The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: timterroo on July 13, 2018, 03:10:57 PM
-
If the earth is flat, you should be able to see the sun through a telescope in the middle of the night (assuming you are high enough that your view is not obstructed by obstacles) - perhaps from an airplane or tall mountain. Why is it that you cannot?
-
The sun is a spotlight. When it isn't shining on you, you can't see it. This is a pretty basic concept of FET. You'll need to understand the spotlight sun in order to progress this thread.
-
If you are looking at a spotlight, such as on a stage at a concert, you can still see the spotlight even though you are in the dark. It only stands to reason that you should be able to see the sun in a similar manner.
-
The sun is a spotlight. When it isn't shining on you, you can't see it. This is a pretty basic concept of FET. You'll need to understand the spotlight sun in order to progress this thread.
I think that depends on who you ask. I've seen FEs here who readily admit that the sun goes below the horizon. They seem to think this is caused by a bending of light. I think they call it Electromagnetic Acceleration.
So... the spotlight thing. Not accepted by the entire FE community.
If you want to stick to the spotlight, it wouldn't be too hard to test it. A spotlight won't explain the sun going below the horizon. For that, you'll need the light to bend.
-
What is it you expect to see? Paint me a picture. We have a black sky, and an object not emitting or reflecting any light set against it.
I can't see to the end of my garden at night, with or without a telescope, and you expect to see something thousands of kilometers away?
-
What is it you expect to see? Paint me a picture. We have a black sky, and an object not emitting or reflecting any light set against it.
I can't see to the end of my garden at night, with or without a telescope, and you expect to see something thousands of kilometers away?
I believe he's referencing the FE Perspective Hypothesis, wherein a ship vanishes 'over the horizon' due to the limits of perspective and can be restored using a telescope. The sun is said to vanish for similar reasons, so why can we not restore it the same way? I believe there is a difference, but I'm not recalling it at this time.
-
Indeed, I am referencing the perspective hypothesis, and adding in some common sense about flat planes.
To answer JRowe's question...
What is it you expect to see? Paint me a picture. We have a black sky, and an object not emitting or reflecting any light set against it.
I can't see to the end of my garden at night, with or without a telescope, and you expect to see something thousands of kilometers away?
If there was a street light at the end of your garden, you would be able to see it. If your garden is 10 miles away, you should be able to see that same street light with a telescope even though everything else around you is dark. We can see galaxies thousands of light years away with telescopes, so theoretically, we should be able to see the sun which according to FET is only about 3,000 miles vertical and would be several thousands miles away horizontally at night.
-
Indeed, I am referencing the perspective hypothesis, and adding in some common sense about flat planes.
To answer JRowe's question...
What is it you expect to see? Paint me a picture. We have a black sky, and an object not emitting or reflecting any light set against it.
I can't see to the end of my garden at night, with or without a telescope, and you expect to see something thousands of kilometers away?
If there was a street light at the end of your garden, you would be able to see it. If your garden is 10 miles away, you should be able to see that same street light with a telescope even though everything else around you is dark. We can see galaxies thousands of light years away with telescopes, so theoretically, we should be able to see the sun which according to FET is only about 3,000 miles vertical and would be several thousands miles away horizontally at night.
You can't reclaim the sight of a ship with a telescope, i've tried.
You'd only be able to see the street light if there was a straight line view from you to the light. if it's night, that's obviously not going to be the case. Ok then, maybe you'd see where the Sun's light reflects off of, the area under the light? Sure. Except the Sun's so far away it seems like it's touching the horizon.
it's not a street lamp at the end of a garden, it's a face-down night light.
-
Indeed, I am referencing the perspective hypothesis, and adding in some common sense about flat planes.
To answer JRowe's question...
What is it you expect to see? Paint me a picture. We have a black sky, and an object not emitting or reflecting any light set against it.
I can't see to the end of my garden at night, with or without a telescope, and you expect to see something thousands of kilometers away?
If there was a street light at the end of your garden, you would be able to see it. If your garden is 10 miles away, you should be able to see that same street light with a telescope even though everything else around you is dark. We can see galaxies thousands of light years away with telescopes, so theoretically, we should be able to see the sun which according to FET is only about 3,000 miles vertical and would be several thousands miles away horizontally at night.
You can't reclaim the sight of a ship with a telescope, i've tried.
You'd only be able to see the street light if there was a straight line view from you to the light. if it's night, that's obviously not going to be the case. Ok then, maybe you'd see where the Sun's light reflects off of, the area under the light? Sure. Except the Sun's so far away it seems like it's touching the horizon.
it's not a street lamp at the end of a garden, it's a face-down night light.
It's a facing-down night light that somehow appears to be a circle as it traverses the sky right up until it reaches the horizon where it inexplicably squishes not into an ellipse, but a squashed circle.
-
You can't reclaim the sight of a ship with a telescope, i've tried.
This is something that non flat earthers support their claims that the earth is round. Whatever is obstructing your view of the ship is the same thing that obstructs your view of the sun during a sunset.
I understand the perspective arguments about the disappearing ship from a flat earth perspective 100%. What I don't understand is why a telescope or binoculars don't bring the ship back into view. I feel like that either supports the round earth model or it means the earth is flat and the ocean must be curved or have curved waves like the tides or something.
You'd only be able to see the street light if there was a straight line view from you to the light. if it's night, that's obviously not going to be the case. Ok then, maybe you'd see where the Sun's light reflects off of, the area under the light? Sure. Except the Sun's so far away it seems like it's touching the horizon.
it's not a street lamp at the end of a garden, it's a face-down night light.
We can't really describe a start to a man made spotlight. They are totally different. In a spotlight, like when at a play or a concert, I can see the spotlight come, I can see when it's on me, and I can see it leaving.
Regardless of if the earth is round or flat the sun is 298797 times more powerful than any spotlight so we can't expect it to behave the same way.
-
It's a facing-down night light that somehow appears to be a circle as it traverses the sky right up until it reaches the horizon where it inexplicably squishes not into an ellipse, but a squashed circle.
Short version: space isn't uniform. Long version, see sig.
This is something that non flat earthers support their claims that the earth is round. Whatever is obstructing your view of the ship is the same thing that obstructs your view of the sun during a sunset.
I understand the perspective arguments about the disappearing ship from a flat earth perspective 100%. What I don't understand is why a telescope or binoculars don't bring the ship back into view. I feel like that either supports the round earth model or it means the earth is flat and the ocean must be curved or have curved waves like the tides or something.
I don't use the perspective argument, I have a couple of issues with it with respect to height, for my model it comes down to the force that keeps us on the Earth's surface affecting light directly, so when it reflects off the boat it insteads hits the sea. The higher the part of the boat, the longer it takes before it meets the sea.
We can't really describe a start to a man made spotlight. They are totally different. In a spotlight, like when at a play or a concert, I can see the spotlight come, I can see when it's on me, and I can see it leaving.
Regardless of if the earth is round or flat the sun is 298797 times more powerful than any spotlight so we can't expect it to behave the same way.
The basic principle holds. It doesn't matter how powerful it is when it's not pointing at you, the power of the spotlight doesn't change the rules at play.
-
If there was a street light at the end of your garden, you would be able to see it. If your garden is 10 miles away, you should be able to see that same street light with a telescope even though everything else around you is dark. We can see galaxies thousands of light years away with telescopes, so theoretically, we should be able to see the sun which according to FET is only about 3,000 miles vertical and would be several thousands miles away horizontally at night.
The atmolayer is not transparent. It distorts and then obscures visibility over great distances.
-
If the earth is flat the Sun should always shine on us. It would light the whole Earth equally.
-
If the earth is flat the Sun should always shine on us. It would light the whole Earth equally.
You are applying a round earth concept to a flat earth theory. Can't do that. In FET, the sun acts as a spotlight, directing light to a limited, circular, area. FET assumes the sun is also NOT a sphere.
I have recently experienced a phenomenon that, to me, is proof the earth is ROUND. I would have a hard time convincing anyone of this phenomenon though.... here it is:
I returned from a vacation to Colorado a few days ago.... as I was driving cross-country through the VERY flat state of Nebraska, I observed the lovely, endless, corn fields that stretch for miles and miles in all directions. It just so happens that this time of year the corn is right about eye level when driving on the interstate in my van. As I looked across one field, I could see the flat surface of the tops of the corn as though it was an ocean of corn. If you understand calculus and statistics, you can understand that the average height of all the corn in that very flat field was the same for each corn plant - there is not any significant deviation from the average height. This allows you to observe the corn field as a flat surface, or an ocean. In looking across a corn field (at nearly eye-level), I could see the tops of the corn for about 1 mile or so until strangely enough, the tops of the corn disappeared. In other words, there appeared to be a 'hill' and the tops of the distant corn faded below the nearer corn. That seems consistent with the mathematical conclusion that if the earth is round, it should dip about 8 inches per mile. The distance that I observed this effect was too short to attribute to the perceptual effect. The difficulty in proving this, is that someone can easily say, "How do you know there isn't actually a hill in the corn field?" Well, I can't without surveying the entire area. However, being from Nebraska, I know that these flat spreads of land are REALLY flat, and have no hills. I observed this in multiple corn fields during my 6 hour drive through Nebraska. That is my 2 cents.
-
You can't reclaim the sight of a ship with a telescope, i've tried.
>> Why not?
You'd only be able to see the street light if there was a straight line view from you to the light. if it's night, that's obviously not going to be the case.
>> You have a straight line view in the daytime, but suddenly, as night falls, you don't? Why not?
Ok then, maybe you'd see where the Sun's light reflects off of, the area under the light? Sure. Except the Sun's so far away it seems like it's touching the horizon. it's not a street lamp at the end of a garden, it's a face-down night light.
You sure about that?
-
I don't use the perspective argument, I have a couple of issues with it with respect to height, for my model it comes down to the force that keeps us on the Earth's surface affecting light directly, so when it reflects off the boat it insteads hits the sea. The higher the part of the boat, the longer it takes before it meets the sea.
This makes a lot more sense to me than the perspective argument. I feel like this is a very valid point and something to look into. Einstein had shown that gravity bends light so that could be happening here. The issue with that is that if the light was hitting the water shouldn't some of it bounce off the water in the form of a reflection?
The basic principle holds. It doesn't matter how powerful it is when it's not pointing at you, the power of the spotlight doesn't change the rules at play.
I went to theater in the park and they had spotlights shining all over the crowd. When the spotlight was not on me i could clearly see it shining on people on the opposite side of the park. If I had binoculars or a telescope I could see the spotlight from VERY far away.
This is why I prefer an infinite repeating plane flat earth model.
-
You'd only be able to see the street light if there was a straight line view from you to the light. if it's night, that's obviously not going to be the case.
>> You have a straight line view in the daytime, but suddenly, as night falls, you don't? Why not?
That is literally the definition of night. You do not have a straight line view to the Sun's lit face.
This makes a lot more sense to me than the perspective argument. I feel like this is a very valid point and something to look into. Einstein had shown that gravity bends light so that could be happening here. The issue with that is that if the light was hitting the water shouldn't some of it bounce off the water in the form of a reflection?
Sure, but to do that you'd need to be able to see the water it's reflecting off of. Light disperses; a ship doesn't vanishes when it's the same length as its height away, the light from the bottom of the ship is spread over a larger area. It's the same general rule as a light being head on, vs at an angle, the best you could expect to see is a diminished grey smudge that's just not going to be apparent against a constantly moving blue surface.
The basic principle holds. It doesn't matter how powerful it is when it's not pointing at you, the power of the spotlight doesn't change the rules at play.
I went to theater in the park and they had spotlights shining all over the crowd. When the spotlight was not on me i could clearly see it shining on people on the opposite side of the park. If I had binoculars or a telescope I could see the spotlight from VERY far away.
This is why I prefer an infinite repeating plane flat earth model.
An infinite repeating flat plane isn't the farthest thing from my model, they still require a spotlight Sun.
As far as those spotlights go, you'd still need them to be in a comparable situation; you can see the light between the Sun and ground, and what it reflects off of, but if it's so far away that it appears to be touching the ground then what is there to see?
After sunset you do get a vague light without any direct view of the Sun itself, but once it moves farther than that...
-
That is literally the definition of night. You do not have a straight line view to the Sun's lit face.
Well, my definition is that you don't have a straight line to the sun at all, because the rest of the globe is in the way, and you're in the shadow cast by the Earth when the sun is illuminating the other hemisphere... but are you saying that an observer still has a straight line of sight to the sun, just not to it's 'lit face' ?
-
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand why (when the we can't see the spotlight pointing at us) we don't see something akin to this?
See attached
-
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand why (when the we can't see the spotlight pointing at us) we don't see something akin to this?
See attached
I have come to learn there are different FE models but I don't think any of them claim that the sun is actually a spotlight - i.e. there is no celestial "lampshade" on it which stops light going out of the side of the sun.
Tom's model - which is based on Rowbotham's - claims that you can't see the sun because it has perspective. This is the most nonsensical version I know of, clearly perspective doesn't work like that.
Pete favours EA which claims that there is a force which bends light upwards so the light simply goes up and over our heads. That one sort of works but I don't think there's any actual evidence of that force. You could argue that sunset is that evidence but that is circular reasoning.
I don't understand JRowe's model, he says there is no clear line of sight to the sun at night which is true in Round Earth model too. I'm not clear where the sun is in his model though.
-
Pete favours EA which claims that there is a force which bends light upwards so the light simply goes up and over our heads. That one sort of works but I don't think there's any actual evidence of that force. You could argue that sunset is that evidence but that is circular reasoning.
Thanks for the further info. Out of those explanations I think the above is the most logical / least ridiculous.
-
OK, so ...
What shape is this 'spotlight'? Does it have any body or substance behind the 'lit face'? What shape is the 'lit face'?
-
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand why (when the we can't see the spotlight pointing at us) we don't see something akin to this?
See attached
Again, how close does the Sun appear to get to the Earth upon sunset?
That is the height you are expecting to see light in. You are expecting to see light with a zero dimension. There's nothing to see.
-
OK, so ...
What shape is this 'spotlight'? Does it have any body or substance behind the 'lit face'? What shape is the 'lit face'?
Circular, yes, circular.
-
OK, so ...
What shape is this 'spotlight'? Does it have any body or substance behind the 'lit face'? What shape is the 'lit face'?
Circular, yes, circular.
Please tell me you don't think that the sun is literally a spotlight which only shines light in one direction?
Clue: What is the only shape which appears to be a circle no matter of which direction you look at it from?
Where is the sun at sunset in your model?
-
OK, so ...
What shape is this 'spotlight'? Does it have any body or substance behind the 'lit face'? What shape is the 'lit face'?
Circular, yes, circular.
Please tell me you don't think that the sun is literally a spotlight which only shines light in one direction?
Clue: What is the only shape which appears to be a circle no matter of which direction you look at it from?
Where is the sun at sunset in your model?
Not as trivial to answer as you think, space isn't a constant.
-
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand why (when the we can't see the spotlight pointing at us) we don't see something akin to this?
See attached
Again, how close does the Sun appear to get to the Earth upon sunset?
That is the height you are expecting to see light in. You are expecting to see light with a zero dimension. There's nothing to see.
1. How can a sun that's above the plane of the earth appear close to the earth upon sunset?
2. Why is it that we pass out of its spotlight pattern the moment it appears to be eclipsed by the earth?
3. Why can I see the sun again if I rise in altitude (even while moving further away from the sun)?
4. Is there an altitude at which I could be where I will not be in the spotlight pattern but could still see it cast upon the earth in the distance?
5. Why does the sun appear circular until appearing close to the earth (and even, when atmospheric conditions permit, as it appears eclipsed by the earth)?
6. How is the moon illuminated by the sun if the sun casts its light in a spotlight pattern? (I know you promote moon generating it's own light, but I ask to be sure this is integrated with your answers)
-
1. How can a sun that's above the plane of the earth appear close to the earth upon sunset?
2. Why is it that we pass out of its spotlight pattern the moment it appears to be eclipsed by the earth?
3. Why can I see the sun again if I rise in altitude (even while moving further away from the sun)?
4. Is there an altitude at which I could be where I will not be in the spotlight pattern but could still see it cast upon the earth in the distance?
5. Why does the sun appear circular until appearing close to the earth (and even, when atmospheric conditions permit, as it appears eclipsed by the earth)?
6. How is the moon illuminated by the sun if the sun casts its light in a spotlight pattern? (I know you promote moon generating it's own light, but I ask to be sure this is integrated with your answers)
1. (https://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/04/1-16-1068x601.jpg)
2. What? it is never eclipsed by the Earth. it just gets far enough away that it can't be seen, which would obviously coincide with appearing to be near the Earth.
3, 4, 5. Like i said above, space isn't constant, there's no way to explain the intricacies without going through pages of underlying physics (like any science, answers are built on what comes before, there are consequences), if you're interested click my sig and get back to me.
6. Like you said, the moon generates it's own light, in much the same fashion. What needs to be integrated?
-
OK, so ...
What shape is this 'spotlight'? Does it have any body or substance behind the 'lit face'? What shape is the 'lit face'?
Circular, yes, circular.
So ..... why does it never appear elliptical? If we see the 'lit face' at mid-day, and we can't see this face at night, what has happened inbetween? Has the lit face turned away from us? If so, why didn't we see it as an ellipse as it turned?
-
space isn't a constant.
How do you KNOW this, and how would you prove it to everyone here?
-
OK, so ...
What shape is this 'spotlight'? Does it have any body or substance behind the 'lit face'? What shape is the 'lit face'?
Circular, yes, circular.
So ..... why does it never appear elliptical? If we see the 'lit face' at mid-day, and we can't see this face at night, what has happened inbetween? Has the lit face turned away from us? If so, why didn't we see it as an ellipse as it turned?
See above, don't just pretend people haven't asked the same.
space isn't a constant.
How do you KNOW this, and how would you prove it to everyone here?
See sig, and for the love of god, again, actually read the thread, this is just obnoxious.
-
it is never eclipsed by the Earth. it just gets far enough away that it can't be seen, which would obviously coincide with appearing to be near the Earth.
But surely if it was getting farther away, it would decrease in angular size? It doesn't. Surely if it was going far enough away not to be seen, we would see it diminishing in size? We don't.
-
it is never eclipsed by the Earth. it just gets far enough away that it can't be seen, which would obviously coincide with appearing to be near the Earth.
But surely if it was getting farther away, it would decrease in angular size? It doesn't. Surely if it was going far enough away not to be seen, we would see it diminishing in size? We don't.
*continues to bang head on wall*
You would've seen i'd posted given that was put up after mine, there's an alert when there's a new post, are you just physically incapable of reading a thread?
-
it is never eclipsed by the Earth. it just gets far enough away that it can't be seen, which would obviously coincide with appearing to be near the Earth.
But surely if it was getting farther away, it would decrease in angular size? It doesn't. Surely if it was going far enough away not to be seen, we would see it diminishing in size? We don't.
*continues to bang head on wall*
You would've seen i'd posted given that was put up after mine, there's an alert when there's a new post, are you just physically incapable of reading a thread?
I have read this thread twice and I don't see the bit where it explains why a nearby sun doesn't decrease in angular size as it moves further away.
[edit]Also, I don't understand "space isn't a constant".
-
[edit]Also, I don't understand "space isn't a constant".
That's basically what it comes down to; under my model space varies in 'concentration' depending on location, and follows generally intuitive rules. Under RET it is assumed that space is homogenous; not proven, it's just a postulate. When that isn't assumed, everything basically falls into place.
-
[edit]Also, I don't understand "space isn't a constant".
That's basically what it comes down to; under my model space varies in 'concentration' depending on location, and follows generally intuitive rules. Under RET it is assumed that space is homogenous; not proven, it's just a postulate. When that isn't assumed, everything basically falls into place.
You mean space has a kind of density? What would happen if you put a ruler into the less concentrated space? Would it shrink?
-
[edit]Also, I don't understand "space isn't a constant".
That's basically what it comes down to; under my model space varies in 'concentration' depending on location, and follows generally intuitive rules. Under RET it is assumed that space is homogenous; not proven, it's just a postulate. When that isn't assumed, everything basically falls into place.
You mean space has a kind of density? What would happen if you put a ruler into the less concentrated space? Would it shrink?
Other way around. Think of it like a spring; the length along the coils is constant, but if you put multiple compressed springs end on end, a stretched spring would be able to cover the same distance. You'd only notice anything when the concentrations transition.
-
1. How can a sun that's above the plane of the earth appear close to the earth upon sunset?
1. (https://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/04/1-16-1068x601.jpg)
If by that you mean "perspective," it doesn't resolve to explain how the sun (or moon) can decline to the horizon line. Surely you are not subscribing to the Earth Not a Globe ersatz explanation of perspective.
How can a sun with a constant angular width of about 0.5° ever reach the horizon due to perspective? Disappear to a dot (vanishing point) 20° above the horizon given the size/dimensions of the TFES Wiki cosmos? Sure. You'd need a lot more distance to approach the horizon, and an explanation for why the sun doesn't proportionally appear to diminish in size.
Don't just show me train tracks. That's not an answer I'd expect from you.
-
2. Why is it that we pass out of its spotlight pattern the moment it appears to be eclipsed by the earth?
2. What? it is never eclipsed by the Earth. it just gets far enough away that it can't be seen, which would obviously coincide with appearing to be near the Earth.
I used the word "appears" for a reason, knowing that you do not believe it is actually eclipsed by the earth.
It disappears as a full orb, bottom up. It's the same visual appearance as if the sun has gone behind a mountain ridge or other elevated terrestrial feature. It doesn't fade or diminish as a whole. It gets cut off at the horizon, starting with the lower limb and then proceeding upward until the upper limb is extinguished. That's not the behavior of a light getting just far enough away that it can't be seen. Is it just coincidence that this phenomenon occurs when the sun appears to intersect with the earth, and the earth has nothing to do with it?
-
From what he says above, I think he means that as the sun gets more distant, the space becomes less concentrated, and (by analogy with his example about compressed springs) the sun expands. But at the very same time, it is getting more distant so the perspective effect compresses it again. So it appears the same size to us.
My next question would be why people standing further West directly underneath the sun do not notice that it is expanding.
-
If by that you mean "perspective," it doesn't resolve to explain how the sun (or moon) can decline to the horizon line. Surely you are not subscribing to the Earth Not a Globe ersatz explanation of perspective.
How can a sun with a constant angular width of about 0.5° ever reach the horizon due to perspective? Disappear to a dot (vanishing point) 20° above the horizon given the size/dimensions of the TFES Wiki cosmos? Sure. You'd need a lot more distance to approach the horizon, and an explanation for why the sun doesn't proportionally appear to diminish in size.
Don't just show me train tracks. That's not an answer I'd expect from you.
You asked how it appears close to the Earth, that's how; objects at a distance appear closer together. Why it doesn't proportionately appear to diminish in size was not the first question, if anything that was the fifth. Don't complain that the answer to one question wasn't tailored to a different question.
-
3. Why can I see the sun again if I rise in altitude (even while moving further away from the sun)?
4. Is there an altitude at which I could be where I will not be in the spotlight pattern but could still see it cast upon the earth in the distance?
5. Why does the sun appear circular until appearing close to the earth (and even, when atmospheric conditions permit, as it appears eclipsed by the earth)?
3, 4, 5. Like i said above, space isn't constant, there's no way to explain the intricacies without going through pages of underlying physics (like any science, answers are built on what comes before, there are consequences), if you're interested click my sig and get back to me.
I only asked these questions after reading your DE pages. I cannot interpret from that model you've presented how these questions are answered.
-
I used the word "appears" for a reason, knowing that you do not believe it is actually eclipsed by the earth.
It disappears as a full orb, bottom up. It's the same visual appearance as if the sun has gone behind a mountain ridge or other elevated terrestrial feature. It doesn't fade or diminish as a whole. It gets cut off at the horizon, starting with the lower limb and then proceeding upward until the upper limb is extinguished. That's not the behavior of a light getting just far enough away that it can't be seen. Is it just coincidence that this phenomenon occurs when the sun appears to intersect with the earth, and the earth has nothing to do with it?
It happens at a distance, so the Sun appears near the Earth; correlation does not equal causation, there can just be a common cause.
The cutting-off is basically the same principle as the moon's phases.
From what he says above, I think he means that as the sun gets more distant, the space becomes less concentrated, and (by analogy with his example about compressed springs) the sun expands. But at the very same time, it is getting more distant so the perspective effect compresses it again. So it appears the same size to us.
My next question would be why people standing further West directly underneath the sun do not notice that it is expanding.
Not in the slightest, if it were that simple I would have said as much. Science is based on the application of principles, this aspect of space is applied, and results in the formation of the Earth, the shape and properties and movements of the stars and planets, why we stay on the Earth's surface... The Sun is part of that, and as with any scientifc model the Sun is intimately connected to the rest of it.
I only asked these questions after reading your DE pages. I cannot interpret from that model you've presented how these questions are answered.
I need more than that if you want me to clarify, the explanation I'd give is in those pages. What part of it doesn't make sense, why, what can't you visualize?
-
It happens at a distance, so the Sun appears near the Earth; correlation does not equal causation, there can just be a common cause.
The cutting-off is basically the same principle as the moon's phases.
Coincidence, then.
Where are you on earth? Just a lat/long to the nearest tenth of a degree (or metropolitan area if that's lets intrusive).
I'm in San Diego, CA. (In a couple of weeks I'll be in Fairbanks, AK).
I'd like to challenge your explanation for the sun being low on the horizon due to distance/perspective with your cooperative observations of the sun from your vantage point on earth. Okay?
-
From what he says above, I think he means that as the sun gets more distant, the space becomes less concentrated, and (by analogy with his example about compressed springs) the sun expands. But at the very same time, it is getting more distant so the perspective effect compresses it again. So it appears the same size to us.
My next question would be why people standing further West directly underneath the sun do not notice that it is expanding.
Not in the slightest, if it were that simple I would have said as much.
But does the sun expand as it moves further West or not?
-
Question was:
1. How can a sun that's above the plane of the earth appear close to the earth upon sunset?
Answer given is this image.
1. (https://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/04/1-16-1068x601.jpg)
What's this? A model?
Let's try: So one rail represents the ground of flat earth, the other rail represents sun's path above the earth.
The rails in the model are about 2 meters apart. According FET Sun's path is about 3,000 miles (4,827,000 meters) above the ground.
At what distance do the rails (from the image) appear to "meet"? 2,000 meters I would estimate.
So the rails appear to meet at a distance from the observer, that is about 1,000 times the distance between the two rails. Now at what distance from the observer would the Sun appear to "meet" the ground?
-
You have to throw out much of how TFES describes the cosmos. Using JRowe's sketch as a starting point, here's my understanding (so far):
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/o03rx4.jpg)
The sun isn't 3000 miles above the earth. Nor does it move. It's inside the earth, between two planes (hemiplanes): one the north hemiplane; the other the south hemiplane.
The sun is a spot light at the centerpoint between the hemiplanes, like a cylinder of stone containing an incandescent molten metal center from which light can emanate. (Moon is similar.) It rotates, accounting for night and day on the opposite sides of the hemiplanes (and the moon rotates as well, while also moving around the sun).
The light from the spotlight follows a path of the aether, outward and upward from the equatorial "seam" (no perceptual space at the "seam") and is projected onto the aetheric dome above each of the hemiplanes. It's apparent movement across that dome from the perspective of hemiplane dwellers is a consequence of the spotlight sun's rotation. Though we can point to the sun or see it rise/set, that's not where the sun actually is. It's physically in a "bubble" between the two discs.
The projected image never varies from it's circular shape from any point of perspective on the surface of either plane. The spotlight just happens to rotate away to obscure the sun at the point of the apparent horizon. It also defies perspective explanations by never changing size as the projection recedes in the distance from one's vantage point. It always disappears (somehow) bottom-up no matter where you are on your respective hemiplane. It behaves unlike any spotlight -- projection or otherwise -- that you could scale in a model, due in some way to the relationship of space(time) and the aether that I can't decipher.
-
JRowe:
Here are 3 candidate spotlight moons I've modeled.
The one on the left is a luminescent flat surface inside of an opaque cylinder.
The middle is a luminescent sphere protruding from an opaque cylinder.
The one on the right is a luminescent sphere recessed inside of an opaque cylinder.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/dd749.jpg)
Which of these best represents what you describe in Dual Earth Theory (DET), and sketched here:
(http://i.imgur.com/V3PryKY.jpg)
My guess is the one on the left? I don't thinks it's germane to what I hope to model, but I understand that perhaps the opaque (stone) shell edges and/or luminescent (molten metal) surface are not smooth but are more irregular than in my model. I just want to capture how the lighted portion can be presented to an earth-bound viewer and I want to make sure I have the configuration correct.
-
It happens at a distance, so the Sun appears near the Earth; correlation does not equal causation, there can just be a common cause.
The cutting-off is basically the same principle as the moon's phases.
Coincidence, then.
Um, no, that is the exact opposite of what I said.
Where are you on earth? Just a lat/long to the nearest tenth of a degree (or metropolitan area if that's lets intrusive).
I'm in San Diego, CA. (In a couple of weeks I'll be in Fairbanks, AK).
I'd like to challenge your explanation for the sun being low on the horizon due to distance/perspective with your cooperative observations of the sun from your vantage point on earth. Okay?
How would that do so?
From what he says above, I think he means that as the sun gets more distant, the space becomes less concentrated, and (by analogy with his example about compressed springs) the sun expands. But at the very same time, it is getting more distant so the perspective effect compresses it again. So it appears the same size to us.
My next question would be why people standing further West directly underneath the sun do not notice that it is expanding.
Not in the slightest, if it were that simple I would have said as much.
But does the sun expand as it moves further West or not?
No.
The sun isn't 3000 miles above the earth. Nor does it move. It's inside the earth, between two planes (hemiplanes): one the north hemiplane; the other the south hemiplane.
The sun is a spot light at the centerpoint between the hemiplanes, like a cylinder of stone containing an incandescent molten metal center from which light can emanate. (Moon is similar.) It rotates, accounting for night and day on the opposite sides of the hemiplanes (and the moon rotates as well, while also moving around the sun).
The light from the spotlight follows a path of the aether, outward and upward from the equatorial "seam" (no perceptual space at the "seam") and is projected onto the aetheric dome above each of the hemiplanes. It's apparent movement across that dome from the perspective of hemiplane dwellers is a consequence of the spotlight sun's rotation. Though we can point to the sun or see it rise/set, that's not where the sun actually is. It's physically in a "bubble" between the two discs.
The projected image never varies from it's circular shape from any point of perspective on the surface of either plane. The spotlight just happens to rotate away to obscure the sun at the point of the apparent horizon. It also defies perspective explanations by never changing size as the projection recedes in the distance from one's vantage point. It always disappears (somehow) bottom-up no matter where you are on your respective hemiplane. It behaves unlike any spotlight -- projection or otherwise -- that you could scale in a model, due in some way to the relationship of space(time) and the aether that I can't decipher.
The downside with explanations like this is that they miss a lot of the underlying theory that's key to understanding it. For example, aether is just the word I use for space (as Einstein once did) just because it gets confusing otherwise. Because of that, the Sun being projected onto the aetheric dome, as you put it, simply means that the flow of aether goes from the Sun's location, to that altitude; it's the same as the flow that connects each side of the equator, only witha difefrent vertical coordinate. The meaning of this is that the Sun essentially exists at that point in the sky, because again space is not constant.
The really fun thing is when you get onto how it also technically has a fixed distance away, but also grows further away, but as I said divorced from context and the underlying theory that's never going to make sense.
Vanishing bottom-up's already been explained through, it rotates, same as the moon. WHat cuts it off is not the Earth, but rather its own unlit side.
JRowe:
Here are 3 candidate spotlight moons I've modeled.
The one on the left is a luminescent flat surface inside of an opaque cylinder.
The middle is a luminescent sphere protruding from an opaque cylinder.
The one on the right is a luminescent sphere recessed inside of an opaque cylinder.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/dd749.jpg)
Which of these best represents what you describe in Dual Earth Theory (DET), and sketched here:
(http://i.imgur.com/V3PryKY.jpg)
My guess is the one on the left? I don't thinks it's germane to what I hope to model, but I understand that perhaps the opaque (stone) shell edges and/or luminescent (molten metal) surface are not smooth but are more irregular than in my model. I just want to capture how the lighted portion can be presented to an earth-bound viewer and I want to make sure I have the configuration correct.
Between the left and middle.
It's not just the moon either, the Sun is the same kind of entity, just in a location where it is heated to a far greater degree.
-
It happens at a distance, so the Sun appears near the Earth; correlation does not equal causation, there can just be a common cause.
The cutting-off is basically the same principle as the moon's phases.
Coincidence, then.
Um, no, that is the exact opposite of what I said.
It's coincidence if it happens near the earth from every vantage point and nowhere else, unless you can explain the common cause for why it correlates. That mechanism is not explained anywhere in your pages as to why it only occurs at the horizon line.
If the explanation for a horizon is the same as for why the sun's light pattern (which at least Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory has going for it) then it wouldn't be just coincident. But I'm not seeing that anywhere in your treatise. It just does.
Now, if you want to help correct my ignorance, please do. But don't point me back to the DE Web pages because I'm not getting it from there. You'll have to spell it out if you want to correct my "coincidence" interpretation and support your asserting that it's the exact opposite of coincidence.
-
It's coincidence if it happens near the earth from every vantage point and nowhere else, unless you can explain the common cause for why it correlates. That mechanism is not explained anywhere in your pages as to why it only occurs at the horizon line.
I did that, that's my point; the common cause is distance. The distance both makes it appear close to the horizon, and makes it cut off much like the moon.
-
Where are you on earth? Just a lat/long to the nearest tenth of a degree (or metropolitan area if that's lets intrusive).
I'm in San Diego, CA. (In a couple of weeks I'll be in Fairbanks, AK).
I'd like to challenge your explanation for the sun being low on the horizon due to distance/perspective with your cooperative observations of the sun from your vantage point on earth. Okay?
How would that do so?
It depends. Are we in the same hemiplane? Are we in the same half of the same hemiplane? I need to know our relative locations to show you how we can test your theory. It doesn't have to be specific. United Kingdom? US Southeast? South Africa? South China Sea? Mediterranean? Just something generic; not privacy compromising.
-
It's coincidence if it happens near the earth from every vantage point and nowhere else, unless you can explain the common cause for why it correlates. That mechanism is not explained anywhere in your pages as to why it only occurs at the horizon line.
I did that, that's my point; the common cause is distance. The distance both makes it appear close to the horizon, and makes it cut off much like the moon.
The common cause is "distance."
Distance accounts from the limits of the spotlight pattern.
Distance accounts for why the spotlight itself appears to reach the horizon.
So the reason for why any spot on earth where a sunset is being viewed is also is where the edge of the spotlight pattern cast on the earth is "distance?"
How does that explain why/how those two phenomena occur simultaneously?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/V3PryKY.jpg)
Between the left and middle.
It's not just the moon either, the Sun is the same kind of entity, just in a location where it is heated to a far greater degree.
I know it's both. Just focusing on the moon.
By "between" I assume you mean the illuminated portion is not flat but not a full hemisphere protruding from the rock shell. It's convex.
So, here are the DE moon phases, if we could see the theoretical rock casing...?
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/ne9vdt.jpg)
(Not sure if I'm rotating it in the correct direction.)
-
OK, so the papers today are FULL of pictures of the Blood Moon from last night. How does this square up to this "DE, self-lit cylindrical moon with one end of the cylinder pointing toward Earth" jive ... ?
IF the Moon is a cylinder like this, what possible reason is there for it to turn blood red?
Is it a strategy by "those in control" to make it LOOK as though it's a sphere, passing through Earth's shadow, and illuminated only by refracted light? Highly, highly unlikely.
Could it be a just be coincidence that it turns itself red at EXACTLY the times and places where RE theory and mechanics asserts that it will be? Again, highly unlikely.
Isn't the most probable explanation merely the simplest?
It's an orbital sphere, as stated in the textbooks, as orbited and landed upon by the USA, Russia, China, Japan, and India.
It's a solid, as found by those who have bounced lasers and radio signals off it.
It has a slightly irregular orbit with respect to Earth, so we don't see a Blood Red Moon every 28 days.
We're seeing the BRM because this is one of the occasions when the Moon's orbit takes it into a 'sweet spot' opposite the Sun
Job done. Solved.
-
It always disappears (somehow) bottom-up no matter where you are on your respective hemiplane. It behaves unlike any spotlight -- projection or otherwise -- that you could scale in a model, due in some way to the relationship of space(time) and the aether that I can't decipher.
Could it be that the sun is a sphere and the earth is also a sphere that orbits the sun? If this were true, it would account for the disappearing effect, the misbehaving spotlight, and the space/time relationship. Just saying...
-
It depends. Are we in the same hemiplane? Are we in the same half of the same hemiplane? I need to know our relative locations to show you how we can test your theory. It doesn't have to be specific. United Kingdom? US Southeast? South Africa? South China Sea? Mediterranean? Just something generic; not privacy compromising.
Give some indication of what you're actually planning to do first.
The common cause is "distance."
Distance accounts from the limits of the spotlight pattern.
Distance accounts for why the spotlight itself appears to reach the horizon.
So the reason for why any spot on earth where a sunset is being viewed is also is where the edge of the spotlight pattern cast on the earth is "distance?"
How does that explain why/how those two phenomena occur simultaneously?
I don't know how else I can explain this. The Sun is going to rotate out of view when it appears to be at a great distance. Equally, it is going to appear to be near the horizon when it is at a distance. What needs explaining here?!
By "between" I assume you mean the illuminated portion is not flat but not a full hemisphere protruding from the rock shell. It's convex.
So, here are the DE moon phases, if we could see the theoretical rock casing...?
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/ne9vdt.jpg)
(Not sure if I'm rotating it in the correct direction.)
Essentially, though there is the side effect of the moon being illuminated so the crescent would be more distinct, and the basic issue of the face which would appear different depending on the angle at which the features on it are viewed, but I accept the limitations in modelling that.
IF the Moon is a cylinder like this, what possible reason is there for it to turn blood red?
Essentially, just the angle at which it shines causing the light to pass through even more air.
Could it be a just be coincidence that it turns itself red at EXACTLY the times and places where RE theory and mechanics asserts that it will be? Again, highly unlikely.
'RE theory and mechanics'?! We've been able to predict lunar and solar eclipses for centuries before anyone had any concept of the most fundamental aspects of RET. The mechanics don't predict a thing, they were developed with unknowns specifically meant to simulate a predictable system. Clockwork being made to sync up with other clockwork ain't anything impressive.
-
Give some indication of what you're actually planning to do first.
I just want to compare sun (and/or moon) sightings: date, time, azimuth and elevation (and moon "face" orientation if applicable).
We share the same frame of reference so, if we cooperate, we ought to be able to verify if the DET model for the apparent location and motion of the celestial bodies matches what can be observed, particularly regarding rising/setting of those celestial bodies.
I can do it myself, but that wouldn't have any persuasive power. I'm already persuaded. You're already persuaded. Working together, one of us might find reason for reconsideration.
-
The common cause is "distance."
Distance accounts from the limits of the spotlight pattern.
Distance accounts for why the spotlight itself appears to reach the horizon.
So the reason for why any spot on earth where a sunset is being viewed is also is where the edge of the spotlight pattern cast on the earth is "distance?"
How does that explain why/how those two phenomena occur simultaneously?
I don't know how else I can explain this. The Sun is going to rotate out of view when it appears to be at a great distance. Equally, it is going to appear to be near the horizon when it is at a distance. What needs explaining here?!
Explain how rotating out of view changes distance?
Give me some numbers. Estimated is okay. How far away from me is the sun when it "rotates out of view?" Tonight, when the sun does set, I can verify where it will appear to be at its zenith over head another point on earth. How high up will it's projection be? 3000 miles, or is that an errant FET number?
The geometry of "rotating out of view" to account for the sun's spot light pattern moving away from me at the very moment that "perspective" due to distance is causing the sun to be cut off, bottom-first, at an apparent horizon is completely lost on me, regardless of whether the sun is where the standard FET model says or your DET alternative describes. it doesn't make sense to me. Claiming "distance" is like a hand-wave or magic box explanation. I can't work it out. And given that the orthodox spinning globe orbiting a distant sun works so well to explain what I see re. the sun, I'm working really hard to understand why a more difficult to comprehend alternative is even necessary.
I may never be convinced of it's truth, but I do want to comprehend the internal logic of it.
-
I may never be convinced of it's truth, but I do want to comprehend the internal logic of it.
Agreed. I may be a stubborn orthodox fool, but I am at least trying to expand my horizon. No point in resisting any possible truth. If nothing else, it is a stimulating conversation.
-
I just want to compare sun (and/or moon) sightings: date, time, azimuth and elevation (and moon "face" orientation if applicable).
We share the same frame of reference so, if we cooperate, we ought to be able to verify if the DET model for the apparent location and motion of the celestial bodies matches what can be observed, particularly regarding rising/setting of those celestial bodies.
Again, what is it you are expecting to see? I don't get the point of this, we know where the Sun and moon are generally going to be at any given time, it's a predictable, repeating system with hundreds of years of recorded data.
Explain how rotating out of view changes distance?
...I explicitly said distance was the cause twice now. It's just because that's what causes the Sun to move across the sky, its rotation; when it goes all the way across it doesn't stop or reverse, it keeps moving which means you see the unlit side cut it off.
Give me some numbers. Estimated is okay. How far away from me is the sun when it "rotates out of view?" Tonight, when the sun does set, I can verify where it will appear to be at its zenith over head another point on earth. How high up will it's projection be? 3000 miles, or is that an errant FET number?
I don't like giving speculation, I've tried before and it always gets twisted out of context. I don't agree with the 3000 figure, the experiment behind that is flawed in part because of the fact that makes the figure harder to give; space isn't constant, so distant isn't as trivial a concept.
And given that the orthodox spinning globe orbiting a distant sun works so well to explain what I see re. the sun, I'm working really hard to understand why a more difficult to comprehend alternative is even necessary.
Because it doesn't, you're just more used to it. You'd have to get onto why it's spinning, what started that, what causes it, and that's even without getting onto the rest of the model. yes, I'm aware you have answers, but I hope you can see how the comparison is far from as clear cut as you're used to.
Yes, DET is complicated. That's at least partly down to the fact it starts with a different basis to mainstream physics, you don't begin with years of familiarity and acceptance. If we were in a world where you'd instead been raised with DET, and I tried to explain mass-attracts-mass, subsequent circular motion rather than straightforward attraction etc, you'd be just as bewildered.
Plus diffcult to understand isn't a barometer of truth, assumptions are, and the DET model overall minimizes them because it all comes back to one property.
-
I just want to compare sun (and/or moon) sightings: date, time, azimuth and elevation (and moon "face" orientation if applicable).
We share the same frame of reference so, if we cooperate, we ought to be able to verify if the DET model for the apparent location and motion of the celestial bodies matches what can be observed, particularly regarding rising/setting of those celestial bodies.
Again, what is it you are expecting to see? I don't get the point of this, we know where the Sun and moon are generally going to be at any given time, it's a predictable, repeating system with hundreds of years of recorded data.
Then there should be no worries, but forget it. Just use my observation. Where was the sun at its zenith when it was rising from my vantage point here in San Diego at 6:01am? And where will it be when I watch it set tonight at 7:4x-something?
How far away from me is that?
How high is the sun (or the projection of the sun) at those two points?
With that we can have a value for the "distance" explanation instead of a handwave and see if the numbers make sense for "perspective" to be the reason why the elevation angle appears to go to 0.
Not only that, but we can check relative bearing to the sun. Does it track across the sky in both elevation and azimuth as a rotating spotlight sun projected onto a dome would predict?
It would certainly refine such an exercise to garner another set of data from another vantage point on earth, but if you don't want to do that, fine. This sun/moon model doesn't make sense in terms of what I feel like I observe, so I want to check. The model is supposed to explain observable phenomena and I fail to understand the simultaneous departure of the spotlight pattern with the "cutting off" of the sun by the horizon at sunset (or vice versa at sunrise). I understand the mechanics of the rotating sun and how you describe its spotlight nature and its aether-flow driven projection of that light onto the dome; but I don't understand how that manifests in what I can see with my eyes and measure with a compass and inclinometer. "Perspective" being the reason for an elevation angle diminishing to 0 doesn't make sense given what I think the distances that are involved. I want numbers, which you resist, to demonstrate that. Claiming "distance" does nothing for me. How much distance? Distance to what? Is the light from the spotlight projection doing anything funky like in EAT? Or is it just a straight line path and DET relies on the Rowbotham explanation of Perspective?
You've invited people to inspect your theory, and I'm doing that. If you choose to be nasty or condescending about the effort I'm making and the questions I'm posing, then I can just leave you to be sure of yourself, satisfied that you've answered all challenges. But if you want dialogue, then don't handwave me off with attitude. There's enough of that here already.
-
Yes, DET is complicated. That's at least partly down to the fact it starts with a different basis to mainstream physics ...
Why not publish in a peer reviewed journal? Physics is not all about mainstream physics, as I am sure you know.
-
Yes, DET is complicated. That's at least partly down to the fact it starts with a different basis to mainstream physics ...
Why not publish in a peer reviewed journal? Physics is not all about mainstream physics, as I am sure you know.
Because anything that begins with 'the Earth is flat' isn't going to be read any further. Aether as a concept is one I might be able to get in, but I'd need much greater resources to put up anything worth publishing, and even then it'd be hard to continue it without the Earth's shape entering into it.
Mainstream physics is self-fulfilling. Anything contrary gets laughed at as a crank, and so any study on it is only going to end up published in journals with no credibility.
Then there should be no worries, but forget it. Just use my observation. Where was the sun at its zenith when it was rising from my vantage point here in San Diego at 6:01am? And where will it be when I watch it set tonight at 7:4x-something?
How far away from me is that?
How high is the sun (or the projection of the sun) at those two points?
With that we can have a value for the "distance" explanation instead of a handwave and see if the numbers make sense for "perspective" to be the reason why the elevation angle appears to go to 0.
Not only that, but we can check relative bearing to the sun. Does it track across the sky in both elevation and azimuth as a rotating spotlight sun projected onto a dome would predict?
It would certainly refine such an exercise to garner another set of data from another vantage point on earth, but if you don't want to do that, fine. This sun/moon model doesn't make sense in terms of what I feel like I observe, so I want to check. The model is supposed to explain observable phenomena and I fail to understand the simultaneous departure of the spotlight pattern with the "cutting off" of the sun by the horizon at sunset (or vice versa at sunrise). I understand the mechanics of the rotating sun and how you describe its spotlight nature and its aether-flow driven projection of that light onto the dome; but I don't understand how that manifests in what I can see with my eyes and measure with a compass and inclinometer. "Perspective" being the reason for an elevation angle diminishing to 0 doesn't make sense given what I think the distances that are involved. I want numbers, which you resist, to demonstrate that. Claiming "distance" does nothing for me. How much distance? Distance to what? Is the light from the spotlight projection doing anything funky like in EAT? Or is it just a straight line path and DET relies on the Rowbotham explanation of Perspective?
You've invited people to inspect your theory, and I'm doing that. If you choose to be nasty or condescending about the effort I'm making and the questions I'm posing, then I can just leave you to be sure of yourself, satisfied that you've answered all challenges. But if you want dialogue, then don't handwave me off with attitude. There's enough of that here already.
Apologies, the attitutde was mostly directed at another thread I responded to around the time I wrote that post.
Greenland I think would see noon when it's sunrise where you are; my issue's with getting that distance, long-range distances aren't exactly trivial to measure. Flights give you time, but speed isn't constant. GPS is circular, reliant on landmarks... I can typically agree that land distances are basically correct but the error bars for measurements oversea or through the air are significant.
It might be easier to think of this from the perspective of the inside of the Earth. Two dimensions are easier to imagine than three, and that's basically where the projection comes from. You've got a circle, and in the middle the same spotlight rotating on the spot. Bearing in mind the shape of the lit face, think of how that is going to look from any point on the rim of that circle.
Moving until the light is visible, peering out from behind the unlit face, then the lit circle going across your field of view, until it's cut off at the far side again, and when it's cut off it vanishes as it rose.
Obviously not a perfect way to see it because you've got to translate that to above, but hopefully it gives an idea of where it all comes from, especially bearing in mind what the sectors of a circle represent for the flat Earth.
The only reason I 'resist' numbers is because they're speculation, you deserve better than what is going to be little more than guesswork with the resources I have. Numbers give you a lot of work with no real meaning, precisely because I can't give them with any degree of certainty.
Though, yes, light is affected, I'd assumed you'd read that. Principle's explained under the sinking ship part of the DET FAQ.
-
Sorry, but I was already working on this before you posted, so it isn't responsive to that last post.
But here are my numbers, with a 3D modeling of what I think is the DET mechanism from projection of the sun over the earth:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2hhek50.jpg)
I'll let you absorb that for a bit. I'm taking information from timeanddate.com for the location of the sun over earth at my time of sunrise, solar noon and sunset today (7/28/2018). And distances to those points come from Google. The elevation of the sun at solar noon is from Stellarium. And the relative bearing (azimuth) is manual measured on the bearing lines to sunrise and sunset on the north polar equidistant azimuthal map I used for the northern hemiplane.
I calculated the height of the sun based on the distance to its zenith at my solar noon and the elevation angle of the sun at that point from my location.
As the spotlight rotates clockwise from solar noon to sunset, that sun projection will move westward, with slant distance increasing as the azimuth also changes CW. At sunset, the ground distance from me to sun's zenith calculates to around 6200 miles and with sun appearing to set on a map-measured 313° bearing line.
So, despite actually being 3900-4000 miles above the earth, the sun (you say) will appear to intersect with the earth due to Perspective because the distance (6200 miles) is so great. This, even though astronomically (via trig calculation) the angle of sun elevation should be 32°. The difference between 0° and 32° is too great for "Perspective" to overcome as an explanatory too.
The measured azimuths of sunrise and sunset are off too from predicted/observed. Sunrises are now happening in San Diego in the mid-60s degrees azimuth and sunsets approaching 290°, not 42° and 313° respectively. My manual measurements can't be more than 3-5° margin for error.
Too many things are off. Is it the map? Is it the distances provided by Google? The zenith locations of the sun from TimeandDate? The angle of elevation at solar noon of the sun by Stellarium? Am I missing something about DET that makes straight line paths for space on/above the hemiplane or Euclidean geometry for calculating angles and distance flawed? I apprehend (if not comprehend) that's there's a flow of space (aether) occuring, but it's not impacting our ability to measure and observe from locations on the earth's surface to the projections on the dome, is it? We all share the same reference frame and can agree on time/space dimensions within the boundaries of the dome and the earth's surface, correct?
This is my problem. I get the notion of the spotlight sun rotating and how that is projected above us to present a sun that circles above the earth. But it ultimately has the same geometry problems of the TFES "orthodox" flat earth model in that it doesn't present a sun (or moon) that I can watch and compare with others, or that's been modeled and patterned for years, including reliable tools like TimeandDate, Stellarium, etc. I've never caught any of these in a mistake.
How a celestial body many miles above a flat earth can ever decline to a 0 degree elevation within the confines of the distances of that flat earth is beyond me, and "distance" due to perspective doesn't work as an explanation. You'd need millions (oops; exaggeration) hundreds of thousands of miles of distance to work the sun down to an angular elevation of 1°. It can't reach the "vanishing point" on a horizon without some other "bendy light" kind of explanation.
And if the sun IS at 20-30° above the horizon, but it's just out of view because it's spot light has rotated away, its projection should still be angled in a such a way that I should be able to see it in the distance, with enough magnification and assuming no extinction, diffusion or opaqueness in the atmoplane.
I think the numbers are critical to testing the model, else you're just making assertions that unverifiable. It makes no sense to me that the rotation of a spot light sun is simultaneously the reason for the sun appearing to set behind a horizon line AND for the light pattern of the spot to pass away from a vantage point. Those two aspects do not coincide logically to me, nor if I try to visualize it in a model.
-
Too many things are off. Is it the map? Is it the distances provided by Google?
...
Am I missing something about DET that makes straight line paths for space on/above the hemiplane or Euclidean geometry for calculating angles and distance flawed? I apprehend (if not comprehend) that's there's a flow of space (aether) occuring, but it's not impacting our ability to measure and observe from locations on the earth's surface to the projections on the dome, is it? We all share the same reference frame and can agree on time/space dimensions within the boundaries of the dome and the earth's surface, correct?
Primarily these. As you said, it doesn't really respond to the post I made, my answers are there.
I think the numbers are critical to testing the model, else you're just making assertions that unverifiable.
Yes, numbers help, but I can only provide what it is physically possible for me to determine. It doesn't matter what the ideal situation would be; you have the same resources as me most likely, how would you suggest they be calculated? It's pointless to ask for things that there is no possible way for one person with one person's resources to provide.
It makes no sense to me that the rotation of a spot light sun is simultaneously the reason for the sun appearing to set behind a horizon line AND for the light pattern of the spot to pass away from a vantage point. Those two aspects do not coincide logically to me, nor if I try to visualize it in a model.
Again, best explanation I have in my last post, I can't help until I know what your issue is.
My best guess is that you're too focused on making it analogous with the uniplanar FE model's view of the Sun, and viewing the Sun as basically identical to that. Instead, look at the aspect unique to DET, as I went over back then think of how that would look. An arc across the sky, being cut off at each side. Think about that, don't think of it as the uniplanar FET's Sun circling over a disc. It isn't that.
-
It might be easier to think of this from the perspective of the inside of the Earth. Two dimensions are easier to imagine than three, and that's basically where the projection comes from. You've got a circle, and in the middle the same spotlight rotating on the spot. Bearing in mind the shape of the lit face, think of how that is going to look from any point on the rim of that circle.
Moving until the light is visible, peering out from behind the unlit face, then the lit circle going across your field of view, until it's cut off at the far side again, and when it's cut off it vanishes as it rose.
Obviously not a perfect way to see it because you've got to translate that to above, but hopefully it gives an idea of where it all comes from, especially bearing in mind what the sectors of a circle represent for the flat Earth.
The only reason I 'resist' numbers is because they're speculation, you deserve better than what is going to be little more than guesswork with the resources I have. Numbers give you a lot of work with no real meaning, precisely because I can't give them with any degree of certainty.
Doing as you say, without regard to the impact of perspective on perceived size with increasing distance, and without the 3rd dimension of elevation of the projection above the hemiplane, this is what I see/model for a lit circle with slightly more than 180° of illumination:
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/295bu39.jpg)
Is this what you mean?
Edit to add:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/34znn9t.jpg)
-
But that's if I'm looking directly at the light from the perimeter of the circle. That's not what you're describing with DET. Rather, I'm somewhere inside the circle looking toward the perimeter at a projection, like this:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/8cpce4neas2wo5sXt3/giphy.gif)
From a "mid latitude" vantage point, the projection never rotates more than 30° oblique. The sun would never be 'cut off' simply by the rotation as long as I have a direct, unobstructed view toward it. But even here, the sun wouldn't retain it's round, circular shape as the angle of obliqueness to the projection changes. It would become oblong.
This is all, of course, just imagining a view under the hemiplane disc before considering the 3rd dimension, aether flow and how the light translates to a dome projection above and is viewed from some point on top of the hemiplane. But by the time you get to that process, any 'cutting off' due to rotation is done. Ony then do you get into how high on the dome the light is being projected, distance impacts on angular size and perceived elevation due to distance (perspective) from the equivalent vantage point on top of the dome, and any downward bending of the subsequent light path due to downward space/aether flow.
But I cannot model or visualize what you mean about how the rotation of the spotlight sun is responsible for the cutting off the sun like we see at sun set, or why that also coincides necessarily with distance corresponding to a horizon.
-
i can't keep doing this. There is no other way for me to explain it, and you're repeating yourself but you are either deliberately misrepresenting me, or just not understanding, and you repeating your claims isn't helping me clarify.
The cutting off comes from basically the same mechanic as the moon's phases, that is all the observation from within the Earth was meant to illustrate, as well as the correllation with distance. it's when we move beyond that cutting off to you rother objections that the rest of what i've said should be applied.
-
i can't keep doing this. There is no other way for me to explain it, and you're repeating yourself but you are either deliberately misrepresenting me, or just not understanding, and you repeating your claims isn't helping me clarify.
The cutting off comes from basically the same mechanic as the moon's phases, that is all the observation from within the Earth was meant to illustrate, as well as the correllation with distance. it's when we move beyond that cutting off to you rother objections that the rest of what i've said should be applied.
I spent quite some time developing illustrations based on and interpreting what you say you are trying to clarify. I'm not merely repeating myself. I'm truly not understanding.
I don't see how the "mechanic" you describe can possibly work to achieve either the moon phases, or the cutting off of the sun or moon at the horizon. I've taken up the moon phase issue in another discussion topic. I'm focusing here on night/day spotlight sun pattern and the APPARENT eclipsing of the sun at sunrise and sunset. I think I'm a a pretty clever person with a flexible mind, and I like alternate, non-orthodox concepts. I'm not being emotionally antagonistic toward DET. I'm just not getting it, and apparently not able to get across to you why I think your described mechanism doesn't achieve the phenomena to which you attribute it.
Modify or correct my illustrations if they are wrong or misrepresenting what you are trying to convey.
Or, if it's all just too frustrating or aggravating, ignore me and I'll move on from trying to fathom how the DET model works.
-
I think I'm a a pretty clever person with a flexible mind, and I like alternate, non-orthodox concepts. I'm not being emotionally antagonistic toward DET. I'm just not getting it, and apparently not able to get across to you why I think your described mechanism doesn't achieve the phenomena to which you attribute it.
I'm aware of that, I do enjoy discussions like this, it's just that evidently my explanations aren't good enough. I just saw that other thread, I'll focus on that, and hopefully it'll click if you come at the problem from a different angle.
The obvious thing to point out with the illustrations is that you've reverted to modelling a 2-D circle when we already established that the lit face does have an arc to it.
-
The obvious thing to point out with the illustrations is that you've reverted to modelling a 2-D circle when we already established that the lit face does have an arc to it.
I was following your suggestion:
It might be easier to think of this from the perspective of the inside of the Earth. Two dimensions are easier to imagine than three, and that's basically where the projection comes from. You've got a circle, and in the middle the same spotlight rotating on the spot. Bearing in mind the shape of the lit face, think of how that is going to look from any point on the rim of that circle.
Moving until the light is visible, peering out from behind the unlit face, then the lit circle going across your field of view, until it's cut off at the far side again, and when it's cut off it vanishes as it rose.
Obviously not a perfect way to see it because you've got to translate that to above, but hopefully it gives an idea of where it all comes from, especially bearing in mind what the sectors of a circle represent for the flat Earth.
The only reason I 'resist' numbers is because they're speculation, you deserve better than what is going to be little more than guesswork with the resources I have. Numbers give you a lot of work with no real meaning, precisely because I can't give them with any degree of certainty.
The 3 illustrations I created, especially the animated one, were intended to portray that.
1. Apparent shape of the spotlight (http://oi63.tinypic.com/295bu39.jpg) if looking directly at it rotate
2. Apparent shape in relationship to varying perspective (http://oi67.tinypic.com/34znn9t.jpg) on the perimeter looking at the spotlight (vantage point moving vice spotlight rotating)
3. Perspective from within the circle (https://media.giphy.com/media/8cpce4neas2wo5sXt3/giphy.gif) following the projected spotlight pattern around the circle
These intentionally ignored the mechanism that translates the spotlight projection to above the hemiplane and what happens then, including arc.
Your response was:
The cutting off comes from basically the same mechanic as the moon's phases, that is all the observation from within the Earth was meant to illustrate, as well as the correllation with distance. it's when we move beyond that cutting off to you rother objections that the rest of what i've said should be applied.
But where's the "cutting off"? It doesn't happen if I'm inside the circle watching the spotlight projection go around the circle. It does happen if I'm looking directly at the spotlight, but it becomes squashes and oblong vertically, not an orb that gets cut horizontally like a sunset.
I've modeled what you've described and I can't illustrate why the sun (or moon) should look the way they do at sunrise/sunset as a result of that mechanism.
But okay. Let's you and I table this and follow-up with the moon discussion topic, since it's basically the same problem (although in DET the moon orbiting of the sun adds an additional mechanical element). The moon is easier to examine since it isn't as bright and has distinctive features we can mark.
-
Let's you and I table this and follow-up with the moon discussion topic, since it's basically the same problem (although in DET the moon orbiting of the sun adds an additional mechanical element). The moon is easier to examine since it isn't as bright and has distinctive features we can mark.
I forgot that before I suggested we table this discussion, JRowe, I had drawn up this graphic to further my point in interpreting your DET model:
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/6rljc0.jpg)
Toward the end of July, the sun's sub-solar spot when 12 hours away from a San Diego solar noon was over the north Arabian Sea, approximately 8800 miles from San Diego.
At that point, the DET spotlight sun would have been pointing 180° away from San Diego, and its light carried by the aether up around the edge of the north hemiplane and back down to create a projection of that spotlight sun above the Arabian Sea sub-solar point. The spotlight pattern between day and night on the earth would reach a little over the north pole with the pattern terminator n northern Canada.
Using "distance" as an explanation for why, despite it being night in San Diego, one couldn't find the sun in the night sky, akin to a star or planet, isn't sufficient. "Perspective" does diminish height with distance, but at 8800 miles of distance, a 3000 mile high sun would only appear 18.8° above the horizon -- not at the horizon (without some other influencing factor). To drop to 1°, the sun would have to be 153 miles above the sub solar point.
"Space isn't constant" says DET, suggesting that there is some additional factor beyond "distance." The only clue I can find in the DET write up is that aether/space continues to influence light to bend downward so any light emanating from the sun at the spotlight edges not traveling perpendicular to the earth will gradually bend downward until perpendicular, and it is this characteristic that creates the boundary between day/night and not merely "distance" and perspective. This is basically a reverse-"bendy light" explanation, compared to the upward curve of light in the Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory (EAT).
Without light bending, the distant sun would be visible with a telescope in the DET model. The rotation of the spotlight can't, by itself, explain either the sun intersecting the horizon at sunset/rise or the demarcation between night and day on the surface of the flat earth (nor other features of the sun like its constant angular width between sunrise/sunset or the elevation angles as it arcs across ones' local sky).