I know some people down under. We are people here. We could set up an experiment where those there and here record a timelapse of the rising or setting sun at the same time.
Compare angles.
And if anyone can come up with an FET reason as to why there's a left/right angle, I'd be super interested as to how that works.
I know some people down under. We are people here. We could set up an experiment where those there and here record a timelapse of the rising or setting sun at the same time.
Compare angles.
And if anyone can come up with an FET reason as to why there's a left/right angle, I'd be super interested as to how that works.
The expected angles of descent for the next sunsets as viewed from San Diego in the US and Perth in Western Australia:
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/mhzyv9.jpg)
This is explicable in the globe earth model.
The image, as I am using it here, is assuming two observers on the equator. At 45 N and 45 S, the circle that the earth turns on is smaller than the equator, and it will be less... about ~1 degree instead of ~2 degrees.
Updated Image, Top-Down View:
(https://i.imgur.com/XCcKkyp.png)
Using the above method on the Diameter of the Moon's Orbit and the Diameter of the Earth, to compute the difference in viewing angle for the Sun is even worse:
Earth Diameter: 7917.5 mi
Diameter of Moon Orbit: 238,900 x 2 = 477,800 mi
Distance from Earth to Sun: 92,900,000 mi
Circumference of Earth to Sun Radius: 2 * pi * 92,900,000 = 583,707,915.037
583,707,915.037 / 360 = 1621410.8751 mi per degree
(Moon Orbit Diameter) 477,800 mi / 1621410.8751 = 0.29468 Degrees Max
(Earth Diameter) 7917.5 / 1621410.8751 = 0.00488 Degrees Max
I know some people down under. We are people here. We could set up an experiment where those there and here record a timelapse of the rising or setting sun at the same time.
Compare angles.
And if anyone can come up with an FET reason as to why there's a left/right angle, I'd be super interested as to how that works.
The expected angles of descent for the next sunsets as viewed from San Diego in the US and Perth in Western Australia:
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/mhzyv9.jpg)
This is explicable in the globe earth model.
That's a pretty big difference in position and setting, for two people looking at the same sun. Please justify why that difference should be so much in the Round Earth model. Here I show that both the moon and sun are barely displaced to observers on far off points on earth, due to the large distances as imagined by the Round Earth Theory.Quote from: Tom BishopThe image, as I am using it here, is assuming two observers on the equator. At 45 N and 45 S, the circle that the earth turns on is smaller than the equator, and it will be less... about ~1 degree instead of ~2 degrees.
Updated Image, Top-Down View:
(https://i.imgur.com/XCcKkyp.png)
Using the above method on the Diameter of the Moon's Orbit and the Diameter of the Earth, to compute the difference in viewing angle for the Sun is even worse:
Earth Diameter: 7917.5 mi
Diameter of Moon Orbit: 238,900 x 2 = 477,800 mi
Distance from Earth to Sun: 92,900,000 mi
Circumference of Earth to Sun Radius: 2 * pi * 92,900,000 = 583,707,915.037
583,707,915.037 / 360 = 1621410.8751 mi per degree
(Moon Orbit Diameter) 477,800 mi / 1621410.8751 = 0.29468 Degrees Max
(Earth Diameter) 7917.5 / 1621410.8751 = 0.00488 Degrees Max
Mr. Bishop, you are pulling from Sandokhans war chest for making an argument looks like. Your numbers have no accounting for the tilt of the earth nor the orientation of the planet in its orbit around the Sun.
QuoteMr. Bishop, you are pulling from Sandokhans war chest for making an argument looks like. Your numbers have no accounting for the tilt of the earth nor the orientation of the planet in its orbit around the Sun.
Bobby posted what two observers see from the US and Australia at the same time. My examples have observers at the maximum possible distance on earth, and the displacement of the sun's angle is "0.00488 Degrees Max"
What does the tilt of the earth have anything to do with it? The same would apply if the earth were rested on its side or upside-down.
Show how it is wrong, or show your own math, rather than baseless dismissal.
Bobby posted what two observers see from the US and Australia at the same time.
Bobby posted what two observers see from the US and Australia at the same time.
Not at the same time. The sunsets are the same day but a little over 12 hours apart. Longitude isn't the point. Latitude is. Substitute Hong Kong for San Diego if you feel "same time" is important. Hong Kong sunset and Perth sunset exhibit same difference in angle of descent characteristic.
I understand why that is if the earth is a globe. I know of no explanation for how that can work with a sun circuiting overhead a flat earth. Is there one?
With your example of Hong Kong and Perth on the same latitude line the same is seen, as you assert.
With your example of Hong Kong and Perth on the same latitude line the same is seen, as you assert.
*whispers* longitude
I was going off of Bobby's "Longitude isn't the point. Latitude is." It doesn't matter. Rather than pointing out trivialities, how about addressing the substance of the issue?
You understand how it works in RET? Well, as we can see above in my previous posts, I do not understand how this works with the RET Earth-Sun system. I am hoping that you will be able to explain it to me.
Once we discover its cause, which is most assuredly known in RET's astronomical masterpiece, we can then see how that mechanism might apply to other world models.
WHY would the Sun go a different direction? That is easy. The person in the Southern Hemisphere is “upside down” comparatively. If you are upside down looking at the same object, the object looks different. If you had a screen, and the left side of it was blinking green, took a picture of it. That picture shows the left side green right? Now go upside down, take a picture, and the right side of the box is blinking green. Same thing with directions the sun is moving. If right side up you see an object tracking right, upside down it looks like it’s going left. It’s the same reason why the moon is “upside down” in the Southern Hemisphere.
Lunar Orientation
Q: Why does the orientation of the moon look the same to everyone one earth regardless of where they are?
A: It doesn't. The orientation varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
The lunar orientation varies depending on where you stand on a Round Earth as well. Here is the RET explanation for why the moon turns upside down when you stand on either side of it: http://web.archive.org/web/20070218184023/http://www.seed.slb.com/qa2/FAQView.cfm?ID=1137
WHY would the Sun go a different direction? That is easy. The person in the Southern Hemisphere is “upside down” comparatively. If you are upside down looking at the same object, the object looks different. If you had a screen, and the left side of it was blinking green, took a picture of it. That picture shows the left side green right? Now go upside down, take a picture, and the right side of the box is blinking green. Same thing with directions the sun is moving. If right side up you see an object tracking right, upside down it looks like it’s going left. It’s the same reason why the moon is “upside down” in the Southern Hemisphere.
The same upside-down difference can be said for FET. See this example of lunar orientation on FET vs RET:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon
globe earth has a simple answer for how one location can see the sun angle southward during sunset and another location see the sun angle northward.
If this can be resolved on a flat earth, I haven't figured out how or seen anyone else do so.
Is the bath of the baseball (line of latitude) straight? Or does it turn left or right?
That this is related to latitude number in any way is only because the latitudes were originally defined that way.
globe earth has a simple answer for how one location can see the sun angle southward during sunset and another location see the sun angle northward.
If this can be resolved on a flat earth, I haven't figured out how or seen anyone else do so.
The sun is south of you when you are north of it and north of your when you are south of it. Any perspective angle it sets at will be reversed.
Imagine an unrealistically strong baseball player throwing a baseball straight into his horizon. Being directly under the ball he sees it follow a straight path and fall straight down into the horizon.
To someone 200 feet to the left of him, looking into the distance, sees the ball come out from the right side of his view point, which drifts leftward, centered to his vanishing point, since perspective attempts to combine all receding bodies to a point in front of the observer.
To someone 200 to the right of the observer, vice versa.
That this is related to latitude number in any way is only because the latitudes were originally defined that way.
I think it would only drift leftward if the Earth was curved. On a FE, it should continue straight and keep the same azimuthal angle relative to the left-positioned person. Right?No, I think he's right. If earth is a flat plane and you are south of the sun's transit, as the sun loses elevation (somehow) it will also experience southerly or CCW bearing drift (albeit at a decelerating rate which would make the slope of that angled descent curved).
Imagine an unrealistically strong baseball player throwing a baseball straight into his horizon. Being directly under the ball he sees it follow a straight path and fall straight down into the horizon.
To someone 200 feet to the left of him, looking into the distance, sees the ball come out from the right side of his view point, which drifts leftward, centered to his vanishing point, since perspective attempts to combine all receding bodies to a point in front of the observer.
To someone 200 to the right of the observer, vice versa.
That this is related to latitude number in any way is only because the latitudes were originally defined that way.
I address the curve of the sun's path as follows:'Magic' is all I'm hearing here. But let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly.Quote from: Tom BishopImagine an unrealistically strong baseball player throwing a baseball straight into his horizon. Being directly under the ball he sees it follow a straight path and fall straight down into the horizon.
To someone 200 feet to the left of him, looking into the distance, sees the ball come out from the right side of his view point, which drifts leftward, centered to his vanishing point, since perspective attempts to combine all receding bodies to a point in front of the observer.
To someone 200 to the right of the observer, vice versa.
That this is related to latitude number in any way is only because the latitudes were originally defined that way.
Now consider the following:
If it is a windy day and the baseball is being pushed to the right, as it travels through the air and descends into the horizon, would the person 200 feet to the left of the baseball player still see the baseball come in from the right side of his viewpoint and attempt go to center?
Of course he would. Perspective attempts to bring all things to the observer's center.
If it is a windy day and the baseball is being pushed to the right, as it travels through the air and descends into the horizon, would the person 200 feet to the left of the baseball player still see the baseball come in from the right side of his viewpoint and attempt go to center?
Of course he would.
Perspective attempts to bring all things to the observer's center.But they're diverging away from center. From Perth's perspective, the sun is angling southward. From Hong Kong's perspective, it's angling northward.
That video was published on Feb 14, 2015, which is when it is summer for the Southern Hemiplane. The sun is traveling around the South Pole at that time. Looking Westwards, not only is the sun left of the equator, the sun is also curving around the South Pole.
That video was published on Feb 14, 2015, which is when it is summer for the Southern Hemiplane. The sun is traveling around the South Pole at that time. Looking Westwards, not only is the sun left of the equator, the sun is also curving around the South Pole.You're basing that on a bi-polar flat earth model. Fine. Let's check that.
In your illustration the horizontal difference of the end point between X and Y is a small difference far out in the distance to the observer, and only occupies a small amount of space, due to perspective. The same applies for the distance between Y and Z.What a delightful non-answer, that also provides zero evidence to support your statement. Yes/no the situation described using my image is what you are stating is true. I'm not interested in how accurate/inaccurate the distances are after perspective is factored in (we're talking about distances that will be significant when we're speaking of the sun though I would note). If yes, what is your evidence for claiming there would be no difference between each throw? Because I'm pretty sure if we place two ships at the horizon and put them 200 feet apart you could tell the difference between each ship at that point. So from where do you draw your evidence that the sun would be different when it also involves greater distances left/right as well.
Not to say that the difference between the two would be "exact" with all variables, but we are not talking about anything "exact" here, only an explanation for why the directions would flip with the position of the observer.
In your illustration the horizontal difference of the end point between X and Y is a small difference far out in the distance to the observer, and only occupies a small amount of space, due to perspective. The same applies for the distance between Y and Z.What a delightful non-answer, that also provides zero evidence to support your statement.
Not to say that the difference between the two would be "exact" with all variables, but we are not talking about anything "exact" here, only an explanation for why the directions would flip with the position of the observer.
Yes/no the situation described using my image is what you are stating is true.
If yes, what is your evidence for claiming there would be no difference between each throw?
That video was published on Feb 14, 2015, which is when it is summer for the Southern Hemiplane. The sun is traveling around the South Pole at that time. Looking Westwards, not only is the sun left of the equator, the sun is also curving around the South Pole.
Are you referring to the FE bi-pole sun 'figure 8' model? If so, where exactly was the sun on Feb 14, 2015 in this model?
If the sun is curving around the south pole, from this shot on 2/17/2015, I would expect a decidedly southern sunset from this vantage point in Liverpool. Where is the sun in the model you present on this day?The observed Liverpool sunset on 2/14/2015 was on an azimuth of 249° (and it's bearing drift was northerly).
I think it would only drift leftward if the Earth was curved. On a FE, it should continue straight and keep the same azimuthal angle relative to the left-positioned person. Right?No, I think he's right. If earth is a flat plane and you are south of the sun's transit, as the sun loses elevation (somehow) it will also experience southerly or CCW bearing drift (albeit at a decelerating rate which would make the slope of that angled descent curved).
The problem for that explanation on flat earth is that the sun's path over the earth, like the thrown baseball, is straight for that to work. But on every flat earth depiction I've seen so far, the sun's path is circular. Only on the proposed bi-polar map is the sun's path temporarily straight-ish, and then only near the equinoxes. As I said before, to work on a flat map, the sun's path must be continuous somehow and essentially a straight path along a line of latitude that doesn't curve. How do you do that on a flat surface without a GOTO command transporting the sun from west back to east like a space warp? As soon as you have to bend lines of latitude into circular or elliptical shapes, you defy this observable behavior of the sun. You'll need bending, reflecting or trickery of light to explain it. I can come up with no geometry that will solve the puzzle except for a globe.
The sun is traveling around the South Pole at that time.
Hoping Tom will identify where it fails.
I would point out that there is no bi-polar map. There is only a bi-polar model. Literally zero work has gone into creating one. That is just a sample that someone had found. The orientation of the continents is unknown.
I would point out that there is no bi-polar map. There is only a bi-polar model. Literally zero work has gone into creating one. That is just a sample that someone had found. The orientation of the continents is unknown.
Does North point towards the North pole?
Yes, it took me one glance at the picture: Look at the equator! How do you get from Ecuador to New Guinea on this "map"?
The same way you get from LA to Japan on the Monopole model: Travel Westwards.
In the Bi-Polar Model there are two poles. The magnetic field lines resemble something like the field lines of a bar magnet. Essentially something like this, but in three dimensions:
(https://i.imgur.com/Ex3thmV.gif)
The compass aligns itself with the field lines and adjusts itself when one travels Westwards or Eastwards in the Northern or Southern Hemiplane to go around either the North or South poles.
Since the magnetic field lines in magnets wrap around and interconnect, none traveling out into space in an unconnected fashion, traveling North or South at any point will also take you to either the North or South Pole.
'North' may be in a different direction than North, but will take you to the North Pole if you follow it.
I would point out that there is no bi-polar map. There is only a bi-polar model. Literally zero work has gone into creating one. That is just a sample that someone had found. The orientation of the continents and nature of the magnetic field lines is a matter yet to be studied.I realize that, but to assert that it is the solution means you must have some answers. It's a hallmark of zeteticism to observe and collect data to develop theory. You're trying to salvage a theory from speculation and dodge critique by citing the model's lack of substance.
'North' may be in a different direction than North, but will take you to the North Pole if you follow it.
Right then I suppose South will take you to the South Pole if you follow it. Then what is this direction?
(https://i.imgur.com/5j0RqEg.png)
When you're at the North Pole, every direction points South. But not this one. So what is it?
Magnetic Field Lines do not just travel off endlessly into nothing. They wrap around back to the opposite pole to exchange virtual photons.
Alternatively, when you go off the map in that model, you will hit an Ice Wall. Beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze.
If were to follow Southward it is entirely possible that you will hit an Ice Wall and assume that you are at Antarctica. If you continue following 'South' on the compass it will wrap and curve around along the edge of the map, across tens of thousands of miles of frozen tundra, until it crosses into water again and crosses an ocean to Antarctica and the South Pole.
One other possibility is that the magnetic field lines die off (curve away towards the South) before hitting an Ice Wall, and if you somehow get into an area beyond the field lines, you are left stranded to die without navigation.
If you were to follow Southward it is entirely possible that you will hit an Ice Wall and assume that you are at Antarctica. If you continue following 'South' on the compass it will wrap and curve around along the edge of the map, across tens of thousands of miles of frozen tundra, until it crosses into water again and crosses an ocean to Antarctica and the South Pole.
One other possibility is that the magnetic field lines die off (curve away towards the South) before hitting an Ice Wall, and if you somehow get into an area beyond the field lines, you are left stranded to die without navigation.
If you were to follow Southward it is entirely possible that you will hit an Ice Wall and assume that you are at Antarctica. If you continue following 'South' on the compass it will wrap and curve around along the edge of the map, across tens of thousands of miles of frozen tundra, until it crosses into water again and crosses an ocean to Antarctica and the South Pole.
One other possibility is that the magnetic field lines die off (curve away towards the South) before hitting an Ice Wall, and if you somehow get into an area beyond the field lines, you are left stranded to die without navigation.
This doesn't answer anything.
Look, I'm an airline pilot for EvilGlobe Airways, a company that thinks I can circumnavigate by following the Equator.
I take off in Ecuador to land in Indonesia, making sure that my latitude remains 0°. I set the autopilot to follow a straight line.
What happens to me at 180° longitude?
If were to follow Southward it is entirely possible that you will hit an Ice Wall and assume that you are at Antarctica. If you continue following 'South' on the compass it will wrap and curve around along the edge of the map, across tens of thousands of miles of frozen tundra, until it crosses into water again and crosses an ocean to Antarctica and the South Pole.
One other possibility is that the magnetic field lines die off (curve away towards the South) before hitting an Ice Wall, and if you somehow get into an area beyond the field lines, you are left stranded to die without navigation.
Much in the way of 'possibility'. Maps aside, for all intents and purposes, if there are many different bi-polar configurations to consider, unobserved ice walls, continent orientation is ambiguous, would it be fair to say that in FET, the sun's path is unknown?
At 180° longitude you may have have been shot out of the sky by a foreign military because you can't simply cross into foreign airspace as you please.
Many of these questions are merely theoretical. Planes fly on set routes.
If you were to follow Southward it is entirely possible that you will hit an Ice Wall and assume that you are at Antarctica. If you continue following 'South' on the compass it will wrap and curve around along the edge of the map, across tens of thousands of miles of frozen tundra, until it crosses into water again and crosses an ocean to Antarctica and the South Pole.
One other possibility is that the magnetic field lines die off (curve away towards the South) before hitting an Ice Wall, and if you somehow get into an area beyond the field lines, you are left stranded to die without navigation.
This doesn't answer anything.
Look, I'm an airline pilot for EvilGlobe Airways, a company that thinks I can circumnavigate by following the Equator.
I take off in Ecuador to land in Indonesia, making sure that my latitude remains 0°. I set the autopilot to follow a straight line.
What happens to me at 180° longitude?
At 180° longitude you may have have been shot out of the sky by a foreign military because you can't simply cross into foreign airspace as you please.
Many of these questions are merely theoretical. Planes fly on set routes.If were to follow Southward it is entirely possible that you will hit an Ice Wall and assume that you are at Antarctica. If you continue following 'South' on the compass it will wrap and curve around along the edge of the map, across tens of thousands of miles of frozen tundra, until it crosses into water again and crosses an ocean to Antarctica and the South Pole.
One other possibility is that the magnetic field lines die off (curve away towards the South) before hitting an Ice Wall, and if you somehow get into an area beyond the field lines, you are left stranded to die without navigation.
Much in the way of 'possibility'. Maps aside, for all intents and purposes, if there are many different bi-polar configurations to consider, unobserved ice walls, continent orientation is ambiguous, would it be fair to say that in FET, the sun's path is unknown?
Much about these details are unknown. We do not have the funding to study the matter and rely solely on visitor contributions.
Many of these questions are merely theoretical.
Much about these details are unknown. We do not have the funding to study the matter and rely solely on visitor contributions.
But some "of these questions are" far from being "merely theoretical". From what you claim they might even be life or death decisions.
Look, I'm an airline pilot for EvilGlobe Airways, a company that thinks I can circumnavigate by following the Equator.
I take off in Ecuador to land in Indonesia, making sure that my latitude remains 0°. I set the autopilot to follow a straight line.
What happens to me at 180° longitude?
At 180° longitude you may have have been shot out of the sky by a foreign military because you can't simply cross into foreign airspace as you please.
Many of these questions are merely theoretical. Planes fly on set routes.
These seems to the only options in a flight drom Hololulu to Brisbane on this map
Quote from: RabinozThese seems to the only options in a flight drom Hololulu to Brisbane on this map
What map? No one has studied the matter.
You will need to study every possible continental combination, and address every possibility from jet streams to magnetic declination, to provide a valid assessment.
Quote from: RabinozThese seems to the only options in a flight drom Hololulu to Brisbane on this map
What map? No one has studied the matter.
You will need to study every possible continental combination, and address every possibility from jet streams to magnetic declination, to provide a valid assessment.
Therein lies the crux of the matter. Those flights exist. I myself flew back and forth from Los Angeles to Melbourne twice this year over the Pacific. We never flew over land. The flight lasted 14 hours heading SW and returning NE. I know we were flying those directions as we were chasing the setting sun and then nearing Australia with the rising sun chasing us. That map is impossible, indefensible, it has more problems then the other flat earth maps. You still have never had an answer for the path of moon and sun or how a near moon and sun have the same phases for the entire world to see. How does the sun travel twice as far along the Tropic of Capricorn then Tropic of Cancer yet its velocity remains the same? How does the verifiable ISS or whatever it is fly above us at incredible verifiable speeds in its serpentine path only possible on a globe? The issues of the stars above us are even less explained on the bipolar map as the latitudes on the bipolar map don’t work with star navigation. The list goes on and on. At some point, blind faith to Rowbotham’s book isn’t enough and your flat earth has to answer real world observations.
Quote from: RabinozThese seems to the only options in a flight drom Hololulu to Brisbane on this map
What map? No one has studied the matter.
You will need to study every possible continental combination, and address every possibility from jet streams to magnetic declination, to provide a valid assessment.
Therein lies the crux of the matter. Those flights exist. I myself flew back and forth from Los Angeles to Melbourne twice this year over the Pacific. We never flew over land. The flight lasted 14 hours heading SW and returning NE. I know we were flying those directions as we were chasing the setting sun and then nearing Australia with the rising sun chasing us. That map is impossible, indefensible, it has more problems then the other flat earth maps. You still have never had an answer for the path of moon and sun or how a near moon and sun have the same phases for the entire world to see. How does the sun travel twice as far along the Tropic of Capricorn then Tropic of Cancer yet its velocity remains the same? How does the verifiable ISS or whatever it is fly above us at incredible verifiable speeds in its serpentine path only possible on a globe? The issues of the stars above us are even less explained on the bipolar map as the latitudes on the bipolar map don’t work with star navigation. The list goes on and on. At some point, blind faith to Rowbotham’s book isn’t enough and your flat earth has to answer real world observations.
What map are you talking about? There is no bipolar map. There is a bipolar model. No map has been studied. Until you have assessed every single possibility you have not successfully criticized anything.
What map are you talking about? There is no bipolar map. There is a bipolar model. No map has been studied. Until you have assessed every single possibility you have not successfully criticized anything.Well, that's obviously nonsense.
What do you mean with "No one has studied the matter"?Quote from: RabinozThese seem to the only options in a flight from Honolulu to Brisbane on this map.
What map? No one has studied the matter.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png) The Bi-polar Model reflects the work of many Zeteticists who diverged from Rowbotham's work | (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/7b/Sandokhan_map.png/900px-Sandokhan_map.png) Preferred variant of the Bi-polar map of Flat Earth proponent sandokhan |
You will need to study every possible continental combination, and address every possibility from jet streams to magnetic declination, to provide a valid assessment.Why would I "need to study every possible continental combination, and address every possibility from jet streams to magnetic declination, to provide a valid assessment"?
What map are you talking about? There is no bipolar map. There is a bipolar model. No map has been studied. Until you have assessed every single possibility you have not successfully criticized anything.
What do you mean with "No one has studied the matter"?Quote from: RabinozThese seem to the only options in a flight from Honolulu to Brisbane on this map.
What map? No one has studied the matter.
Aircraft flights across the Pacific Ocean are very commonplace yet "No one has studied the matter" of how these might fit with your suggested continental layouts. That seems a serious deficiency.
But you ask "What map?" Your map! The one that you have so often claimed as the official continental layout of the Zetetic Society.
The Zetetic societies had a Bi-Polar model. If you read the literature it is illustrated as two circles sitting on top of each other. There is no map.
I have made sure to specify "model," not "map".
... when it is summer for the Southern Hemiplane. The sun is traveling around the South Pole at that time. Looking Westwards, not only is the sun left of the equator, the sun is also curving around the South Pole.
There is no bipolar map. There is a bipolar model.
The Zetetic societies had a Bi-Polar model. If you read the literature it is illustrated as two circles sitting on top of each other. There is no map.
I have made sure to specify "model," not "map".
Edit: I think I found it. On pg 30 of "The Sea-Earth Globe" by Zetetes (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Sea-Earth%20Globe,%20The%20(Zetetes).pdf)
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/8xsvn5.jpg)
Edit: I think I found it. On pg 30 of "The Sea-Earth Globe" by Zetetes (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Sea-Earth%20Globe,%20The%20(Zetetes).pdf)
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/8xsvn5.jpg)
The dome on that thing would have an interesting shape ::)
A model near enough to defines the continental layout or at least severely constrains it.What do you mean with "No one has studied the matter"?Quote from: RabinozThese seem to the only options in a flight from Honolulu to Brisbane on this map.
What map? No one has studied the matter.
Aircraft flights across the Pacific Ocean are very commonplace yet "No one has studied the matter" of how these might fit with your suggested continental layouts. That seems a serious deficiency.
But you ask "What map?" Your map! The one that you have so often claimed as the official continental layout of the Zetetic Society.
The Zetetic societies had a Bi-Polar model. If you read the literature it is illustrated as two circles sitting on top of each other. There is no map.
I have made sure to specify "model," not "map".
I found it. On pg 30 of "The Sea-Earth Globe" by Zetetes (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Sea-Earth%20Globe,%20The%20(Zetetes).pdf)Once you've gone that far you have to have a boundary (Ice-Wall or whatever) around part of the earth.
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/8xsvn5.jpg)
The dome on that thing would have an interesting shape ::)
Will it have anything to do with explaining the rise/descent angles of the sun?Of course. wave principle appears as phenomena, like sun and moon, etc.
I ask because I don't understand the connection of your previous video posted above to the topic at hand.
Of course. wave principle appears as phenomena, like sun and moon, etc.
Angles of the sun is also.
I would point out that there is no bi-polar map. There is only a bi-polar model. Literally zero work has gone into creating one. That is just a sample that someone had found. The orientation of the continents and nature of the magnetic field lines is a matter yet to be studied.