# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: edby on December 28, 2018, 01:46:05 PM

Title: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 01:46:05 PM
Another sunrise question closely related to the one that Bobby raised here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11683.0).

We are standing somewhere on the equator, say Quito, Ecuador, during the equinox. According to GE theory, the sun will rise due East. Also it will maintain the same position (i.e. due East) as it rises, until midday when it turns instantly due West, and sets in the same direction (i.e. due West).

This cannot be consistent with FE theory, where the equator is a circle around the north pole, so the sun must change direction as it rises.

Also, according to GE theory, at the time of sunrise at the equinox, the sun will appear in the same direction, i.e. due East, at for any observer anywhere who sees it rising.

For example, on 21 March 2019 an observer at Quito will see sunrise at 6:25 AM, due East. An observer at Buffalo NY will see it rise at the same time and from the same direction.

This could not be possible on a Flat Earth, for it would suggest the Sun was a very long distance away, much further than 3,000 miles or whatever.

Has anyone performed this test?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 03:09:03 PM
This cannot be consistent with FE theory, where the equator is a circle around the north pole, so the sun must change direction as it rises.
Substantiate this statement. I see no reason why the Sun wouldn't follow the same cardinal directions in either model.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 03:20:53 PM
This cannot be consistent with FE theory, where the equator is a circle around the north pole, so the sun must change direction as it rises.
Substantiate this statement. I see no reason why the Sun wouldn't follow the same cardinal directions in either model.
Which part are you challenging? Let's start with the claim that (according to FE) the equator encircles the North Pole. On the assumption that the Earth is flat, what other shape would the equator take?

In the wiki here (https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe), Carpenter is quoted as saying
Quote
38.When the Sun crosses the equator, in March, and begins to circle round the heavens in north latitude

I will look up Rowbotham later.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 03:32:20 PM
Rowbotham chapter VII-VIII of ENAG. See the picture below, and the accompanying text (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm).

This supports both my claims. First, that the equator encircles the Pole. Rowbotham shows only the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, both as circles around the North Pole, but since the equator lies exactly between these, by implication it is also a circle.

Second, the Sun is claimed to follow a course between these, although it alternates according to season.

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig60.jpg)
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 03:33:40 PM
None of this is relevant. Please focus on substantiating your claim that, on a Flat Earth, the Sun above the Equator would do anything but go East/West
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 03:36:33 PM
None of this is relevant. Please focus on substantiating your claim that, on a Flat Earth, the Sun above the Equator would do anything but go East/West

You didn't specify what part of my claim you were objecting to. So you agree that, during the equinox, and according to FE, the sun follows a circle around the equator?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 03:45:28 PM
You didn't specify what part of my claim you were objecting to.
I did:

This cannot be consistent with FE theory, where the equator is a circle around the north pole, so the sun must change direction as it rises.
Substantiate this statement. I see no reason why the Sun wouldn't follow the same cardinal directions in either model.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 03:51:13 PM
Then see below. Assume the observer is standing at the point where the equator circle cross the E-W line on the diagram. It is sunrise, so the sun cannot be directly above that spot. Therefore it must lie at some point on the circle in an easterly direction. But not due East, for it is travelling in a circle. It must appear somewhere to the North East.

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/b/b8/Sun_circling.jpg)

A second reason is this. If an object is approaching me and is seen always from the same direction, then it must be travelling in a straight line.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 03:54:41 PM
I'm sorry, what does the line labelled E-W have to do with the directions of East and West on the Flat Earth?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 03:57:49 PM
I'm sorry, what does the line labelled E-W have to do with the directions of East and West on the Flat Earth?
I assume that on the Flat Earth, East is a direction at right angles to the direction of North.

Please also take on board my second reason. If an object is approaching me and is seen always from the same direction, then it must be travelling in a straight line. There is an elementary geometrical proof of this.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 04:00:41 PM
I assume that on the Flat Earth, East is a direction at right angles to the direction of North.
Why, then, did you draw it as a straight line? That would only be correct at a single point.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 04:03:33 PM
I assume that on the Flat Earth, East is a direction at right angles to the direction of North.
Why, then, did you draw it as a straight line? That would only be correct at a single point.
The line indicates a direction. A direction cannot be curved, by definition. Also, please take a look at the second reason, which does not require a diagram.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 04:05:11 PM
The line indicates a direction. A direction cannot be curved, by definition.
That's complete nonsense. Cardinal directions are curved in either model. Or do you claim that by following an East-West line, the RET Sun significantly changes in altitude above the Earth over the course of just a few minutes?

No, this won't do at all.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 04:07:55 PM
The line indicates a direction. A direction cannot be curved, by definition.
That's complete nonsense. Cardinal directions are curved in either model. Or do you claim that by following an East-West line, the RET Sun significantly changes in altitude above the Earth over the course of just a few minutes?

No, this won't do at all.
Again, a direction cannot be curved. And please observe the second reason. If an object travelling towards me is seen at the same direction, i.e. azimuth, it must be travelling in a straight line. Are you familiar with the concept of azimuth?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 04:09:29 PM
Azimuth
Quote
the direction of a celestial object from the observer, expressed as the angular distance from the north or south point of the horizon to the point at which a vertical circle passing through the object intersects the horizon.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
Again, a direction cannot be curved.
Stating this with no substantiation doesn't make it any less nonsense. I can draw a similar line over RET and ask you why the Sun isn't zooming away into space. After all, it must be following a straight line, because the path can't be curved.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 04:25:45 PM
Again, a direction cannot be curved.
Stating this with no substantiation doesn't make it any less nonsense. I can draw a similar line over RET and ask you why the Sun isn't zooming away into space. After all, it must be following a straight line, because the path can't be curved.
I was not talking about 'path' but 'direction'. A path can be curved, a direction, which has units of angle, cannot.

Regarding the second reason, proof. Let the observer be looking from A to an object located at B, and let the object move from B to B’ – see the diagram below. Then BAB’ subtends an angle, and the observer will perceive this as a change of direction.

If the perceived direction does not change, then the object must be moving along the line BA.

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/c/c2/Sun_circling_2.jpg)

Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 04:27:42 PM
I was not talking about 'path' but 'direction'. A path can be curved, a direction, which has units of angle, cannot.
Pointless, empty semantics. The angle between the Sun and the observer's line of sight is also not constant in either model.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 04:29:37 PM
I was not talking about 'path' but 'direction'. A path can be curved, a direction, which has units of angle, cannot.
Pointless, empty semantics. The angle between the Sun and the observer's line of sight is also not constant in either model.
Wrong. On the GE model, the sun rising when seen from the equator maintains a constant azimuth. I explained the concept of azimuth above.

On the FE model as expounded by Rowbotham and Carpenter, the azimuth must change.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 04:31:54 PM
Wrong. On the GE model, the sun rising when seen from the equator maintains a constant azimuth.
Being needlessly selective doesn't help anyone, especially when, again, you have failed to justify your selectiveness.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 04:39:57 PM
Wrong. On the GE model, the sun rising when seen from the equator maintains a constant azimuth.
Being needlessly selective doesn't help anyone, especially when, again, you have failed to justify your selectiveness.
I was replying to your claim that 'The angle between the Sun and the observer's line of sight is also not constant in either model.' In the GE model, and in reality, the azimuth remains constant.

I am not denying that the sun appears to get higher in the sky as it rises. Is that your point?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 04:46:06 PM
the azimuth remains constant.
I'd like to know why you're being so selective.

I am not denying that the sun appears to get higher in the sky as it rises. Is that your point?
No.

Or do you claim that by following an East-West line, the RET Sun significantly changes in altitude above the Earth over the course of just a few minutes?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 04:50:58 PM
the azimuth remains constant.
I'd like to know why you're being so selective.
I am not being selective. My point is that under one model (RET) the azimuth of the sun as it rises is constant, under the other (FET - Rowbotham model) the azimuth must change.  That's all.

A simple experiment could resolve which model is correct. Does that make sense now?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 04:54:13 PM
I am not being selective.
Well, if you're not willing to even admit your cherry-picking, let alone justify or reconcile it, then I doubt we'll get very far here.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 05:00:18 PM
I am not being selective.
Well, if you're not willing to even admit your cherry-picking, let alone justify or reconcile it, then I doubt we'll get very far here.
You need to explain how I'm cherry picking. I am stating what the FET model predicts, and what the RET predicts. How is that 'cherry picking'?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 05:03:00 PM
You need to explain how I'm cherry picking
I already did. Your jump from "direction" to "azimuth" and your prior non-acknowledgement of how nonsensical RET would become if we accepted your idea of "direction" are making your claim very difficult to take seriously. I don't see the merit of contemplating a hypothetical world in which nothing can change direction "by definition".
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 05:06:06 PM
You need to explain how I'm cherry picking
I already did. Your jump from "direction" to "azimuth" and your prior non-acknowledgement of how nonsensical RET would become if we accepted your idea of "direction" are making your claim very difficult to take seriously. I don't see the merit of contemplating a hypothetical world in which nothing can change direction "by definition".
Wow. From the dictionary.
Quote
Azimuth is the direction of a celestial object from the observer, expressed as the angular distance from the north or south point of the horizon to the point at which a vertical circle passing through the object intersects the horizon.
You see the word 'direction'?

I did not say the perceived direction of an object cannot change. Clearly it can. I gave a geometrical proof to show that if an approaching object appears to be coming always from the same direction, it must be travelling in a straight line. If it appears to change direction (from which I perceive it) then its path cannot be straight.

Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 05:08:48 PM
Wow. From the dictionary.
Ah, yes, *the* dictionary. Fantastic referencing there.

You see the word 'direction'?
Okay. I'm sure I could find a dictionary that will tell us an apple is a fruit. Yet, if I made a claim about all fruit and then suddenly shifted the goalposts to apples, the definition of an apple wouldn't help.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 28, 2018, 05:11:30 PM
Wow. From the dictionary.
Ah, yes, *the* dictionary. Fantastic referencing there.
'Azimuth' is the Arabic word for 'direction'. Many terms in astronomy (and names for stars) come from Arabic.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2018, 05:12:25 PM
'Azimuth' is the Arabic word for 'direction'. Many terms in astronomy (and names for stars) come from Arabic.
Would you mind staying on topic, by any chance?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2018, 12:07:27 AM
Of the Flat Earth YouTube channels, I believe that P-Brane best explains perspective in his series of videos.

https://youtu.be/t30-YbayyXE

The Equinox is described at 7:30 ish.

P-Brane is mostly focusing on the Monopole model, but I believe the basic tents from his videos would apply for the Bi-Polar model as well.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: RonJ on December 29, 2018, 01:36:19 AM
The flat earth design would be interesting if we lived on it. When I was actively flying airplanes the air traffic controller could say to me: fly heading 270 degrees, slow to 140 knots, and maintain 4000 feet.  After acknowledging the directive, I was then obligated to navigate the aircraft to those exact specifications.  Flying a heading of 270 degrees (assuming no wind) meant that I would have no course components either to the North or to the South, my latitude would remain constant.  Now the other very important thing is the altitude. My directive was to maintain 4000 feet.  That means stay at a constant level above the surface of the earth.  If I were facing a fixed point in space off the earth somewhere and the earth wasn’t rotating my aircrafts nose would indeed appear to steadily move lower & lower relative that fixed point.  The aircraft’s pitch attitude would be slowly changing.  This illustrates the importance of the Z axis on a sphere.  Usually the autopilot would be engaged, and it would keep me at a constant distance above the ground.

The flat earth design throws away the Z axis altogether.  If I were to ‘fly my vector’ on a flat earth it would be different.  Say there was another fixed reference point somewhere in space and the flat earth was not accelerating upwards and I lined up that reference point to a dot on the aircraft’s windshield on a 270 degree heading at the instant we started.  To maintain a constant latitude (fixed distance to the North Pole) I would have to continue a slow constant turn to stay on the latitude circle.  My fixed point in space would then slowly move horizontally on the windshield.

The bottom line is this.  On a flat earth flying a straight East or West heading and keeping your latitude constant as your longitude changes means that you would have a constant change in the yaw axis. No way around that.  On any circle to traverse the circumference requires a change in both the X and Y axis while you hold the distance from the center constant.  That completely earth agnostic, it’s just geometry.  On a globe earth you would traverse the X axis and the Z (pitch) axis to fly in a straight line and there would be no turning required to stay on a straight Easterly or Westerly heading.  Again, this is strictly earth agnostic and is a property of any sphere.

In the real world in the air or on the high seas you never have to make an adjustment in you azimuth (yaw axis) to stay on the same latitude line.  That means flat earth 0  Round Earth 1.  Your're argument isn't with me, it's with basic geometry.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: George Jetson on December 29, 2018, 03:32:18 AM
The flat earth design would be interesting if we lived on it. When I was actively flying airplanes the air traffic controller could say to me: fly heading 270 degrees, slow to 140 knots, and maintain 4000 feet.  After acknowledging the directive, I was then obligated to navigate the aircraft to those exact specifications.  Flying a heading of 270 degrees (assuming no wind) meant that I would have no course components either to the North or to the South, my latitude would remain constant.  Now the other very important thing is the altitude. My directive was to maintain 4000 feet.  That means stay at a constant level above the surface of the earth.  If I were facing a fixed point in space off the earth somewhere and the earth wasn’t rotating my aircrafts nose would indeed appear to steadily move lower & lower relative that fixed point.  The aircraft’s pitch attitude would be slowly changing.  This illustrates the importance of the Z axis on a sphere.  Usually the autopilot would be engaged, and it would keep me at a constant distance above the ground.

The flat earth design throws away the Z axis altogether.  If I were to ‘fly my vector’ on a flat earth it would be different.  Say there was another fixed reference point somewhere in space and the flat earth was not accelerating upwards and I lined up that reference point to a dot on the aircraft’s windshield on a 270 degree heading at the instant we started.  To maintain a constant latitude (fixed distance to the North Pole) I would have to continue a slow constant turn to stay on the latitude circle.  My fixed point in space would then slowly move horizontally on the windshield.

The bottom line is this.  On a flat earth flying a straight East or West heading and keeping your latitude constant as your longitude changes means that you would have a constant change in the yaw axis. No way around that.  On any circle to traverse the circumference requires a change in both the X and Y axis while you hold the distance from the center constant.  That completely earth agnostic, it’s just geometry.  On a globe earth you would traverse the X axis and the Z (pitch) axis to fly in a straight line and there would be no turning required to stay on a straight Easterly or Westerly heading.  Again, this is strictly earth agnostic and is a property of any sphere.

In the real world in the air or on the high seas you never have to make an adjustment in you azimuth (yaw axis) to stay on the same latitude line.  That means flat earth 0  Round Earth 1.  Your're argument isn't with me, it's with basic geometry.
This completely contradicts every other account from RE pilots who claim that there is no adjustment necessary for the z axis because gravity somehow keeps the plane flying at a constant equipotential curve.

Case in point:   https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea  "There is no adjustment needed as the aircraft will naturally follow the curvature of the earth without any input from the pilot. This is because the aircraft flies through the atmosphere which also follows the curvature of the earth."
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: RonJ on December 29, 2018, 03:47:04 AM
You don't understand.  There's no equipotential curve except for your altitude.  The altitude is based upon atmospheric pressure.  The autopilot adjusts the pitch of the aircraft to stay at the set altitude.  The only other place you would see any z-axis effects would be on the artificial horizon.  The mechanical gyroscopes in the artificial horizon had to be reset by the pilot fairly frequently anyway.  If you were straight & level at a fixed altitude you just pushed in on the knob, reset the gauge and pulled it out again.  Now your horizon on the instrument panel is again accurate.   If you were flying on a constant latitude line then only the X and Z axis would be changing.  When flying on a constant longitude line only the Y and Z axis would be changing.  In any other situation the X, Y and Z axes would be changing.  If you were flying above a flat earth forget about the Z axis altogether because it wouldn't apply for a constant altitude above the flat earth.  But then be ready to fly in a slow circle when going straight West or East.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 29, 2018, 08:52:51 AM
Of the Flat Earth YouTube channels, I believe that P-Brane best explains perspective in his series of videos.
The 'explanation' was incoherent, and does not seem to apply to the current question.

(1) We have an observer in Miami watching sunrise during the Equinox. The apparent position of the sun is due East.

(2) We know as a fact that the sun is directly overhead the place in the Congo, i.e. directly over that place on the Flat Earth.

(3) Place in the Congo is close to the Equator, far south of Miami.

(4) In addition, everyone on the same longitude as Miami, i.e. everyone who can see the sun rising, sees it as lying due East.

How does FET explain this? The earth is undeniably flat, the sun is directly overhead the Congo, everyone sees it rise in the East.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: BillO on December 29, 2018, 08:59:09 PM
edby is correct.  On the real world the sun rises directly due east on an equinox no matter what latitude you're are at.  This is what we observe, and you can do it yourself this coming March 20th, 2019.  On a flat earth model (pick whichever you like), this cannot happen.  On a flat earth, there would be only one specific latitude where the sun would rise directly due east, and it is certainly not the equator.  Since this does not match actual observation, the only conclusion is that the earth is not flat.  No matter how many straw men Pete expertly pulls out to confuse the matter, nor any total nonsense Tom tries to obfuscate things with the fact remains that the FE does not accurately predict where the sun rises on an equinox for every latitude.

Get your zetetic on and look east next equinox.  See it with your own eyes.  Don't take my word for it.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2018, 10:13:02 PM
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Equinox
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on December 29, 2018, 10:23:21 PM
Quote
On the real world the sun rises directly due east on an equinox no matter what latitude you're are at.

This is true.  Set Stellarium or any planetarium software to an equinox date (March or September 21st) and then alter the latitude setting only and you will find that the Sun rises due east and sets due west for regardless of latitude.  For an observer at the equator the Sun rises vertically from due east, passes through the zenith at local noon and the sets due west. For anyone at the S or N poles the Sun will skim the horizon. As you move towards the north pole from the equator the suns line will tilt more and more towards the south, if you move towards the south pole the Sun line will tilt more and more towards the north until as I said by the time you reach the pole (either) the angle of the Suns line goes to zero.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 29, 2018, 10:31:23 PM
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Equinox
The claim is that at the equinox, the direction of the sun upon rising is independent of latitude. If you have specific evidence to contradict this claim, please provide it.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2018, 10:37:05 PM
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Equinox
The claim is that at the equinox, the direction of the sun upon rising is independent of latitude. If you have specific evidence to contradict this claim, please provide it.

Linked in what you quoted. The exactly East on Equinox claim is admitted to be wrong.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on December 29, 2018, 10:39:50 PM
Quote
The claim is that at the equinox, the direction of the sun upon rising is independent of latitude

Absolutely and any planetarium program worth its salt will show that to be true. I have just tested it using StarryNight Pro Plus v8 which is one of the more expensive ones and I use it to control my telescope (as I am doing right now) and it is very accurate.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 29, 2018, 10:47:01 PM
Quote
The claim is that at the equinox, the direction of the sun upon rising is independent of latitude

Absolutely and any planetarium program worth its salt will show that to be true. I have just tested it using StarryNight Pro Plus v8 which is one of the more expensive ones and I use it to control my telescope (as I am doing right now) and it is very accurate.
Tom is correct in that there are tiny differences depending on latitude, i.e. of the order of minutes of a degree.

It is a common objection to mainstream science that if any inaccuracy is found, then it is 'wrong'. Tom made a similar objection to the measurement of gravitational acceleration when he found differences of microgals, which is an incredibly small amount.

But the fact remains that the azimuth of the sun is e.g. 90 degrees at the equator, and 90 degrees minus 14 minutes or so at the poles, during equinox .

How does flat earth theory explain this??

 From the Wiki
Quote
The Round Earth Theory is unable to be justified with a prediction which fits reality.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Equinox
And the Flat Earth theory predicts what? And how?

Science aims for the best fit. In choosing between competing theories Science prefers the theory which gives the most accurate and the most economical explanation. In choosing between claims which have no theoretical explanation at all, Science prefers the claim supported by a theoretical explanation.

The FE claim here is not supported by any explanation or theory. So Science prefers a reasonably accurate theoretical explanation.

Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 29, 2018, 11:15:41 PM
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2018, 11:24:11 PM
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: stack on December 29, 2018, 11:46:19 PM
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.

I'm not seeing anything in the wiki link that states how observations of an extremely 'eastward' sunrise at the equinox works for a flat earth. I've read ENAG, nothing there either of any substance. So how does the observation work for FE?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: markjo on December 29, 2018, 11:54:14 PM
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.
http://www.birka.nur.nu/prayertimes/prayertimes-references/quoted/sampson_Astronomical-refraction_2000JRASC__94___26S.pdf

It seems that your own source says that the error due to refraction is negligible near the equator and only significant at latitudes of around 65 degrees or more.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Bobby Shafto on December 30, 2018, 12:16:39 AM
The sources in the article say that is wrong.
No. The article is modifying globe earth no-atmosphere generality with globe-earth-with-atmosphere minor variability due to "magic wand" refraction.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

But, in response to the quibbling, I'll retract the "due" from the "east." You continue to persist in the logical fallacy that if the globe model can be "busted" the flat model gains veracity. I've yet to see the flat model explain easterly sunrises for all latitudes anywhere close to the range of these minor atmosphere-caused deviations from "due."
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2018, 12:22:03 AM
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.
http://www.birka.nur.nu/prayertimes/prayertimes-references/quoted/sampson_Astronomical-refraction_2000JRASC__94___26S.pdf

It seems that your own source says that the error due to refraction is negligible near the equator and only significant at latitudes of around 65 degrees or more.

Based on what data?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: markjo on December 30, 2018, 12:43:36 AM
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.
http://www.birka.nur.nu/prayertimes/prayertimes-references/quoted/sampson_Astronomical-refraction_2000JRASC__94___26S.pdf

It seems that your own source says that the error due to refraction is negligible near the equator and only significant at latitudes of around 65 degrees or more.

Based on what data?
You found the source and put it in the wiki, so you tell us.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2018, 12:50:48 AM
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.
http://www.birka.nur.nu/prayertimes/prayertimes-references/quoted/sampson_Astronomical-refraction_2000JRASC__94___26S.pdf

It seems that your own source says that the error due to refraction is negligible near the equator and only significant at latitudes of around 65 degrees or more.

Based on what data?
You found the source and put it in the wiki, so you tell us.

The wiki makes mention that they don't provide their data.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 30, 2018, 10:33:10 AM
Regarding the 'inaccuracy', see the table below showing the bearing of the sun at sunrise on 20 Mar 2019, longitude W35 20', latitudes from N90 to S90.

You see the bearing is not exactly 09 degrees at every latitude. This cannot be due to refraction, as it is an expected value based on RET. I notice the variance depends on longitude, and I suspect it is due to the problem of finding a circle of longitude that is exactly perpendicular to the (nearly) parallel sun rays striking it.

Is this a fatal problem for RET? No. Does it present difficulties for FET? Yes. To the unaided eye, which is what Zetetics is about, the sun will appear due East at sunrise from every latitude at the equinox. Given that there must be a unique point on the flat earth where the sun is directly overhead, how do we explain that fact?

Remember my point above. Science prefers a theory that gives an approximately right answer to one that gives an answer that is exactly wrong, or which gives no answer at all.

90, 90
80, 90.03
70, 90.07
60, 90.1
50, 90.13
40, 90.17
30, 90.18
20, 90.2
10, 90.22
0, 90.22
-10, 90.22
-20, 90.2
-30, 90.18
-40, 90.15
-50, 90.13
-60, 90.1
-70, 90.07
-80, 90.03
-90, 90
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 30, 2018, 10:56:10 AM
I think I have cracked this. 'Equinox' is a term encompassing a whole day and whole night. But there is only one unique point in time, and a unique circle of longitude which will be exactly perpendicular to the sun rays. For every other time during the equinox, and for every circle of longitude, the rays will be slightly out of perpendicular. That's according to RET of course.

The wiki is misleading in this respect. Everything it describes is perfectly consistent with RET, yet it suggest RET is somehow wrong. For example
Quote
Round Earth proponents have popularly made two claims for this day:
- The sun will rise from the east on this day for all locations on earth
- The earth will experience equal times of day and night
We find, however, both of these claims to be untrue.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Equinox
However, while it may be true that Round Earth proponents have ‘popularly made’ such claims, it does not follow that Science makes such a claim. Find a source for such a claim. Indeed one of the claims quotes Russel D. Sampson of the University of Alberta who ‘informs us that the sun does not actually rise due east on the equinox’. That’s odd. Why is the wiki claiming that ‘Round Earth proponents’ are making such claims, when here is a round earth proponent who denies that claim?

I assume that Russ Sampson (http://www.easternct.edu/sampsonr/) does not believe in a Flat Earth. He has an article about the subject of the Equinox here (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JRASC..94...26S).
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: stack on December 30, 2018, 10:58:59 AM
The equinox does not even break out of the 90 degree spread regardless of latitude. Hard to say you can get that much more due-ish East than that. So the question remains, knowing what we know from an RET perspective, how does this observation work on a flat earth? To date, I haven't seen an explanation yet. A 32 mile wide, 3000 mile high sun is not going rise within the 90 degree easterly spread circling the equator for every latitude, not even close. Which means it doesn't match observations. Which means, well, some FE explanation is required.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 30, 2018, 11:44:35 AM
Further. We need to find the exact time at which the sun ‘crosses’ the equator. At this time, both poles will be equidistant from the sun. It follows that there is a unique point on the equator lying at the same distance, defining a unique circle of longitude. Every point on this circle will be exactly perpendicular to the passage of light from the sun.

For March 2019, that time is 21:58 UTC. The unique longitude (i.e. at which sunrise will be observed) is E 122 23’.  The direction i.e. azimuth of the sun will constant at all latitudes for the same longitude. So, no problem with RET.

The article by Sampson (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JRASC..94...26S) is not addressing the theoretical position of the Sun at sunrise but rather the observed position due to refraction. This will make the Sun appear slightly higher than it actually is, which throws out the timing slightly, which in turn affects the observed azimuth (because the sun is moving, hence changing azimuth, as it rises).

There is absolutely no flaw in scientific theory that I can find. So the wiki’s negative claim is false. It may be true that certain RET proponents are making false claims, but that does not logically imply that RET is false.

Moreover the wiki has no positive claim, i.e. no underlying model for the observations.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: BillO on December 30, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Linked in what you quoted. The exactly East on Equinox claim is admitted to be wrong.
The Permaculture Institute is a bunch of hippie type low impact farming proponents and not an acceptable source of reliable information on astronomical phenomenon.   Your using them to substantiate your nonsense is a glaringly pathetic joke.  Please find something from the Royal Astronomical Society or university astronomy department.

I've been through your wiki from end to end and side to side.  There is nothing in there except ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.  In fact, claims that are impossible to substantiate at all.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on December 30, 2018, 04:01:13 PM
Quote
Further. We need to find the exact time at which the sun ‘crosses’ the equator

I use this link to do that...  https://heavens-above.com/sun.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT

If you change your geographical location you will see that the time of the equinoxes and solstice times do not change.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 30, 2018, 04:35:48 PM
Linked in what you quoted. The exactly East on Equinox claim is admitted to be wrong.
The Permaculture Institute is a bunch of hippie type low impact farming proponents and not an acceptable source of reliable information on astronomical phenomenon.   Your using them to substantiate your nonsense is a glaringly pathetic joke.  Please find something from the Royal Astronomical Society or university astronomy department.

I've been through your wiki from end to end and side to side.  There is nothing in there except ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.  In fact, claims that are impossible to substantiate at all.
To be fair, Russell Sampson is a mainstream astronomer, teaching at a University department. However his article (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JRASC..94...26S) is merely addressing the observed position due to refraction, as I noted above. He supports, rather than challenges, mainstream science.

Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 30, 2018, 04:46:35 PM
And here is a beautiful Zetetic result shown in a picture from an old paper (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1943PA.....51..131W). See below.

Shadows during the equinox will maintain a constant East-West direction (or if Pete objects to this statement, let's say the shadows will not move at all). If there is a light snowfall before sunrise during the equinox, then the snow will not melt in the shadow, and so will form lines cast by lamp posts e.g. No equipment required, no instrumentation.

So how does FE explain this? It can’t be anything to do with perspective, since the position of the shadow is independent of line of sight. Why does a sun travelling with a circular motion cast a motionless shadow?

Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on December 30, 2018, 04:57:18 PM
Quote
And here is a beautiful Zetetic result shown in a picture from an old paper

Is all 'evidence' offered by the Zetetic viewpoint from old papers and publications? or is there a modern view on this sort of interpretation as well?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 30, 2018, 05:17:46 PM
Quote
And here is a beautiful Zetetic result shown in a picture from an old paper

Is all 'evidence' offered by the Zetetic viewpoint from old papers and publications? or is there a modern view on this sort of interpretation as well?
Flat earthers generally don't accept any kind of evidence that requires expensive instrumentation. It has to be either naked eye, or some experiment that can easily be reproduced.

It's difficult to find modern science that uses this kind of approach, ironically because of the need for massive accuracy. There was a discussion here recently about measuring gravitational acceleration, and it was objected that the instruments were inaccurate because of errors around one millionth of a centimetre per second.

For the same reason, Flat earthers reject any evidence from space travel, arguing it is a conspiracy. So the best approach is simple and easily verifiable experiments. The shadow one works very well.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 30, 2018, 05:35:42 PM
And it's very weird. See the picture below modified from my previous example. I scrubbed out 'east' and 'west', and simply drew the shadows of three objects A B and C.

Assume that on the equinox all shadows run in the same direction. Now the Sun rotates in a circle around the flat earth. But how can it be casting parallel shadows?

This can't be explained by light bending, because in order for the shadow to be straight, the light must be straight. Does it go in a curved direction until it hits the object producing the shadow? But look at object C, which lies closer to the sun. The light has stopped being curved and starts travelling in a straight line as it hits C. What about an object even closer than C? Well the light from that must be travelling straight too.

This is very perplexing.

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/c/c8/Sun_circling_3.jpg)
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: BillO on December 30, 2018, 05:44:18 PM
Linked in what you quoted. The exactly East on Equinox claim is admitted to be wrong.
The Permaculture Institute is a bunch of hippie type low impact farming proponents and not an acceptable source of reliable information on astronomical phenomenon.   Your using them to substantiate your nonsense is a glaringly pathetic joke.  Please find something from the Royal Astronomical Society or university astronomy department.

I've been through your wiki from end to end and side to side.  There is nothing in there except ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.  In fact, claims that are impossible to substantiate at all.
To be fair, Russell Sampson is a mainstream astronomer, teaching at a University department. However his article (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JRASC..94...26S) is merely addressing the observed position due to refraction, as I noted above. He supports, rather than challenges, mainstream science.
No argument there edby.  I read the article and decided it was just another case of Tom (or whoever wrote that wiki page) not understanding the content they are using.  Every time I have tried to argue an issue like this (misunderstanding real science) here, I just run into the the same misunderstanding over and over again.  There just seemed to be no point in trying to clarify Sampson's point.  It is clear to most of us what he was saying.  Not so much to Tom.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: BillO on December 30, 2018, 05:49:07 PM
Flat earthers generally don't accept any kind of evidence that requires expensive instrumentation. It has to be either naked eye, or some experiment that can easily be reproduced.
Which brings up an off-topic point.  It amazes me that they accept and use other technology that defies that kind of eyewitness or even direct scientific observation, such as computers, internet, cell phones, etc...  However, that's a topic for another discussion.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on December 30, 2018, 06:15:17 PM
Quote
Flat earthers generally don't accept any kind of evidence that requires expensive instrumentation. It has to be either naked eye, or some experiment that can easily be reproduced.

Sounds like the Amish!  In other words they don't accept any kind of evidence that can clearly challenge their beliefs. In astronomy I sometimes like to go back to basics and just use a simple pair of binoculars or a manual telescope to find objects in the sky manually. Takes me back to my youth when GOTO telescopes and the like were not around. That doesn't mean I don't realise or respect how much more amateurs can do nowadays with the aid of technology.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on December 30, 2018, 07:03:40 PM
Quote
Flat earthers generally don't accept any kind of evidence that requires expensive instrumentation. It has to be either naked eye, or some experiment that can easily be reproduced.

Sounds like the Amish!  In other words they don't accept any kind of evidence that can clearly challenge their beliefs.
I don't think it's quite like that. They have a healthy suspicion of the establishment, and the scientific establishment, and they would like to see things demonstrated from first principles. Accepting science as a form of authority is argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.

As for 'not challenging beliefs', the game of this forum is to come up experiments and arguments that rely on basic equipment or the naked eye. That gets you back to the roots of astronomy when science didn't have high tech. It's amazing how many simple experiments demonstrate globe earth. Or rather, how many simple observations are more simply explained by globe earth model. It's a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on December 30, 2018, 08:33:50 PM
I don't know why anyone should want to cast a healthy suspicion on science. It has fascinated me all through my life but only because I want to know more about how the world around me works. Why does nature work in the way that it does?

I think it is wonderful what amateur astronomy can offer people nowadays. And yes as a teenager I was intrigued by experiments I could do myself with minimal equipment and what I could learn from them. When I see the rings of Saturn or the satellites of Jupiter I don't have any suspicions about what I am seeing. I just appreciate being able to see for myself what astronomers discovered in times gone by. Only difference is that with the benefits of modern optics I can see those sights clearer than they did. Galileo saw an elongated planet Saturn but his telescopes were not of a quality that allowed him to see the rings separately from the planet.

I actually like to imagine how it must have been for the ancients who saw the sky just like we do and try to appreciate how difficult it must have been for them to interpret correctly the reasons for what they were seeing. Without the benefit of knowing what we do now.  I just don't see any point in denying current scientific knowledge. I appreciate it.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on December 30, 2018, 10:07:39 PM
Quote
Flat earthers generally don't accept any kind of evidence that requires expensive instrumentation. It has to be either naked eye

That is such a shame because as anyone with a telescope knows there is no much more to the Universe than can be seen with the naked eye. Showing someone the rings of Saturn, cloud belts of Jupiter or mountains and craters of the Moon for the first time and seeing the fascination that comes with that is priceless. Telescopes don't have to be expensive and you can learn so much from them if you know what you are looking at.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on December 31, 2018, 12:57:12 AM
Well the Sun won't kill all of us but if there is still any life on Earth in about 4.6 billion years time I wouldn't  envy them!
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: BillO on December 31, 2018, 05:57:50 AM
Well the Sun won't kill all of us but if there is still any life on Earth in about 4.6 billion years time I wouldn't  envy them!
Not so sure.  Some kind of life may have evolved to withstand the prevalent conditions of the time.  They may be complaining about global cooling.  Who can guess ... life adapts.

One thing is for sure.  The earth will still be approximately  spheroid.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2019, 12:04:20 AM
And it's very weird. See the picture below modified from my previous example. I scrubbed out 'east' and 'west', and simply drew the shadows of three objects A B and C.

Assume that on the equinox all shadows run in the same direction. Now the Sun rotates in a circle around the flat earth. But how can it be casting parallel shadows?

This can't be explained by light bending, because in order for the shadow to be straight, the light must be straight. Does it go in a curved direction until it hits the object producing the shadow? But look at object C, which lies closer to the sun. The light has stopped being curved and starts travelling in a straight line as it hits C. What about an object even closer than C? Well the light from that must be travelling straight too.

This is very perplexing.

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/c/c8/Sun_circling_3.jpg)

What makes you think that an observer can see infinitely across the earth? The horizon isn't that far away from us. Our view of the earth is limited. Very limited, if we compare the area of what we see to the area of the entire earth.

If you will refer to Earth Not a Globe and our Magnification of the Sun at Sunset wiki article, the sun is projecting its images onto the atmolayer all around it. Along the outer edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise. The observer sees the sunrise if that edge were to intersect the observer's personal circle, or "dome," of vision.

If we zoom into the circular path of the equator on the Flat Earth maps, to human standards, it straightens out. The initial near-Eastwardly bearing of sunrise may also be explained in EAT in that manner.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: stack on January 01, 2019, 01:53:50 AM
And it's very weird. See the picture below modified from my previous example. I scrubbed out 'east' and 'west', and simply drew the shadows of three objects A B and C.

Assume that on the equinox all shadows run in the same direction. Now the Sun rotates in a circle around the flat earth. But how can it be casting parallel shadows?

This can't be explained by light bending, because in order for the shadow to be straight, the light must be straight. Does it go in a curved direction until it hits the object producing the shadow? But look at object C, which lies closer to the sun. The light has stopped being curved and starts travelling in a straight line as it hits C. What about an object even closer than C? Well the light from that must be travelling straight too.

This is very perplexing.

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/c/c8/Sun_circling_3.jpg)

What makes you think that an observer can see infinitely across the earth? The horizon isn't that far away from us. Our view of the earth is limited. Very limited, if we compare the area of what we see to the area of the entire earth.

If you will refer to Earth Not a Globe and our Magnification of the Sun at Sunset wiki article, the sun is projecting its images onto the atmolayer all around it. Along the outer edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise. The observer sees the sunrise if that edge were to intersect the observer's personal circle, or "dome," of vision.

If we zoom into the circular path of the equator on the Flat Earth maps, to human standards, it straightens out. The initial near-Eastwardly bearing of sunrise may also be explained in EAT in that manner.

What "Flat Earh maps" are you referring to? By your own admission, there is no such thing, resource/money constraints and all.

Is it magnification of the sun (ENAG) or is it EAT? If the answer is unknown, then it just as easily could be caused by a heliocentric globe earth model.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2019, 01:58:38 AM
And it's very weird. See the picture below modified from my previous example. I scrubbed out 'east' and 'west', and simply drew the shadows of three objects A B and C.

Assume that on the equinox all shadows run in the same direction. Now the Sun rotates in a circle around the flat earth. But how can it be casting parallel shadows?

This can't be explained by light bending, because in order for the shadow to be straight, the light must be straight. Does it go in a curved direction until it hits the object producing the shadow? But look at object C, which lies closer to the sun. The light has stopped being curved and starts travelling in a straight line as it hits C. What about an object even closer than C? Well the light from that must be travelling straight too.

This is very perplexing.

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/c/c8/Sun_circling_3.jpg)

What makes you think that an observer can see infinitely across the earth? The horizon isn't that far away from us. Our view of the earth is limited. Very limited, if we compare the area of what we see to the area of the entire earth.

If you will refer to Earth Not a Globe and our Magnification of the Sun at Sunset wiki article, the sun is projecting its images onto the atmolayer all around it. Along the outer edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise. The observer sees the sunrise if that edge were to intersect the observer's personal circle, or "dome," of vision.

If we zoom into the circular path of the equator on the Flat Earth maps, to human standards, it straightens out. The initial near-Eastwardly bearing of sunrise may also be explained in EAT in that manner.

What "Flat Earh maps" are you referring to? By your own admission, there is no such thing, resource/money constraints and all.

Is it magnification of the sun (ENAG) or is it EAT? If the answer is unknown, then it just as easily could be caused by a heliocentric globe earth model.

Regardless of continental layout, the equator is still very big in FET. If we zoom in to a personal/town scale, rather than a continental scale, the equator line is practically straight. The rays of the sun which approach the observer's circle or dome of vision will be more easterly.

It doesn't really matter if we use ENAG's projection of the sun onto the atmoplane, or EAT. At the edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: stack on January 01, 2019, 02:44:11 AM
And it's very weird. See the picture below modified from my previous example. I scrubbed out 'east' and 'west', and simply drew the shadows of three objects A B and C.

Assume that on the equinox all shadows run in the same direction. Now the Sun rotates in a circle around the flat earth. But how can it be casting parallel shadows?

This can't be explained by light bending, because in order for the shadow to be straight, the light must be straight. Does it go in a curved direction until it hits the object producing the shadow? But look at object C, which lies closer to the sun. The light has stopped being curved and starts travelling in a straight line as it hits C. What about an object even closer than C? Well the light from that must be travelling straight too.

This is very perplexing.

(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/c/c8/Sun_circling_3.jpg)

What makes you think that an observer can see infinitely across the earth? The horizon isn't that far away from us. Our view of the earth is limited. Very limited, if we compare the area of what we see to the area of the entire earth.

If you will refer to Earth Not a Globe and our Magnification of the Sun at Sunset wiki article, the sun is projecting its images onto the atmolayer all around it. Along the outer edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise. The observer sees the sunrise if that edge were to intersect the observer's personal circle, or "dome," of vision.

If we zoom into the circular path of the equator on the Flat Earth maps, to human standards, it straightens out. The initial near-Eastwardly bearing of sunrise may also be explained in EAT in that manner.

What "Flat Earh maps" are you referring to? By your own admission, there is no such thing, resource/money constraints and all.

Is it magnification of the sun (ENAG) or is it EAT? If the answer is unknown, then it just as easily could be caused by a heliocentric globe earth model.

Regardless of continental layout, the equator is still very big in FET. If we zoom in to a personal/town scale, rather than a continental scale, the equator line is practically straight. The rays of the sun which approach the observer's circle or dome of vision will be more easterly.

It doesn't really matter if we use ENAG's projection of the sun onto the atmoplane, or EAT. At the edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise.

I'm not seeing it from an ENAG or from an EAT perspective. On a flat earth, this is how the shadows would be (blue lines):

(https://i.imgur.com/sCFm015.jpg)

In both ENAG and EAT you would have to bend light sideways and the sun and/or atmosphere would essentially have to have some sort of mechanism to do so, depending on location, bending it to the right then bending it to the left. I can't rationalize that.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2019, 03:29:02 AM
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun. Its projection upon the atmoplane.

The apparent sun at sunrise is on the rim of the sun's area of light and is racing along the equator or your latitude line to you. However straight your latitude line is in your local area where you can see will be how the sun appears.

If you were on the equator, and there was a race car (or jet ski) racing along the surface of the earth to you on the circular equator line, and you only see it until it is nearby, would you see it from the East or very near the East? If so, there is your answer.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Curious Squirrel on January 01, 2019, 05:10:02 AM
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun. Its projection upon the atmoplane.

The apparent sun at sunrise is on the rim of the sun's area of light and is racing along the equator or your latitude line to you. However straight your latitude line is in your local area where you can see will be how the sun appears.

If you were on the equator, and there was a race car (or jet ski) racing along the surface of the earth to you on the circular equator line, and you only see it until it is nearby, would you see it from the East or very near the East? If so, there is your answer.
So then how does the light 'bend'? The 'apparent sun' puts it in a different position (by apparently quite a large number of degrees) what mechanism brings it there? How does it bend it the correct way/amount depending on where you are? What evidence do you have that the sun we see at sunrise is not reflective of where the actual sun is?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Bobby Shafto on January 01, 2019, 07:14:22 AM
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun.
Where is the actual sun?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: stack on January 01, 2019, 10:42:37 AM
Using the Miami sunrise at Equinox example, according to suncalcs, the actual sun is over central Africa some 6800 miles from Miami which doesn’t make it “nearby”. So the sun rays would have to bend sideways, to the right, in order to create an Eastward shadow.  I don’t see how ENAG (Sun is really far away) or EAT (Light is being bent sideways, not up) accounts for this.

(https://i.imgur.com/yWC2Pij.jpg)
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: edby on January 01, 2019, 11:29:12 AM
In both ENAG and EAT you would have to bend light sideways and the sun and/or atmosphere would essentially have to have some sort of mechanism to do so, depending on location, bending it to the right then bending it to the left. I can't rationalize that.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, why are shadows straight? If the rays of light are slightly curved before they hit a tall post, why is the shadow straight? Curved light would cause curved shadows.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2019, 11:09:44 PM
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun. Its projection upon the atmoplane.

The apparent sun at sunrise is on the rim of the sun's area of light and is racing along the equator or your latitude line to you. However straight your latitude line is in your local area where you can see will be how the sun appears.

If you were on the equator, and there was a race car (or jet ski) racing along the surface of the earth to you on the circular equator line, and you only see it until it is nearby, would you see it from the East or very near the East? If so, there is your answer.
So then how does the light 'bend'? The 'apparent sun' puts it in a different position (by apparently quite a large number of degrees) what mechanism brings it there? How does it bend it the correct way/amount depending on where you are? What evidence do you have that the sun we see at sunrise is not reflective of where the actual sun is?

Consider what happens when you walk into a dark movie theater. There is a projector at the back of the room, shining an image on the screen. When you look at the screen, you are not looking in the direction of the ultimate source of the light. The light from the projector doesn't need to bend at all in that scenario, just reflect.

You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun.
Where is the actual sun?

Probably further North.

Wise did have an interesting thread last year where not all of the shadows in daylight scenes were coming from the sun, and seemed to be coming from another direction. He had a bunch of examples of that happening. Maybe it's somewhere on the other FES website.

In the movie projector example above, there is still recurrent light coming from the projector source. If you look back at the projector, it shines light on you, despite you not being between the projector and the screen. It would be interesting if it could be determined which other direction the shadows were coming from in that thread, which I can't seem to find at the moment.

Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Bad Puppy on January 02, 2019, 01:28:48 AM

Consider what happens when you walk into a dark movie theater. There is a projector at the back of the room, shining an image on the screen. When you look at the screen, you are not looking in the direction of the ultimate source of the light. The light from the projector doesn't need to bend at all in that scenario, just reflect.

And if I turn around to look at the source of light, it the projector.  Up there at the back of the theater.  There's no "apparent" projector below a horizon.  Just a bright light with a focusing lens magnifying an image on a screen.  This doesn't help your case.

Probably further North.
When it's "sunrise" at one place, it should be easy to find exactly where the sun is somewhere else.  It's gotta be noon somewhere, so I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find.  Not hard on a round earth.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Bobby Shafto on January 02, 2019, 03:58:24 PM
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun.
Where is the actual sun?
Probably further North.
Probably?

Just somewhere "further North?"

That's some answer. Sounds more like one trying to form an explanation to match a predetermined conclusion than one trying to draw a conclusion from an observation, which is pretty much what this "projection on the atmoplane" is. If you can model that and show how it corresponds to what we observe, then you might have something. Until then, it's just "magic wand" stuff that can't even get more specific than "probably further North."
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2019, 05:57:40 PM
The only things I have assumed were things that were already part of the model.

- Viewing distance is finite, whether we want to describe it as due to perspective or atmoplaner density. We cannot see forever across the earth. We can only see a very limited distance.

- The sun is a projection upon the atmoplane

Combine those two, and the sun can come from an Eastwardly direction as a logical consequence.

If interested futher, there are dozens if videos on YouTube by the wider Flat Earth community who came up with the concept a projected sun on their own, show footage of various sun anomalies, some videos better than others, &.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on January 02, 2019, 06:00:57 PM
I agree with the first assumption. Yes indeed we can only see a very limited distance across land.

But I have to ask you about that interesting comment about the Sun. How do you reach that assumption?!?  If it is a projection then where is it being projected from? To have a projected image you need a light source to produce the projection. And how do you explain the absorption lines we see in the spectrum?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Bobby Shafto on January 02, 2019, 06:25:18 PM
The only things I have assumed were things that were already part of the model.

- Viewing distance is finite, whether we want to describe it as due to perspective or atmospheric density. We cannot see forever across the earth. We can only see a very limited distance.

- The sun is a projection upon the atmoplane

Combine those two, and the sun can come from the East as a logical consequence.

You say "the model." What model? Yours? A TFES-endorsed model?

You say "the sun is a projection upon the atmoplane" is a part of "the model."

Explain this to me, either here or in a new Flat Earth Theory topic. Don't sent me to find someone else who may or may not be describing what you are saying. Explain it to me yourself. What plane? It's not a dome upon which an image of the sun is being projected, right? It's a flat plane? Parallel to the plane of the flat earth? And the actual sun that's projecting its light onto this atmoplane is where? Somewhere to the north? Where? Above projected atmoplane? Splotting its light down through the translucent "screen" of the atmoplane? Or below, projecting it's light up onto an opaque atmoplane? Does the actual sun move? Is it just the projection that spirals around above the earth between the Tropics?

I've not seen this modeled anywhere. Maybe someone's come up with some version of what you're describing, but you are asserting that it is part of "the model." So I'd love to understand more before I judge or try to devise a zetetic method for distinguishing between an actual sun over a globe vs. a projected sun over a flat earth.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Bobby Shafto on January 02, 2019, 06:53:41 PM
This is the only page on the TFES wiki where I could find what you seem to be describing about the sun projecting its light upon an atmoplane.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset)

This is attempting to explain how light emanating from a distance, but in-line with the eye/receptor, can be magnified by the intervening atmo- (air).

I cannot locate any dome-less model that explains the location of the sun as a projection upon the atmo-whatever but with the actual projecting sun on an azimuth/line of bearing different from that from which the projected light is coming.

I hereby challenge this claim of yours and sincerely look forward to seeing a model explain or illustrate how this is possible and how an actual sun could "probably further north."
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on January 02, 2019, 07:48:29 PM
Tom, with respect you surely don't expect to be taken seriously when you come out with these sort of comments do you? Mechanism seems to be quite a buzz word for flat Earth ideas right now so I guess you are going to tell us that the 'mechanism' for producing a projected Sun is one of those that is 'unknown' or can you come up with a more convincing explanation?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Bobby Shafto on January 05, 2019, 03:31:05 PM
...
I hereby challenge this claim of yours and sincerely look forward to seeing a model explain or illustrate how this is possible and how an actual sun could "probably further north."

I know you're busy on other topics and wouldn't be refusing to respond to a critic, but when you find a lull, Tom?

Substantiating this assertion of yours (and the Wiki) about how the sun projects itself onto an atmoplane could explain a lot. But so far you're just asserting it. What's the evidence? How does it work? How does it alter the apparent azimuth of the sun such that its projection could be easterly but the actual projecting sun probably to the north?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2019, 03:30:39 PM
I believe that the matter in the OP was explained. There are plenty of sun projection YouTube videos if interested in that subject. At the moment we are talking about related evidence in the Solar spotlight (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11759.0) thread. Perhaps at some point in the future I will go through and collect such pieces of evidence for the wiki.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Bobby Shafto on January 06, 2019, 04:39:04 PM
I believe that the matter in the OP was explained.
I know you believe that, but it hasn't.  It's been asserted but not explained.

I challenge you to explain how, in a flat earth model, the sun can appear on one bearing (east) but actually be laterally displaced "probably further north."

I'm asking you since you're the one asserting it. If there's a Youtube video that explains what you're claiming, link it. I'll watch it.

But to date I can find no explanation or flat model explaining how a projecting sun casts light on the air so that it appears off azimuth to an observer. Explain how that works.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2019, 04:47:49 PM
I know you believe that, but it hasn't.  It's been asserted but not explained.

It's explained. You are just asking for further evidence. One could say the same thing for the Round Earth model equinox. Where have it been proven that the tilt of the round earth is parallel to the distant sun as to cause the sun to come from the east? You have an explanation, but no demonstration.

To assess those further matters, we would need to look into other related subjects. RE would probably point at the sun triangulation experiments or whatnot. For FE I am telling you to look at other related evidence.

An explanation was asked for, and an explanation was provided.
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: shootingstar on January 06, 2019, 04:55:16 PM
The tilt of the Earth has nothing to do with the direction of where the Sun rises.  Two separate issues. Tilt of the Sun causes the seasons, rotation of the Earth (W-E) causes the Sun to rise in the east.  How is explaining something different to demonstrating it by the way?  Surely one and the same in the context of what we are talking about.

I agree that in other aspects of life there is a distinction.  I can explain how a car works and then I can go out to the car and demonstrate it!  But this is different.

Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: Bobby Shafto on January 06, 2019, 04:59:14 PM
I know you believe that, but it hasn't.  It's been asserted but not explained.

It's explained. You are just asking for further evidence.

No. I'm asking you to explain it; not just assert it. (I would like to know how you know--aka evidence--but that's not what I'm asking for.)

If it's already been explained in this topic, link to the post(s) where it has because I'm not finding it.

One could say the same thing for the Round Earth model...
One could, but then that would be a diversion. How does it work on a flat earth?
Title: Re: Another sunrise question
Post by: BillO on January 06, 2019, 10:26:51 PM
It seems Bobby is merely asking for a simple explanation of how the sun could appear due east when it is actually "further north" (which I agree has not been provided, merely unsubstantiated claims and assertions have been made), yet Tom is asking for proof "that the tilt of the round earth is parallel to the distant sun [during an equinox]".  Seems to be a bit unfair.

As to proof, well Tom, it must follow from the definition of an equinox - "An equinox is the instant of time when the plane of Earth's equator passes through the center of the Sun.".  One would not have to prove it other than to demonstrate the nature of the solar system.  Which has been done many, many years ago, but of course you refuse to acknowledge it.