find the location of an observer who is seeing the sun. That's the other endpoint. Now THOSE two points aren't random. The straight line path over the earth (on a globe) is the great circle arc that connects those two points. That will define the angle/direction an observer is facing in order to be seeing that sun. And, yes, on a globe, you do sometimes have to face north or south to see a sun that's to the west or east according to longitude.
I showed that in my June 28, 2017 Alaska photo.
I can understand how that can be so on a globe. What I'm asking is how was I seeing the sun setting after midnight to the NNW if the earth was flat?
Use your preferred bipolar model. Was the sun's path like this?
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BNqs39poBHI/XCUWBd9fh-I/AAAAAAAAANQ/IJtFzDmRxYwxmC6z7MBfmw9xOxRmTL2lwCLcBGAs/s1600/Bipolar%2BAlaska%2B2.jpg)
Or this?
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-INPZeEM8Jss/XCUWBcskSvI/AAAAAAAAANU/plKOrfaAXfkZUm0m458_fv6XQqPsOqtkgCLcBGAs/s1600/Bipolar%2BAlaska%2B3.jpg)
Or this?
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y4u4GQteHlU/XCUWBcbxkHI/AAAAAAAAANM/MVRzUCFp93QEEpR0IFqbl1Aa8m5qKeWBwCLcBGAs/s1600/Bipolar%2BAlaska%2B1.jpg)
Or something else? I'm not "fabricating" data here. I'm just offering up some options because I frankly don't know how to do it for a flat earth, and despite my repeated requests, no one is showing me. Simply focusing on how it can or can't be done on a globe doesn't answer the question how it can be done on a flat earth. The earth isn't flat by default if you don't get the globe answer. You still need to compose a flat earth answer.
I've spent a lot of time explaining to you how it CAN work on a globe. You don't get it. Fine.
Now, explain to me how it can work on a flat earth. I might not get it, but at least try to explain it to me as I've tried to explain the globe to you.
The geometry of the Sun-Earth system and the angle of the light rays and the earth seem to say that there are limits to how far north and how far south the sun should appear to the observer.]
Yes, there are. You are right about that. You can't just take any two points on a globe, draw a great circle arc line between them and think my globe explanation means the sun at one point will appear along that line to an observer at the other point. I don't know why you think that should be the case given what I've explained.
-
The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth.
I'm still having a problem with the 'over the earth' idea. I think it means, the unique place where the sun is directly overhead. There will be such a place on both flat earth and globe earth. Is that what is meant?
-
The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth.
I'm still having a problem with the 'over the earth' idea. I think it means, the unique place where the sun is directly overhead. There will be such a place on both flat earth and globe earth. Is that what is meant?
Here's my interpretation. Each red line in the image represents me looking East from Punta Arenas, Chile yesterday at sunrise. Suncalc has the sun directly over a little East of Madagascar. I’m kind of guessing as to what looking East on the AE and Bi-Polar FE models looks like. Feel free to correct. The globe model matches Suncalc's observable sun path, the FE models do not. So a couple of things:
- Is Suncalc not correct, meaning it is an inaccurate tool?
- Should I be looking at the FE models differently?
(https://i.imgur.com/6QLDyXg.jpg)
-
The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth.
I'm still having a problem with the 'over the earth' idea. I think it means, the unique place where the sun is directly overhead. There will be such a place on both flat earth and globe earth. Is that what is meant?
Yes.
Where the sun occupies an observer's zenith.
-
The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth.
I'm still having a problem with the 'over the earth' idea. I think it means, the unique place where the sun is directly overhead. There will be such a place on both flat earth and globe earth. Is that what is meant?
Here's my interpretation. Each red line in the image represents me looking East from Punta Arenas, Chile yesterday at sunrise. Suncalc has the sun directly over a little East of Madagascar. I’m kind of guessing as to what looking East on the AE and Bi-Polar FE models looks like. Feel free to correct. The globe model matches Suncalc's observable sun path, the FE models do not. So a couple of things:
- Is Suncalc not correct, meaning it is an inaccurate tool?
- Should I be looking at the FE models differently?
(https://i.imgur.com/cbziVPs.jpg)
Why do you guys keep trying to connect Argentina to some point on the surface of the earth?
The last time I checked the sun was not an orange ball that rolled on the surface of the earth in the Round Earth model. The sun isn't on the surface of the earth. The sun is, allegedly, very far away. In RET the direction of 'East' would go out into space, not along the surface of a globe.
Should we assume that this creative thinking must be done, rather than simply drawing out the geometric model, because the 93 million mile distant sun and a tilted earth in a Sun-Earth model is difficult to explain?
-
If you plot the great circle route between the Sunrise at Ushuaia at 54deg-48'S and 68deg-19'W and the Sun's zenith point Near Madagascar at 23deg-30'S / 57deg-30'E, the route leaves Ushuaia at about 135 degrees. It's been confirmed by both using Google earth and by the old fashioned Zetetic way using a globe, string and protractor. Everything is in agreement. I did use SunCalc and feel that is an accurate and very useful tool. The data from the Naval Observatory also agreed as well. I don't see any problems with matching up the observable solar events with the globe earth tools both new and old.
I drew out a flat earth map and will see if I can get something that will match up with the actual, confirmed, observations that have been made. So far nothing seems to be working.
-
I think that the whole idea was to unambiguously illustrate what the zenith point for the Sun looks like on the globe earth. This answers the question of why the Sun's azimuth is exactly where it is for a given location and at a given time. The Sun Earth model is a little hard to visualize especially when a long great circle route around a pole is involved. You might expect the Sun to rise directly in the East and set directly in the West, but that's not always the case. The examples illustrate clearly how the phenomenon works in this specific case. A nice detailed diagram could be produced with any specification you desire, but it wouldn't alter the underlying facts.
-
Should we assume that this creative thinking must be done, rather than simply drawing out the geometric model, because the 93 million mile distant sun and a tilted earth in a Sun-Earth model is difficult to explain?
No, you should assume that we're discussing a real world observation in a flat earth context. The question, which no one seems to want to answer, is this: when an observer at one location is watching the sun rise, where is the sun at its zenith on the flat earth?
-
Should we assume that this creative thinking must be done, rather than simply drawing out the geometric model, because the 93 million mile distant sun and a tilted earth in a Sun-Earth model is difficult to explain?
No, you should assume that we're discussing a real world observation in a flat earth context. The question, which no one seems to want to answer, is this: when an observer at one location is watching the sun rise, where is the sun at its zenith on the flat earth?
The Flat Earth explanation is revealing itself. As the only attempted explanations are done through connecting points on the surface of the earth, rather than geometric RET model of the Sun-Earth system, those same methods tell us that the sun is close over the earth.
-
Should we assume that this creative thinking must be done, rather than simply drawing out the geometric model, because the 93 million mile distant sun and a tilted earth in a Sun-Earth model is difficult to explain?
No, you should assume that we're discussing a real world observation in a flat earth context. The question, which no one seems to want to answer, is this: when an observer at one location is watching the sun rise, where is the sun at its zenith on the flat earth?
The Flat Earth explanation is revealing itself. As the only attempted explanations are done through connecting points on the surface of the earth, rather than geometric RET model of the Sun-Earth system, those same methods tell us that the sun is close over the earth.
Then feel free to present a geometric flat earth model that explains the observation in question.
-
Why do you guys keep trying to connect Argentina to some point on the surface of the earth?
You're trying to understand how the sun can appear along a given bearing at sunset/rise, correct? Connecting the location on a globe earth where the sun appears on the horizon with the location on a globe earth where the sun is directly overhead gives you that bearing.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2ekp2lu.jpg)
The reason for the sun setting or rising at a horizon on a globe is because the surface slopes away from the location where the sun appears directly overhead.
If it helps, think of that line across the globe between those two points like a shadow formed by two long ropes from each point extending up to the sun. That shadow lies under the two ropes that come together at the sun. At the earth, the ropes are practically parallel because of the distance to the sun is so great. But the angle each forms with the shadow varies from 90° to 0° depending on where on that curved globe surface the rope is attached. The shadow is the azimuth angle to the sun for the location where the elevation angle is near 0°.
Edit: I realized after I wrote this that maybe you're confusing angles. There are two: azimuth and elevation. So, the bearing line -- the line drawn between these two non-random points -- is the azimuth angle when the elevation angle is near 0° (sunset/sunrise).
-
I've spent a lot of time explaining to you how it CAN work on a globe. You don't get it. Fine.
Now, explain to me how it can work on a flat earth. I might not get it, but at least try to explain it to me as I've tried to explain the globe to you.
I'm giving up hope that this is ever going to get answered.
The Flat Earth explanation is revealing itself. As the only attempted explanations are done through connecting points on the surface of the earth, rather than geometric RET model of the Sun-Earth system, those same methods tell us that the sun is close over the earth.
I wish the flat earth explanation WAS revealing itself since I can't coax it out of anyone.
How can the sun rise as seen from Punta Arenas appear to rise from the southeast near the time of the southern solstice on a flat earth? That's been no more revealed than the opening question of how the sun seen from Pic du Canigó can appear to rise from the northeast over the Alps in the south of France in May.
My explanations for a globe do not "reveal" a flat earth explanation at all.
-
The diagram and path of light you provided above seems very similar to the one I made.
Why do you guys keep trying to connect Argentina to some point on the surface of the earth?
You're trying to understand how the sun can appear along a given bearing at sunset/rise, correct? Connecting the location on a globe earth where the sun appears on the horizon with the location on a globe earth where the sun is directly overhead gives you that bearing.
Consider what you guys are saying happens at Equinox, for example. The sun is over the equator, and you tell us that someone in Miami would see the sun rising from directly East. The sun (allegedly) rises directly from the East. Right?
Yet, if we used your method of connecting Miami along the surface of the globe, over to where the sun is directly over the equator, the observer would be looking to the South of East.
(https://i.imgur.com/a2szT4T.png)
If this surface of the earth method is accurate, how would you explain the above?
I did exactly what you told us was necessary to get the bearing of the sun. I made a line between Miami and the Equator, to where the sun is most directly over. Yet the rays of the sun are still coming in from the East.
It seems clear, to me, that these would have to be lines that stretch out into space to depict this, not along the surface of a globe. If the above analogy is valid, then it suggests that all of the illustrations of the observer-to-sun paths along the surface of the globe, including the one in the first post of your OP, are in question.
This directly answers your question in the OP in regards to bearings and the surface-of-the-earth method of sun bearing that is used.
-
Yet, if we used your method of connecting Miami along the surface of the globe, over to where the sun is directly over the equator, the observer would be looking to the South of East.
Correct. 21-Dec-2018, sunrise at Miami 7:12AM, azimuth of sun = 116 degrees, which is 26 degrees or East-Southeast. Is that a problem?
There most certainly would be a problem with that if we were to look up the dates of the Equinox.
-
Yet, if we used your method of connecting Miami along the surface of the globe, over to where the sun is directly over the equator, the observer would be looking to the South of East.
Correct. 21-Dec-2018, sunrise at Miami 7:12AM, azimuth of sun = 116 degrees, which is 26 degrees or East-Southeast. Is that a problem?
There most certainly would be a problem with that if we were to look up the dates of the Equinox.
Not with you (i.e. I don't understand).
Oh right, sorry, yes 21 Dec is not the equinox.
-
Starting again. 21 Jun 2018 Miami. Sunrise 5:31, azimuth 63 degrees, so east north east.
I'm not sure why that would be.
Starting again. 21 Sep 2018, which really is the equinox. Sunrise 6:23 AM 90 degrees exactly. Due East.
So Tom is correct.
-
Which suggests a connected problem. Tom and I agree that when standing on the equator at the equinox, we see the sun rise due East. Then the sun comes straight towards me until it stands directly overhead at noon.
How is this possible on a flat earth?
-
The diagram and path of light you provided above seems very similar to the one I made.
But you're making a key error. I'll explain:
Consider what you guys are saying happens at Equinox, for example. The sun is over the equator, and you tell us that someone in Miami would see the sun rising from directly East. The sun (allegedly) rises directly from the East. Right?
Correct.
Yet, if we used your method of connecting Miami along the surface of the globe, over to where the sun is directly over the equator, the observer would be looking to the South of East.
No. The Miami observer would be facing due East. The path to the sun on the Equator doesn't stay due east on a globe for someone not on the equator. Miami is at a latitude north of the equator, so even though it's a straight path due east at first, that straight line will not follow the eastward line of latitude on a globe. The globe's east line will curve left. To keep seeing east, your vision would have to curve to the left somehow. But light doesn't do that. It stays straight. Thus, on a globe, a straight line will follow a great circle arc, not a constant line of latitude. So the bearing will gradually shift south the further you go until it reaches the Equator.
Like this:
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/23vyd6b.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/a2szT4T.png)
If this surface of the earth method is accurate, how would you explain the above?
I did exactly what you told us was necessary to get the bearing of the sun. I made a line between Miami and the Equator, to where the sun is most directly over. Yet the rays of the sun are still coming in from the East.
Look at the difference between what you have above and these correct images below and see if you can see the difference.
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/why8hv.jpg)
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/hrbzb7.jpg)
Both of these depict a straight line on a globe. I just rotated the globe.
In your graphic, your line is not straight. It's straight on a 2D surface, but over a 3D surface of the globe, it would curve. It's the reason that Google Maps projection I showed you above has the actual straight line of a globe looking curved. You can't draw a straight line on a flat map and call it straight on a globe. That's why I suggested using a ball. Or go get a globe and stretch a string from Miami to Gabon and see for yourself. That's how the globe works.
It seems clear, to me, that these would have to be lines that stretch out into space to depict this, not along the surface of a globe. If the above analogy is valid, then it suggests that all of the illustrations of the observer-to-sun paths along the surface of the globe, including the one in the first post of your OP, are in question.
Because you're not grasping what is being explained to you. They're in question because you are trying to apply a flat mindset and technique to a globe. I'm not asking you to believe in a globe. Just pretend for a moment and assume a globe and try to comprehend how a globe works.
This directly answers your question in the OP in regards to bearings and the surface-of-the-earth method of sun bearing that is used.
But it doesn't answer the question about a flat earth. How can the sun appear to rise directly east in Miami if the sun is over Gabon on the Equator?
-
What you've drawn here is straight on the 2D graphic. But it's not the straight line on a globe.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/2s7i5pk.jpg)
I made a video to illustrate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXUQ6ttvPBo
And here's is the Suncalc graphic:
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/2cwpqvs.jpg)
Note that arcing orange line on the superimposed sphere? That's the equator. The yellow line depicts the bearing of sunrise from Miami. But because that orange line is not also a straight line, that means that bearing line will have to follow a great circle arc and become more southerly as it approaches the equator.
If you move the location from Miami south in Suncalc, down to the equator, you'll see that orange line straighten out and become parallel with the rising sun line. That's because from a position on the equator, the path to the sun IS the equator. Only there will a straight line due east stay due east. Any northern or south and the straight line will cross lines of latitude.
With this, I'm done defending the globe. I haven't ignored you, right? I just am at my limit as to how to explain.
I only now ask for the courtesy of showing me how these observations (May sunrise from the Pyrenees, Feb sunset from south of France, winter soltice sunrise from Punta Arenas, summer solstice sunset from Nenana, AK, or equinox sunrise from Miami) work on a flat earth model. I might have the same difficulty with that as you are having with the globe. Can we try?
-
I only now ask for the courtesy of showing me how these observations (May sunrise from the Pyrenees, Feb sunset from south of France, winter soltice sunrise from Punta Arenas, summer solstice sunset from Nenana, AK, or equinox sunrise from Miami) work on a flat earth model. I might have the same difficulty with that as you are having with the globe. Can we try?
Looking at another topic, it's all too clear that there's a major, fundamental disconnect between flat earth and globe earth advocates. The globe doesn't make sense to some flat earthers and the flat earth doesn't make sense to some globe earthers.
I'm a globie. The globe makes sense to me and matches observation. I can't seem to help Tom (a flat earther) make sense of the globe.
Tom is a flat earther. I assume the flat earth model makes sense to him and matches his observations.
But I, a globe earther, can't make sense of how a flat model matches observations. All I'm asking for is for someone to do for the flat earth what I've tried to do for a globe earth.
I'll pick Tom's example of Miami sunrise at the equinox. Show me the path from Miami (red dot) to the sun's position directly over the earth at the time it is seen rising in Miami (yellow dot ) on either of these or any other preferred model representation of a flat earth:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YEZdAE0eDCQ/XCZc42pP34I/AAAAAAAAAN4/_1viG8iBw_QtTK2bhcsr_91TwPvsCpIcwCLcBGAs/s1600/Flat%2BAE%2BModel.jpg)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tzpjRDa7u1E/XCZkAL9MA5I/AAAAAAAAAOU/xaF-LcFYfOUe_rZeJ0oMO5dRP20ONe5awCLcBGAs/s1600/Flat%2BBP%2BModel.jpg)
When I've tried to show what I think as I understand it, I've been rebuked. So show me how.
If the question itself is making an incorrect assumption, correct it. Don't just tell me it's incorrect. If I have the sun in the wrong place, put it in the right place.
-
Bobby, we would first need to show that the premise of this argument is correct before we attempt to explain "how does this work in FET."
You made the same diagram that I made.
Here is a screen capture from your video. The earth is slightly tilted forwards in the below image, but nonetheless, we can see the problem:
(https://i.imgur.com/xbuJKO1.jpg)
Which direction is the sun coming from on Equinox? The East that leads to the Equator along a globe, or the straight-line East into space?
How is it that these seem to be two different directions? Which way is East?
Should it matter more where the light is going, or where the earth is curving?
It seems to me that in RET the direction of East, for the purposes of the sun, would broadcast out into space, not along the surface of a globe...
I am sure that we can all see what the confusion is here with this argument.
-
The only confusion i see is that you don’t understand spherical geometry and the difference between a direction bearing, azimuth, and a path on said sphere. To follow an easterly path on the globe you continually curve left slightly in the Northern Hemisphere and right slightly in the Southern Hemisphere.
Take a globe. Draw a line connecting north and south poles. Pick any point away from the equator a bit, measure 90 degrees, continue that line around the curve and draw that straight line or use a rubber band. That line is not a path someone would take to continuously head east. It is due east for that location on the globe however. Before any progress can be made, this fundamental concept has to be understood.
-
The only confusion i see is that you don’t understand spherical geometry and the difference between a direction bearing, azimuth, and a path on said sphere.
Sorry, what does the sphere have to do with this at all? If the earth were a cube in your Sun-Earth model, the concept of curvature and "spherical geometry" doesn't exist at all, and yet the sun is still coming in from the East during Equinox to a point on the side of the cube, when the cube earth rotates to face the sun.
What does the shape of the earth matter? This is a simple light diagram.
Here is a diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/nk6NkT9.png)
Please explain your spherical geometry using the model above.
-
The only confusion i see is that you don’t understand spherical geometry and the difference between a direction bearing, azimuth, and a path on said sphere.
Sorry, what does the sphere have to do with this at all? If the earth were a cube in your Sun-Earth model, the concept of curvature and "spherical geometry" doesn't exist at all, and yet the sun is still coming in from the East during Equinox to a point on the side of the cube, when the cube earth rotates to face the sun.
What does the shape of the earth matter? This is a simple light diagram.
I can't believe I'm doing this but this Globebusters vid explains this quite well. Watch the first 5 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eade-NOZJEk
-
I cannot see your video, but I am rather confident that there is a difference between following East into space and following East along the surface of a globe.
Follow East in the below diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/nk6NkT9.png)
Where does it take you?
Why should it matter what shape the earth is? The light is coming in from the east. Following the direction of east along the surface of the spherical earth, as the surface curves away, to a distant spot on that surface, is meaningless for the purpose of discussion.
-
It looks like there's folks out there that don't understand basic navigation on the globe. Not only that, they don't understand that they don't understand.
To put is simply. If you stand and face the South Pole then your left side will face east. Now if you turn 90 degrees to your left then you will be facing East. You only continue in an Easterly direction by staying on the same latitude line you start on. East on a globe is defined by staying on a constant distance line between the North Pole and the South Pole. Its the same with going West. That's how the latitude lines are defined. When you stay on any given latitude line you will always stay a constant distance between the poles. Now those distances won't be equal, except at the equator. The nice globebusters video didn't follow basic navigational practices in their illustrations and would be lost at sea quickly if they actually practiced what they preached in the video. The other thing that isn't understood is the fact that a globe involves 3 different axes. There's the x, y and z axis. Effectively if you go directly east and keep a constant distance between the North and South Poles you will travel along the x axis, but not change your y axis. That's because the y axis is the one defining the distance between the North & South poles. Since you aren't going off into space you are also traversing along the z axis as well. In other words, you MUST think in 3 dimensions to fully understand the globe. Failing to do that will always lead you to misunderstandings and badly misrepresenting how things actually work.
I have the same questions as Bobby does above. I've really struggled on my freshly made flat earth map to understand just how the sunrise at Ushuaia Argentina could possibly work as observed in real life. There's been plenty of explanations provided on the globe earth model (incorrect or not) and that's here on the flat earth site. It's really crazy to think about that. Please, please straighten out the whole controversy here and enlighten us all on just how the azimuths and times of the sunsets and sunrises actually work on the flat earth model. I've come here to get expert help on this matter.
-
(1) Check on timeanddate to find which location the sun is at its zenith on 23 Sep 2018
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=23&month=9&year=2018&hour=6&min=12&sec=0&n=156&ntxt=Miami&earth=0
On Sunday, 23 September 2018, 10:12:00 UTC the Sun is at its zenith at Latitude: 0° 08' South, Longitude: 25° 06' East
This is a fact, it doesn’t matter how derived. It can always be checked. Google Maps says the location is close to Kisangani in the Congo.
(2) Find the direction (i.e. azimuth) the sun will appear in Miami, using Stellarium. This says due East i.e. 90 degrees. It doesn’t matter how Stellarium derives this (perhaps by patterns) this is another fact which could easily be verified.
(3) Draw a line on Google maps from Miami to Kisangani. See the first picture below. This confirms that the azimuth is due East.
(4) Note also how the same line appears viewed from a different angle. See second picture below.
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/a/a8/East_of_miami.jpg)
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/2/28/East_of_miami_2.jpg)
-
Why should it matter what shape the earth is? The light is coming in from the east. Following the direction of east along the surface of the spherical earth, as the surface curves away, to a distant spot on that surface, is meaningless for the purpose of discussion.
Tom, if you're in Miami, Fl and look due east, will your line of sight follow a line of latitude or will it follow a great circle?
-
Why should it matter what shape the earth is? The light is coming in from the east. Following the direction of east along the surface of the spherical earth, as the surface curves away, to a distant spot on that surface, is meaningless for the purpose of discussion.
Tom, if you're in Miami, Fl and look due east, will your line of sight follow a line of latitude or will it follow a great circle?
Assuming a Round Earth, your line of sight will do neither. It will take you out into space. From a side view diagram that line would match up with the lines of latidude.
In edby's diagram above the line is laid out along the surface of the globe and, started on the initial bearing of East, wraps around the globe Southwards to the Equator. This is different than the line of East through space.
If one were to travel that path and follow the compass Eastwards, or travel on the line of latitude Eastwards, it wouldn't make that direction.
To the observer in Miami, when looking Eastwards at the rising sun, he is looking along that orange lines in those diagrams I had provided that were coming from the East, and which match up with the East-Wast lines of latitude.
-
It looks like there's folks out there that don't understand basic navigation on the globe. Not only that, they don't understand that they don't understand.
To put is simply. If you stand and face the South Pole then your left side will face east. Now if you turn 90 degrees to your left then you will be facing East. You only continue in an Easterly direction by staying on the same latitude line you start on. East on a globe is defined by staying on a constant distance line between the North Pole and the South Pole. Its the same with going West. That's how the latitude lines are defined. When you stay on any given latitude line you will always stay a constant distance between the poles. Now those distances won't be equal, except at the equator. The nice globebusters video didn't follow basic navigational practices in their illustrations and would be lost at sea quickly if they actually practiced what they preached in the video. The other thing that isn't understood is the fact that a globe involves 3 different axes. There's the x, y and z axis. Effectively if you go directly east and keep a constant distance between the North and South Poles you will travel along the x axis, but not change your y axis. That's because the y axis is the one defining the distance between the North & South poles. Since you aren't going off into space you are also traversing along the z axis as well. In other words, you MUST think in 3 dimensions to fully understand the globe. Failing to do that will always lead you to misunderstandings and badly misrepresenting how things actually work.
I have the same questions as Bobby does above. I've really struggled on my freshly made flat earth map to understand just how the sunrise at Ushuaia Argentina could possibly work as observed in real life. There's been plenty of explanations provided on the globe earth model (incorrect or not) and that's here on the flat earth site. It's really crazy to think about that. Please, please straighten out the whole controversy here and enlighten us all on just how the azimuths and times of the sunsets and sunrises actually work on the flat earth model. I've come here to get expert help on this matter.
You are absolutely right and I would perpetually get you lost at sea if charged with being the navigator. To your point, we've gone all around the ways a 3d globe fits with observations. The only real question is how the observations fit with a flat earth. For some reason RE wants to explore this yet FE does not.
-
In edby's diagram above the line is laid out along the surface of the globe and, started on the initial bearing of East, wraps around the globe Southwards to the Equator. This is different than the line of East through space.
Then imagine you could travel very fast at 100 feet off the ground, and you follow the direction in which the sun appears, i.e. keep its azimuth constant relative to your own position. To be clear, you have a sundial on board your aircraft and you make absolutely sure the shadow remains in exactly the same place.
You will end up in that place in the Congo.
To the observer in Miami, when looking Eastwards at the rising sun, he is looking along that orange lines in those diagrams I had provided that coming from the East, and which match up with the East-Wast lines of latitude.
Yes he is, but only when in Miami. As I say, the rule is to take your sundial with the shadow pointing at 7 9 o'clock on the dial (or whatever) then keep travelling so as to keep the shadow in the same place.
-
Why should it matter what shape the earth is? The light is coming in from the east. Following the direction of east along the surface of the spherical earth, as the surface curves away, to a distant spot on that surface, is meaningless for the purpose of discussion.
Tom, if you're in Miami, Fl and look due east, will your line of sight follow a line of latitude or will it follow a great circle?
Assuming a Round Earth, your line of sight will do neither. It will take you out into space.
What if you assume a flat earth?
-
Then imagine you could travel very fast at 100 feet off the ground, and you follow the direction in which the sun appears, i.e. keep its azimuth constant relative to your own position. To be clear, you have a sundial on board your aircraft and you make absolutely sure the shadow remains in exactly the same place.
You will end up in that place in the Congo.
What makes you think that following the rays of the sun would take you to that location? The sun's rays are always coming in from the East along the lines of latitude (from a side view).
Now imagine that you are sitting in your house on the shoreline of Miami, looking at the rising Equinox sun.
Suddenly, the entire earth disappears and you are floating in space. Luckily, you have a space suit on and a rocket booster pack. You follow the sun with your rocket boosters. Where does it take you? Does it take you to a location where the Congo used to be?
The shape of the earth has nothing to do with the bearing of the sun. Those lines you had made that curve Southwards might meet at a point and tell you where the sun is at its maximum overhead zenith above the earth, for all of the earth, but this is a very different concept of following Eastern lines that depict the sun's bearing.
The actual sun is very far away in RET, and so its bearing is very distant and not directly connected to the point on the earth you are talking about. That is just the area where the sun is directly overhead for the globe shape.
-
The shape of the earth has nothing to do with the bearing of the sun, except that those lines with the initial you had made might meet at a point and tell you where the sun is at its maximum zenith above the earth, for all if the earth.
Correct, that's all that's being said.
Now, going back to Punta Arenas on the 12/26 sunrise, how does that observation work on a flat earth?
-
Then imagine you could travel very fast at 100 feet off the ground, and you follow the direction in which the sun appears, i.e. keep its azimuth constant relative to your own position. To be clear, you have a sundial on board your aircraft and you make absolutely sure the shadow remains in exactly the same place.
You will end up in that place in the Congo.
What make you the no that following the rays of the sun would take you to that location? The sun's rays are always coming in from the East along the lines of latitude (from a side view).
The supposition about where I would end up is a consequence of RET. It is empirically testable.
The shape of the earth has nothing to do with the bearing of the sun, except that those Eastern lines might meet at a point and tell you where the sun is the most vertical above the earth.
Right, but then you have to explain how (during equinox) the sun maintains a constant azimuth as it rises. If I am at the equator when the sun rises, the shadow on the sundial will point 9 o'clock i.e. due West. As it continues to rise, the shadow will get shorter and shorter to a point, upon which it points due East. I don't see how FET could explain this observation. See my other thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11694.0).
-
Now, going back to Punta Arenas on the 12/26 sunrise, how does that observation work on a flat earth?
That too.
But note on the Miami point, it is still true that the place in the Congo is the only place on earth where the sun is directly overhead as it is seen to rise in Miami. That is true whatever the shape of the earth, including if it is flat. But how is that possible if it is flat?
-
Bobby, we would first need to show that the premise of this argument is correct before we attempt to explain "how does this work in FET."
I don't understand this.
Does the rise due east on the Spring Equinox when viewed from Miami?
Where on the earth is the sun overhead the earth when that is happening?
Can you answer those two questions?
If so, then diagram for me how on a flat earth the sun at Miami rise is due east.
You presented that scenario. You don't see how it works on a globe? Fine. How does it work on a flat earth?
Even if you don't know where the sun is at Miami's equinox sunrise, just draw for me how due east from Miami goes. Does it go straight east from Miami, perpendicular to the longitude as the latitude bends away to the left and the sun is somewhere along that line? Or does it follow the line of latitude as it curves to the left and the sun is somewhere along that curve? Or something else I'm not thinking of?
-
Edby asked the same question in another thread. All of what we see of the celestial bodies are affected by perspective. The perspective answer is here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11694.msg177692#msg177692
-
Edby asked the same question in another thread. The perspective answer is here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11694.msg177692#msg177692
Yes. Now we're getting somewhere.
I'm having trouble digesting what P-Brane is saying, but I took a screencap:
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/24qtxck.jpg)
This looks like a Mercator projection rather than the AE monopole model. Is that okay?
So that I don't screw it up because I don't understand, can you take that and adjust it to illustrate how the sunlight from the equator the time of a Miami equinox sunrise is reaching a viewer in Miami? Rather than me botching up the attempt and waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong -- which I know I'll be because I don't even know where to start -- can you just show me how that applies to the scenario of a sunrise occuring due east when the sun is on the equator to the south for a flat earth?
Edit: Heck, I'll give it a shot. Something like this?
[image deleted]
Nope. After watching the full video, that was completely wrong. I don't know how to apply this to the topic. I await your answer.