The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet on February 09, 2016, 05:25:42 PM
-
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma
In astronomy, an analemma is a diagram showing the deviation of the Sun from its mean motion in the sky, as viewed from a fixed location on the Earth. Due to the Earth's axial tilt and orbital eccentricity, the Sun will not be in the same position in the sky at the same time every day. The north–south component of the analemma is the Sun's declination, and the east–west component is the equation of time. This diagram has the form of a slender figure-eight, and can often be found on globes of the Earth.
What's the explanation for analemma if the Earth is flat?
-
As the sun circles above the flat-earth, it moves closer or further from the North Pole depending on the time of year.
-
As the sun circles above the flat-earth, it moves closer or further from the North Pole depending on the time of year.
That explains the 8 shaped figure, but it's not equal shaped because the Sun is closest and fastst at January and furthest and slowest July.
Still needs explanation for the perihelion aphelion.
-
Why do you assume the speed of the sun is constant? If that were true then winter in the "northern hemisphere" would have longer days than summer.
-
As the sun circles above the flat-earth, it moves closer or further from the North Pole depending on the time of year.
That doesn't explain the analemma's figure-eight shape at all, nor the varying speed of the sun's declination throughout the year which gives the analemma it's asymmetrical shape. The analemma is caused by the difference between apparent solar time and mean solar time. There is no explanation for this on a flat earth, however the tilt of the earth and it's eccentric orbit around the sun account for it perfectly.
-
Why do you assume the speed of the sun is constant? If that were true then winter in the "northern hemisphere" would have longer days than summer.
No, i know for a fact it doesn't and no model of flat Earth i knew attempts to explain motion of the Sun at perihelion and aphelion.
-
Why do you assume the speed of the sun is constant? If that were true then winter in the "northern hemisphere" would have longer days than summer.
How would the sun change speed in space? its a vacuum, there is nothing there to change the sun's speed. And how is it that the sun changes position above the Earth? Does it have some sort of little rocket engines to push it where it needs to go?
-
its a vacuum, there is nothing there to change the sun's speed.
Because gravitation can't change an object's speed or exist in a vacuum, by your claim.
-
its a vacuum, there is nothing there to change the sun's speed.
Because gravitation can't change an object's speed or exist in a vacuum, by your claim.
Your FAQ page states that gravity doesnt exist/is extremely weaker than it is taught. There is something wrong in here.
-
Your FAQ page states that gravity doesnt exist/is extremely weaker than it is taught. There is something wrong in here.
Gravity doesn't exist. However, that is irrelevant.
-
Your FAQ page states that gravity doesnt exist/is extremely weaker than it is taught. There is something wrong in here.
Gravity doesn't exist. However, that is irrelevant.
No its not, its completely relevant, because you were just sarcastic on your last post saying that gravity cant affect the movement of an object in space, and then you say that gravity doesn't exist, so how is it that the sun moves? Tell me, how does it move?
-
your last post saying that gravity cant affect the movement of an object in space
I never said that.
-
Because gravitation can't change an object's speed or exist in a vacuum, by your claim.
Yes you did, its right here. Dont deny it
-
Because gravitation can't change an object's speed or exist in a vacuum, by your claim.
Yes you did, its right here. Dont deny it
I don't see gravity mentioned anywhere in that post, friend.
-
Because gravitation can't change an object's speed or exist in a vacuum, by your claim.
Yes you did, its right here. Dont deny it
I don't see gravity mentioned anywhere in that post, friend.
You mentioned gravitation, an effect caused by gravity, so yes, you did in some sense mention gravity
-
gravitation, an effect caused by gravity
False.
-
gravitation, an effect caused by gravity
False.
Definition of gravitation #1 (source: Google): movement, or a tendency to move, toward a center of attractive force, as in the falling of bodies to the earth.
Definition of gravitation #2 (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gravitation): the force of attraction between any two masses.
Definition of gravitation #3 (source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gravitation): a force manifested by acceleration toward each other of two free material particles[...]
Theres three definitions of gravitation, all say that it is caused by a force of attraction. What else could that attractive force be in space that could manipulate the sun's movement, other than gravity?
-
What else could that attractive force be in space that could manipulate the sun's movement, other than gravity?
This statement is simply a non sequitur.
-
What else could that attractive force be in space that could manipulate the sun's movement, other than gravity?
This statement is simply a non sequitur.
you didnt answer my question. It isnt a statement, and it clearly does relate to the argument and follows the argument logically, so please answer my question and dont deviate the subject. What is that other force that causes gravitation to affect the movement of the sun? If you can answer it, then ask someone else, like tom bishop, to give an answer, because you have not been competent with me when I ask you a question, you simply try to deviate the subject as you are doing now
-
What else could that attractive force be in space that could manipulate the sun's movement, other than gravity?
This statement is simply a non sequitur.
you didnt answer my question. It isnt a statement, and it clearly does relate to the argument and follows the argument logically, so please answer my question and dont deviate the subject. What is that other force that causes gravitation to affect the movement of the sun? If you can answer it, then ask someone else, like tom bishop, to give an answer, because you have not been competent with me when I ask you a question, you simply try to deviate the subject as you are doing now
It is still a non sequitur. No one is deviating from the subject except you, bringing up unrelated conjecture and mentioning Tom Bishop. You saying someone hasn't been competent is quite hilarious, given that you don't even understand the law of conservation of energy.
-
What else could that attractive force be in space that could manipulate the sun's movement, other than gravity?
This statement is simply a non sequitur.
you didnt answer my question. It isnt a statement, and it clearly does relate to the argument and follows the argument logically, so please answer my question and dont deviate the subject. What is that other force that causes gravitation to affect the movement of the sun? If you can answer it, then ask someone else, like tom bishop, to give an answer, because you have not been competent with me when I ask you a question, you simply try to deviate the subject as you are doing now
It is still a non sequitur. No one is deviating from the subject except you, bringing up unrelated conjecture and mentioning Tom Bishop. You saying someone hasn't been competent is quite hilarious, given that you don't even understand the law of conservation of energy.
How am I the one deviating from the subject? We were talking about gravitation, a side-subject you started in the post where you were sarcastic about it not being able to affect movement in a vacuum. Now you bring up the law of conservation of energy, a topic from a completely different thread, something that wasnt even mentioned here. Yes I did not know about it before, but that is beside the point. Your statement about the law of conservation of energy was a non sequitur, while my previous statement was not, it stayed on the topic of gravitation. As for Tom Bishop, I brought that up because you clearly dont seem capable of answering this question, so since he claims to have debated it all in his "Ask Tom Bishop" thread, I wanted to know if he could answer my question, since you cant. Not knowing about the law of conservation of energy does not make me incompetent, it simply make me a person who can widen their understanding about certain things. Incompetent is what you are being, someone who is asked to answer a question, but just deviates the subject for reason i do not know. If you are going to say that it is hilarious that I am saying you are being incompetent, by all means, do so, but answer the question, or else you will be no different than me.
-
Having some trouble answering the question? Dont worry junker, take your time, because I have lots of it. I would just like a reply
-
Having some trouble answering the question? Dont worry junker, take your time, because I have lots of it. I would just like a reply
Hello, please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. No one owes you a reply to anything. I haven't answered because I don't even know what you are asking anymore as you have gone off on too many tangents.
-
Having some trouble answering the question? Dont worry junker, take your time, because I have lots of it. I would just like a reply
Hello, please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. No one owes you a reply to anything. I haven't answered because I don't even know what you are asking anymore as you have gone off on too many tangents.
Seems like you are having difficulty going to the first page and reading my first post. Please consult an expert if you continue having difficulty clicking a button. Im not saying you owe me anything, I just want an answer, because you have not given me one yet. The question is: "What else could that attractive force be in space that could manipulate the sun's movement, other than gravity?"
-
Everyone is saying the sun moves... I thought the whole point of heliocentricism was that the sun DOESN'T move, its the Earth that does.
-
Everyone is saying the sun moves...
No, only one side says that. The RE participants in the conversation are merely omitting to say "We don't believe the sun moves, but since you do believe it, explain X in light of that" because A) it should be understood and B) back and forth conersation does not flow well if each participant has to state their background and premise before each follow-on statement.
-
You seem to have misconception about the Sun's movement.
First, all movement is relative so different observers from different location will see the Sun have different movement.
From the Galactic center, the Sun is orbiting the galaxy at the speed of 220 km/s moving towards the direction of the star Vega.
From the ground, the Sun appears to circle around Earth every 24 hours with each new day, it doesn't appear to be in the same position at the same hour.
From a stationary observer at the ecliptic pole, the Sun appears to move around background star appearing in a similar location every 365.2536 days.
From a rotating observer (period 1 year) at the ecliptic pole, the Sun would wobble slightly, be larger at January and smaller at July.
-
Adding something relevant to the subject, the Moon have an analemma too
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050713.html
Showing it's elliptical orbit and inclination to the Equator