1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by AATW on Today at 03:40:26 PM »

With the sun circling above, along with the celestial sphere, why would you not expect it to disappear from the view of persons in varying locations.

Because the sun remains above the plane of the earth at all times.
In ancient flat earth models the sun went up and over the earth in the day and underneath at night. Day was day everywhere, night was night everywhere. They didn't know that when it's day in the UK it's night in Australia. With a sun which is always above a flat earth it should illuminate the whole of the disc. Unless there's some reason it can only be seen for a certain distance, which is plausible, but then you'd get the sun slowly fade in and out as the distance to it decreased or increased. That isn't what we observe.

Aspects that would cause the light of the sun to be visible in some locations and not to be visible in others.

That's just a bunch of words. Give some details. You can't just reject the notion that the sun sets because we live on a rotating globe and then replace that with something vague about "aspects of the aether" with no details about what you mean by that.

Why on earth would you claim the luminosity of the sun does not change throughout the day? Of course, it does

During sunrise and sunset the light scatters through more of the atmosphere so yes, that does affect the luminosity, but not in a way consistent with your theory of a sun rotating above us. That would mean the distance to the sun constantly changing and that would surely affect the luminosity. Again, if visibility is the reason we can't see the sun at night then it would fade out, not set.

Why on earth does the angular size of the sun actually appear larger to the naked eye at dawn and dusk? Of course, it does.

I've bolded the word appear. Yes, there is a known optical illusion which makes this happen, in reality it's not actually bigger. And if that were true then that's the exact opposite of what you'd expect on a FE where the sun is at a significantly greater distance from you at sunset than at midday. That would make it appear smaller at sunrise and sunset. Again, I don't feel I need to provide any evidence for the assertion that things get smaller as they get further away from you.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by Action80 on Today at 12:00:55 PM »

You should be able to model it on scale to back up your claim.

I could draw you a diagram I guess, but you can surely imagine this yourself. If an object is above a flat plane the all points on that plane are looking up at that object at an angle so have line of sight to it. Walk around a room illuminated by a lightbulb on the ceiling. Where in the room can you not see the lightbulb? Obviously in real life there will be things occluding the sun at times, which I'll come on to.

With the sun circling above, along with the celestial sphere, why would you not expect it to disappear from the view of persons in varying locations.

Lots of things...distance for one, physical aspects of the aether for two, occluding objects for three

Taking those one by one
Distance - when you can't see things because they're too far away they don't just go from "you can see them" to "you can't". They get smaller and smaller until you can't see them any more. Or if the issue isn't angular size but visibility then they gradually fade out, like someone walking away from you on a foggy day. That isn't what we observe at sunset. The disc of the sun is dimmer because of the angle, but it doesn't just slowly fade out. It disappears behind the horizon. In all other experiences of something disappearing like that it's because it's going behind something. So no, us not being able to see the sun because of distance does not match what we observe.[/quote]
I addressed this fallacious response above.

Physical aspects of the aether - you're going to have to explain what that means. What aspects of the aether?

Aspects that would cause the light of the sun to be visible in some locations and not to be visible in others.

Occluding objects - Obviously the sun is occluded all the time, at the moment I can't see it because it's cloudy. And when the sun is low in the sky then you might not be able to see it because of nearby hills or buildings or whatever. But it doesn't go dark. The sunglight is still hitting the atmosphere and scattering and illuminating the ground. What is stopping that happening on a FE? I've explained why distance and visbility aren't the issues.

Addressed above.

It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.

Just another baseless statement based on your inability to envision alternate and, certainly possible, modes of operation.[/QUOTE]
It's "baseless" to state that objects get smaller in angular size as the distance between you and the object increases?
[/quote]
Will you make up your own mind here for the benefit of the readership, please?

Why on earth would you claim the luminosity of the sun does not change throughout the day? Of course, it does.

Why on earth does the angular size of the sun actually appear larger to the naked eye at dawn and dusk? Of course, it does.

Just some of the possible effects of the aether.

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by AATW on Today at 08:50:38 AM »

You should be able to model it on scale to back up your claim.

I could draw you a diagram I guess, but you can surely imagine this yourself. If an object is above a flat plane the all points on that plane are looking up at that object at an angle so have line of sight to it. Walk around a room illuminated by a lightbulb on the ceiling. Where in the room can you not see the lightbulb? Obviously in real life there will be things occluding the sun at times, which I'll come on to.

Lots of things...distance for one, physical aspects of the aether for two, occluding objects for three

Taking those one by one
Distance - when you can't see things because they're too far away they don't just go from "you can see them" to "you can't". They get smaller and smaller until you can't see them any more. Or if the issue isn't angular size but visibility then they gradually fade out, like someone walking away from you on a foggy day. That isn't what we observe at sunset. The disc of the sun is dimmer because of the angle, but it doesn't just slowly fade out. It disappears behind the horizon. In all other experiences of something disappearing like that it's because it's going behind something. So no, us not being able to see the sun because of distance does not match what we observe.

Physical aspects of the aether - you're going to have to explain what that means. What aspects of the aether?

Occluding objects - Obviously the sun is occluded all the time, at the moment I can't see it because it's cloudy. And when the sun is low in the sky then you might not be able to see it because of nearby hills or buildings or whatever. But it doesn't go dark. The sunglight is still hitting the atmosphere and scattering and illuminating the ground. What is stopping that happening on a FE? I've explained why distance and visbility aren't the issues.

It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.

Just another baseless statement based on your inability to envision alternate and, certainly possible, modes of operation.

It's "baseless" to state that objects get smaller in angular size as the distance between you and the object increases?

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on May 02, 2024, 07:27:17 PM »

I showed you the calculation at Reply#2.  Average the groundspeeds of 2 aircraft flying in opposite directions at a similar airspeed in a similar airspace; for each aircraft the difference from the average is the headwind/tailwind speed component. 

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by Action80 on May 02, 2024, 07:01:44 PM »

Those numbers are around the plane's cruise speed. But the plane should not be traveling at a speed around its cruising speed, since we know that on long haul flights planes across the oceans planes use jet streams to reach their location. It would be traveling the plane's cruising speed + jet stream.

Jetstreams even enable supersonic flight for commercial aircraft.

On the flight trackers there have been some interesting anomalies. Jeran shows at the 1h32m mark of the following video about the flight between Auckland and Santiago that True Airspeed can be seen to far exceed ground speed. Over the course of the flight the True Airspeed is either "N/A" or shows quite fast speeds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKHY72x3ZU

A jetstream is just a wind, and I accounted for it in my calculation.  A look at any jetstream map will show that they are predominently westerly in the southern hemisphere, which corresponds with my previous statement and, if it is assisting the eastbound flight will it not be hindering the westbound which is occuring simultaneously and at similar latitudes? 

We've also done Jeran's thing before.  Simultaneous to the "supersonic" speeds is a series of altitude changes which an F-16 would struggle with.  Its just a batch of missing data on aircraft position; when it recovers the position data it integrates the delta-position over time to determine speed.

How did you account for it? Can you show the calculation?

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on May 02, 2024, 06:55:21 PM »

Those numbers are around the plane's cruise speed. But the plane should not be traveling at a speed around its cruising speed, since we know that on long haul flights planes across the oceans planes use jet streams to reach their location. It would be traveling the plane's cruising speed + jet stream.

Jetstreams even enable supersonic flight for commercial aircraft.

On the flight trackers there have been some interesting anomalies. Jeran shows at the 1h32m mark of the following video about the flight between Auckland and Santiago that True Airspeed can be seen to far exceed ground speed. Over the course of the flight the True Airspeed is either "N/A" or shows quite fast speeds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKHY72x3ZU

A jetstream is just a wind, and I accounted for it in my calculation.  A look at any jetstream map will show that they are predominently westerly in the southern hemisphere, which corresponds with my previous statement and, if it is assisting the eastbound flight will it not be hindering the westbound which is occuring simultaneously and at similar latitudes? 

We've also done Jeran's thing before.  Simultaneous to the "supersonic" speeds is a series of altitude changes which an F-16 would struggle with.  Its just a batch of missing data on aircraft position; when it recovers the position data it integrates the delta-position over time to determine speed.   

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on May 02, 2024, 05:29:21 PM »

Wait... So you're bragging that Trump is less wealthy than he was in March?

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by Action80 on May 02, 2024, 05:00:18 PM »

The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times.

Do you have evidence to back up this outright lie?

Yes. The evidence is that if the sun is a few thousand miles above a flat earth then you would have a clear line of sight to it at all time.

A statement made by some random contributor to this forum does not constitute evidence.

You should be able to model it on scale to back up your claim.

What would stop you seeing it?

Lots of things...distance for one, physical aspects of the aether for two, occluding objects for three...I could go on.

It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.

Just another baseless statement based on your inability to envision alternate and, certainly possible, modes of operation.

All that is in the context of the mainstream physics. You may have other mechanisms to explain this - EA, some magnification effect and I'm not sure about the luminosity one - the sun does admittedly change at sunset, but not during most of the day as it surely would if the sun was at a significantly different distance.

As I said, EA is a reasonable explanation. It's better than "perspective" which makes no sense at all. But it is at best a hypothesis, not a well formed theory.

"Mainstream physics"...joyfully uttered by most typical RE-zealots who visit this forum, as if they have any sort of grasp as to meaning.

You, of all contributors here, have the least amount of standing (based on the evidence of your posting history), to even include such a term in any of your posts.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by AATW on May 02, 2024, 04:41:30 PM »

Not even in the top 300? What a loser!

10

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?

« Last post by AATW on May 02, 2024, 04:39:50 PM »

The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times.

Do you have evidence to back up this outright lie?

Yes. The evidence is that if the sun is a few thousand miles above a flat earth then you would have a clear line of sight to it at all time. What would stop you seeing it? It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.
All that is in the context of the mainstream physics. You may have other mechanisms to explain this - EA, some magnification effect and I'm not sure about the luminosity one - the sun does admittedly change at sunset, but not during most of the day as it surely would if the sun was at a significantly different distance.

As I said, EA is a reasonable explanation. It's better than "perspective" which makes no sense at all. But it is at best a hypothesis, not a well formed theory.