The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: AATW on January 07, 2018, 06:27:47 PM
-
I hope this is the right place for this. I've looked through the Wiki about the sun in the FE model. I have the following questions.
What is the empirical evidence for the sun's size (32 miles in diameter) and height (3000 miles above the plane of the earth)? I see a page in the Wiki reinterpreting the data from Eratosthenes' stick experiment, there is a link on that page to an article from Millersville University which does the maths of that reinterpretation but that article concludes:
as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparent size of the sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work
If the sun really is only 3,000 miles above the earth then it should be fairly easy to prove that by measuring the angle of the sun at cities a couple of hundred miles apart and triangulating. The Wiki page actually notes this is a way to determine the distance to the sun. Has this been done? Can the evidence be provided if so?
What in the FE model powers the sun and keeps it shining? And if it is circling above the flat earth then what keeps it in the sky? Why doesn't it fall on us?
I see that seasons are explained by the circular motion changing so it is a tighter circle in summer and bigger circle in winter. What causes the sun to move between these orbits and what makes it speed up in winter and slow down in summer as it would have to as the circumference of the circle changes, otherwise the day / night cycle would change length
If the sun is a sphere then what causes the spotlight effect? The Wiki compares it to a lighthouse but in a lighthouse the light is focused by lenses. What focuses the light in the flat earth model and stops it shining over the whole earth?
It is stated that sunrise and sunset are an effect of perspective. How does that explain the effect of clouds lit from below as in this photo?
(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)
Perspective cannot explain that. For a shadow to be cast upwards the light source has to be PHYSICALLY below the object. I have provide some proof of that in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.160
Perspective also cannot make a distant object slowly sink below the horizon on a flat plane. I believe the claim in ENaG is that perspective only makes it appear as though an object is sunken into the horizon and magnification can make the object reappear but you can zoom into a sunset and still see the sun slowly sink below the horizon. If the sun is 3000 miles above the earth then that wouldn't happen. Maybe a scale model could be built and photos taken from the appropriate perspective to explain how this would work?
Thanks in advance.
-
Optics proves a tricky thing for FE theorists because it's so easy to just claim "distortion" or "perspective" or "fisheye lens" and dismiss the whole argument without budging from it. They'll claim that the atmosphere refracts the light upward not unlike how a mirage works. Of course, this is a load of garbage because mirages form under special conditions, none of which are present enough to cause the shadow effect.
There's a far easier debunk of the whole damn idea that the Sun is 32 miles in radius (if you're talking about diameter, it obviously gets worse). Doing a basic thermal energy calculation, one finds that the Sun at 32 miles in radius would run out of energy to give out in a cosmic heartbeat. The average kinetic energy of the gas particles in the Sun is capped by the highest temperature - 15 million K. This gives a value of about 3 x 10^-16 J per particle. Now one will quickly find that if gravity doesn't exist, how will the Sun hold itself together? Oh right, one of Tom Bishop's magical (and much weaker) "gravitation" forces. I'll be far more lenient and just assume that it holds itself together. We find that the proposed Sun has a volume of 5.58708453 × 10^14 liters. Now assuming that the proposed Sun has a density of 10 g / cm^3 (to give FE its best shot, we'll let the proposed Sun be denser than iron, although it can't reach this density). We find, then, that the proposed Sun has a mass of 5.58708453 × 10^15 kilograms. This yields 3.364621 × 10^42 hydrogen atoms floating about. So the proposed Sun has at most 1.0093863 x 10^27 J of thermal energy. Unfortunately, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (where we assume that the surface temperature of the proposed Sun is 5000 K), this Sun has to radiate about 1.18 x 10^18 W of power. This means that the proposed Sun would only last at most 1 billion seconds, which a massive... 31 years. Your Sun would be dead in 31 years if it didn't have some way of replenishing its energy. This obviously contradicts the evidence that people have been alive for much longer than that and have seen the Sun (even if you don't buy the Earth is 4 billion years old).
Now that that long and arduous calculation is over, let's talk about what it means. FE theorists now have three choices:
Choice 1: Nuclear fusion powers the Sun so the calculation above is invalid. (This is true, and I'll address this below.)
Choice 2: Stefan-Boltzmann is bullshit (no it isn't, test it), your math is wrong (how?), or I don't understand it (well, I'll explain it to you, but that doesn't make this invalid), or some unquantified variant of "distortion"
Choice 3: Some other magical form of dark energy / quantum woo that I really don't even understand <insert Casimir> / relativity / wormholes / chemical reaction makes the energy inside the Sun. Remember Tom in the Occam's Razor thread, saying how FE theory was simpler than RE theory (hint: with all of the patches, it isn't! Of course if you don't understand basic physics and math and are inclined to believe conspiracies...)? So let me get this straight. You've already invented 3 forces (UA, gravitation #1, gravitation #2) to justify what can obviously be seen as an inability to comprehend scale; spheres locally look flat. You've already proposed physically impossible stuff, like things orbiting in circles above a disk (do you even understand how orbits work?). You've given a map whose distances do not line up with real world travel (direct flights from Sydney to Johannesburg). You've even asserted that the measured distances between cities are inaccurate! And now you're going to make up a new way of generating energy out of seemingly nothing?
Choice 4: Write it in. It probably rejects a ton of tested science.
So the only reasonable choice is #1 (or maybe I made a mistake, but 31 years is pretty hard to get to 4 billion years just by correcting mistakes). But this doesn't work. Nuclear fusion cannot occur with a star that is only 32 miles wide; it would have to be about twice the size of Jupiter to have a chance. The pressures and resulting temperatures just wouldn't be enough. We have tested and verified that the conditions for nuclear fusion are as high as we believe they are. These are the fundamental principles behind thermonuclear weapons, and also behind much of the fusion research (and hobbyism) today. People have built homemade nuclear fusion machines. These have demonstrated that nuclear fusion requires high temperatures. As I've said a thousand times before, if the pressure of the "gravitation" (and Tom Bishop implies this is far weaker than normal gravity) of the proposed Sun were enough to initiate thermonuclear fusion, I could build weapons of mass destruction in my backyard with some high explosive and tap water. Sorry, FE theorists, but asserting the Sun is 32 miles in radius is living in fantasy-land.
-
Yes. That's why I asked what powers the sun in the flat earth model. It's too small for it to be fusion, so what is it?
Not surprised that there have been no flat earth responses, at some level I think they know that their model doesn't work but they never quite admit it.
-
I should also note that parallax measurements (essentially taking a bunch of angular measurements) was the principal way that the distance of 93 million miles was determined. Of course, FE people just deny those experiments.
-
As I mentioned on another thread, the motion of the sun in the sky is much simpler than the moon (moves between the Tropic of Capricorn and Cancer every 28 days) and the stars of the zodiac (moves between these tropics daily). The stars and moon are speeding up and slowing down in a much more elaborate fashion than the sun. As noted, a geocentric round earth is a lot easier to explain when looking at the sky than a flat earth requiring all the motions of the planets, stars, sun and moon to fly around the sky and disappear for 12 hours every day and reappear for 12 hours. How to explain the 24 hours of day light during the southern hemisphere summer?
-
I hope this is the right place for this. I've looked through the Wiki about the sun in the FE model. I have the following questions.
What is the empirical evidence for the sun's size (32 miles in diameter) and height (3000 miles above the plane of the earth)? I see a page in the Wiki reinterpreting the data from Eratosthenes' stick experiment, there is a link on that page to an article from Millersville University which does the maths of that reinterpretation but that article concludes:
as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparent size of the sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work
On this point the author apparently did not read Earth Not a Globe which explains why this occurs. We have a writeup in our Wiki: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
-
On this point the author apparently did not read Earth Not a Globe which explains why this occurs. We have a writeup in our Wiki: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
And, as usual, ENaG is wrong about this. Actually the sun (and moon) don't get any bigger or smaller as they set. It is merely an optical illusion.
Couple of sources:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Sun-appear-bigger-during-sunrise-and-sunset-than-at-noon
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate
And, as I said, there are other ways of verifying the distance of the sun by taking observations from a few points and triangulating. Has this been done?
Looking forward to a reply to the rest of my questions.
-
Since the sun is hard to look at, the moon is a much better thing to view throughout the night. Same size all the time. It would be difficult to get the magnification of air (if a thing actually existed) to exactly match the size change of the moon as it gets closer and farther as it circles a flat earth. Also more difficult for it to look to be the same size for people in the Arctic and southern Chile regardless of how much air it is being looked through. And since the moon is closer to the earth than the sun, the change should be even more pronounced so that this magical air magnification has to also work to keep objects different distances from the earth appear the same size and for it to not work on airplanes (airplanes on the horizon look very small compared to when they are overhead). And mountains look smaller when you see them on the horizon compared to when you travel a few hundred miles to get close to them. So as the moon and the sun travel around the earth, following paths between the two tropics, the air has to magnify them accordingly to keep them appearing to be constant sized to everyone everywhere.
People who drive at night do not head into the ditch when they see a car on the horizon thinking it is just as big as a car a few feet in front of them! It looks small and far away.
-
On this point the author apparently did not read Earth Not a Globe which explains why this occurs. We have a writeup in our Wiki: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
And, as usual, ENaG is wrong about this. Actually the sun (and moon) don't get any bigger or smaller as they set. It is merely an optical illusion.
Couple of sources:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Sun-appear-bigger-during-sunrise-and-sunset-than-at-noon
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate
And, as I said, there are other ways of verifying the distance of the sun by taking observations from a few points and triangulating. Has this been done?
Looking forward to a reply to the rest of my questions.
The sun maintains its size through the day according to the description in our Wiki. The shrinking due to perspective is countered by the enlarging upon the atmoplane, causing its size to be consistent.
The Wiki isn't saying that the sun enlarges to be any bigger than it normally is.
-
The sun maintains its size through the day according to the description in our Wiki. The shrinking due to perspective is countered by the enlarging upon the atmoplane, causing its size to be consistent.
I see. Implausible, but possible I suppose.
Atmoplane made me laugh. As a plane is 2D may I suggest "atmodome"?
Lots of questions in my original post still not answered, I look forward to the answers.
-
I have to disagree about the size of the sun. Chapter X of the 2015 edition of ENaG I referenced in other threads is clearly titled "Cause of Sun Appearing Larger When Rising and Setting Than at Noonday." So not only is it farther away, it supposedly appears larger. But as noted in this thread we all seem to agree that it appears to be the same size all the time. As noted in another thread, I have driven over 1700 miles in my car south of Montreal and came nowhere near Concepcion, Paraguay. So at noon, if the sun is 3000 miles directly above Concepcion on December 21 and Concepcion is 6000 miles from Montreal, the sun should be 6700 miles away from Montreal. On June 21, it is directly overhead Key West, which is that 1700 miles south of Montreal (but only 1200 as the crow flies). So the sun is now only 3200 miles away at noon in Montreal. The sun should look over 4 times bigger, and these are both at noon, not when the sun is near the horizon. Rowbothams chapter title does not agree with what we see and if what we see is the result of great magnifying abilities of air that do not exist anywhere else that we can see. I have been to Key West and Montreal and the sun looked the same size at noon and during sunrise and sunset at both places. It would be so much easier to just say that the sun is so far away, that is why it always looks like it is the same size and air does not have magical magnifying and shrinking powers.
-
And, of course, Tom has tried to muddy the waters by invoking "perspective" without quantifying it...
Nobody should read Earth is Not a Globe by Rowbotham because the guy is a crank who doesn't understand basic physics/geometry. He literally said that a spherical Earth was impossible because rivers can go thousands of miles without falling so much. His theories clearly don't have backing from basic principles.
And, of course, Tom hasn't addressed the energy aspect of the hypothetical 32 mile wide Sun.
-
I have no idea why Rowbotham is held in such esteem by some on here. His writings are literally treated like they are infallible. These quotes from the Wikipedia entry about him amused me, reminds me of some people on here:
"He took a little time to learn his trade, running away from a lecture in Blackburn when he couldn't explain why the hulls of ships disappeared before their masts when sailing out to sea."
"When finally pinned down to a challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to a test, Parallax appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard A. Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and proceeded to the beach where a telescope had been set up. His opponents had claimed that only the lantern of the Eddystone Lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be visible. In fact, only half the lantern was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed his opponents were wrong and that it proved the Earth was indeed flat
He was just some bloke who has some theories, pretty much all of which are clearly wrong. It took me 5 minutes to prove him wrong on perspective in another thread, I even provided photographic proof. I wonder why some cling to his every last word so tightly.
-
I have no idea why Rowbotham is held in such esteem by some on here. His writings are literally treated like they are infallible. These quotes from the Wikipedia entry about him amused me, reminds me of some people on here:
"He took a little time to learn his trade, running away from a lecture in Blackburn when he couldn't explain why the hulls of ships disappeared before their masts when sailing out to sea."
"When finally pinned down to a challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to a test, Parallax appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard A. Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and proceeded to the beach where a telescope had been set up. His opponents had claimed that only the lantern of the Eddystone Lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be visible. In fact, only half the lantern was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed his opponents were wrong and that it proved the Earth was indeed flat
He was just some bloke who has some theories, pretty much all of which are clearly wrong. It took me 5 minutes to prove him wrong on perspective in another thread, I even provided photographic proof. I wonder why some cling to his every last word so tightly.
That seems hard to believe when he has two chapters in Earth Not a Globe dedicated to that subject, is literally Aristotile's first proof that the earth is a globe and the first thing one would be asked about.
I am accused of "running away" all the time, but the conversation between RE'ers and FE'ers is 100 to 1. I can't debate with everyone.
-
Fortunately, Wikipedia provides sources. In this case: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26408/26408-h/26408-h.htm
This broadsheet is printed at Aylesbury in 1857, and the lecturer calls himself Parallax: but at Trowbridge, in 1849, he was S. Goulden.[183] In this last advertisement is the following announcement: "A paper on the above subjects was read before the Council and Members of the Royal Astronomical Society, Somerset House, Strand, London (Sir John F. W. Herschel,[184] President), Friday, Dec. 8, 1848." No account of such a paper appears in the Notice for that month: I suspect that the above is Mr. S. Goulden's way of representing the following occurrence: Dec. 8, 1848, the Secretary of the Astronomical Society (De Morgan by name) said, at the close of the proceedings,—"Now, gentlemen, if you will promise not to tell the Council, I will read something for your amusement": and he then read a few of the arguments which had been transmitted by the lecturer. The fact is worth noting that from 1849 to 1857, arguments on the roundness or flatness of the earth did itinerate. I have [89]no doubt they did much good: for very few persons have any distinct idea of the evidence for the rotundity of the earth. The Blackburn Standard and Preston Guardian (Dec. 12 and 16, 1849) unite in stating that the lecturer ran away from his second lecture at Burnley, having been rather too hard pressed at the end of his first lecture to explain why the large hull of a ship disappeared before the sails. The persons present and waiting for the second lecture assuaged their disappointment by concluding that the lecturer had slipped off the icy edge of his flat disk, and that he would not be seen again till he peeped up on the opposite side.
-
"Tom Bishop ran away and didn't answer my question I posted that was easily researchable on my part."
Wah wah wah.
-
Carl Sagan was highly critical of Aristotle for not being a scientist. That is Aristotle sat around and thought about stuff instead of actually looking and experimenting. I have a hard time reading all the stuff Rowbotham thinks about and how it proves a flat earth in the first chapter. That said, I can think of one flaw in Rowbotham's thinking. If you are in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, Rowbotham claims that when you look at the horizon it is horizontal (hence the name 'horizon' and 'horizontal') and you do not see it curve down like it should if the earth was a globe. Think about this one for a minute. If you looked straight north and the earth was a globe, Rowbotham claims the left side of your field of vision should see the earth curve down. Let us say it did and was down 10 feet at the position NW. Then turn to look northwest. The earth curves down another 10 feet at the position W. Then turn and look west. SW would be down 30 feet total. S would be 40 feet. SE 50 feet. E 60 feet. NE 70 feet and finally straight north would be down 10 feet from looking NE or 80 feet from North. (North would be 80 feet lower than North!) Which is absurd. That is why the horizon is flat on either a flat or round earth but would be more apt to be flat on a round earth since the far away land would drop off out of view. You would not see Mt Everest in the East on a round earth and you do not. The horizon is nice and flat as it should be on a Round Earth, the same in all directions. No giant ice wall in the distance.
Anyway, if Rowbotham sat around and wrote a bunch of stuff and then had to give a lecture and was asked a question that did not have a good answer when faced with facts outside of your thinking, he did the same thing I would do in that situation, think "feet do your stuff."
-
I am accused of "running away" all the time, but the conversation between RE'ers and FE'ers is 100 to 1. I can't debate with everyone.
Yeah. You said that before. But this forum is not that busy. It took me 10 minutes this morning to catch up on all the threads in the 3 main sections which have had new posts overnight (in my overnight, I'm in the UK). It would take longer to reply to them all, admittedly, but not all of them require a response.
The point is Tom, you DO engage in debates, you just stop posting in the threads when you cannot answer the questions.
You've engaged in this thread but you haven't answered most of my questions about how the sun could work in the Flat Earth model - my questions come from reading your own Wiki so they are not answered there. You don't answer them because you can't.
You debated for quite some time about perspective in the "Clouds lit from below at sunset" thread and then stopped posting when I proved you wrong, I supplied photographic evidence to demonstrate how shadows and perspective really work. No response from you or any other flat earther since.
You have engaged in debates about your "Bishop experiment" but ignored responses showing videos where people demonstrate the curve by zooming in to distant buildings from various distances. There was an excellent one posted which I can't find right now, some guy zoomed in to the same tower from further and further away and it was clear that more and more of the building was obscured below the horizon. It was posted on here, no flat earther game a response. I'll find it later if you want another look. If you (you plural, you as an organisation) are serious about developing a flat earth model that actually works then you can't keep ignoring this stuff.
The fact is the flat earth model as it stands right now doesn't work on any level. It has to make all kinds of crazy leaps of logic (perspective explains sunsets and clouds lit from below, moonlight is cold, every space agency around the world is lying as, presumably, are the airline industry). It is based on the writings of some bloke in the Victorian era who clearly had a very limited knowledge of science and for some reason you treat it as Gospel. I have a feeling that at some level you realise this but you never quite admit it.
-
I hope this is the right place for this. I've looked through the Wiki about the sun in the FE model. I have the following questions.
What is the empirical evidence for the sun's size (32 miles in diameter) and height (3000 miles above the plane of the earth)? I see a page in the Wiki reinterpreting the data from Eratosthenes' stick experiment, there is a link on that page to an article from Millersville University which does the maths of that reinterpretation but that article concludes:
as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparent size of the sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work
If the sun really is only 3,000 miles above the earth then it should be fairly easy to prove that by measuring the angle of the sun at cities a couple of hundred miles apart and triangulating. The Wiki page actually notes this is a way to determine the distance to the sun. Has this been done? Can the evidence be provided if so?
What in the FE model powers the sun and keeps it shining? And if it is circling above the flat earth then what keeps it in the sky? Why doesn't it fall on us?
I see that seasons are explained by the circular motion changing so it is a tighter circle in summer and bigger circle in winter. What causes the sun to move between these orbits and what makes it speed up in winter and slow down in summer as it would have to as the circumference of the circle changes, otherwise the day / night cycle would change length
If the sun is a sphere then what causes the spotlight effect? The Wiki compares it to a lighthouse but in a lighthouse the light is focused by lenses. What focuses the light in the flat earth model and stops it shining over the whole earth?
It is stated that sunrise and sunset are an effect of perspective. How does that explain the effect of clouds lit from below as in this photo?
(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mount-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds.jpg?w=800&h=450)
Perspective cannot explain that. For a shadow to be cast upwards the light source has to be PHYSICALLY below the object. I have provide some proof of that in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.160
Perspective also cannot make a distant object slowly sink below the horizon on a flat plane. I believe the claim in ENaG is that perspective only makes it appear as though an object is sunken into the horizon and magnification can make the object reappear but you can zoom into a sunset and still see the sun slowly sink below the horizon. If the sun is 3000 miles above the earth then that wouldn't happen. Maybe a scale model could be built and photos taken from the appropriate perspective to explain how this would work?
Thanks in advance.
Your pretty picture is simply the rays of the Sun reflecting off the Earth casting a shadow on the clouds underneath.
-
If there was an ocean in front of the mountain, it could reflect the light up. However, when you climb the mountain, how do you explain looking down to setting sun on that ocean? And just like the ancients, you can watch the sun (and the moon) and see that it follows a steady speed across the sky at 12 hours here and 12 hours gone. So you can guess where the sun will be and it will be lower than you. At midnight it is directly underneath you to reappear at sunrise. Try to explain this to someone in Chile that the sun is going to make a much bigger circle and be back in time to give them 12 hours of daylight, the same as that person in Australia.
-
Your pretty picture is simply the rays of the Sun reflecting off the Earth casting a shadow on the clouds underneath.
It's a better answer than "perspective", I'll give you that. But you can see from images like this that the sun is physically low in the sky, or appears so. That's how clouds can be lit from below, not reflection
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/75f6fcbdd10cf05ff554cf25339725f1.jpg)
While we're here, this is the video I mentioned earlier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk
-
On this point the author apparently did not read Earth Not a Globe which explains why this occurs. We have a writeup in our Wiki: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
And, as usual, ENaG is wrong about this. Actually the sun (and moon) don't get any bigger or smaller as they set. It is merely an optical illusion.
Couple of sources:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Sun-appear-bigger-during-sunrise-and-sunset-than-at-noon
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate
And, as I said, there are other ways of verifying the distance of the sun by taking observations from a few points and triangulating. Has this been done?
Looking forward to a reply to the rest of my questions.
The sun maintains its size through the day according to the description in our Wiki. The shrinking due to perspective is countered by the enlarging upon the atmoplane, causing its size to be consistent.
The Wiki isn't saying that the sun enlarges to be any bigger than it normally is.
Are we to assume another set of celestial gears run the sun and moon but don't mesh at the equator?
-
Your pretty picture is simply the rays of the Sun reflecting off the Earth casting a shadow on the clouds underneath.
Preposterous. Dirt, rocks, grass, trees....these are not reflective surfaces. If they were, clouds would always be lit from underneath.
-
Your pretty picture is simply the rays of the Sun reflecting off the Earth casting a shadow on the clouds underneath.
Preposterous. Dirt, rocks, grass, trees....these are not reflective surfaces. If they were, clouds would always be lit from underneath.
Obviously, you cannot claim , "...dirt, rocks, grass, trees...these are not reflective surfaces." They all have some level of reflectivity or else your pretty NASA images become impossible!!!
Plus, the area around the mountain in question (Rainier, in the State of Washington) has a great deal of freshwater, saltwater, and snow, surrounding it all times of the year.
Freshwater, saltwater, and snow, are HIGHLY REFLECTIVE SURFACES, sometimes to the point of requiring EYE PROTECTION!!!
-
Your pretty picture is simply the rays of the Sun reflecting off the Earth casting a shadow on the clouds underneath.
It's a better answer than "perspective", I'll give you that. But you can see from images like this that the sun is physically low in the sky, or appears so. That's how clouds can be lit from below, not reflection
And the whole issue of perspective eludes your mental grasp.
For instance, we can agree that cloud types (cumulus, strato-cumulus, alto-cumulus, cirrus, etc.) all occupy the same altitude. The respective "floor," and "ceiling," of these cloud types would be approximately the same with very little difference at the same time/place of observation.
On any certain day of observation, I can watch a jet pass overhead, exceeding the ceilings of the clouds. As that jet passes further down range, the cloud (which the jet obviously passed over the top of just seconds prior) now appears higher in the sky to me than does the jet, yet the jet made no change to altitude.
Okay, sparky?
-
Although, now that I think of it, the angle the sun would have to be at to reflect on the ice and snow and everything to make a shadow that is almost horizontal would put the sun very low. Since when the sun sets at Mt Ranier, it is noon at Bejing, the sun would be about 6000 miles away. If the sun is 3000 miles up, that would put it at an angle of about 25 degrees in the sky. The reflection should light the clouds and the shadow at about 25 degrees or more, depending where this reflection is. I apologize for believing at first that it could explain it, but it would still require a low sun, just like when you are shooting billiards.
-
And the whole issue of perspective eludes your mental grasp.
Yes. I remember one time I couldn't work out why a frisbee I could see kept getting bigger.
Then it hit me...
On any certain day of observation, I can watch a jet pass overhead, exceeding the ceilings of the clouds. As that jet passes further down range, the cloud (which the jet obviously passed over the top of just seconds prior) now appears lower in the sky to me than does the cloud, yet the jet made no change to altitude.
Yes. I literally showed how that could work with the photo of the row of lamp posts above.
But "perspective" was Tom's answer to how SHADOWS can be cast upwards. I have explained above, with proof, how that is impossible.
In your scenario if someone on the plane was to shine a light on the clouds which is powerful enough that the cloud casts a shadow then even though FROM MY PERSPECTIVE the jet appears below the cloud it is still PHYSICALLY above the cloud and so the shadow would be angled downwards. That is how shadows work. If you don't understand that then I'd suggest it is not my mental grasp which is being eluded.
Reflection is a better answer but the ground would have to be pretty much be mirror-like to produce that amount of brightness and cast shadows like in that photo so it's implausible.
While we're here, perspective also cannot explain the photo above which only shows part of the disc of the sun. If the sun is 3,000 miles above the plane of the earth then it cannot be seen to slowly disappear below the horizon as it does every single day.
-
And the whole issue of perspective eludes your mental grasp.
Yes. I remember one time I couldn't work out why a frisbee I could see kept getting bigger.
Then it hit me...
On any certain day of observation, I can watch a jet pass overhead, exceeding the ceilings of the clouds. As that jet passes further down range, the cloud (which the jet obviously passed over the top of just seconds prior) now appears lower in the sky to me than does the cloud, yet the jet made no change to altitude.
Yes. I literally showed how that could work with the photo of the row of lamp posts above.
But "perspective" was Tom's answer to how SHADOWS can be cast upwards. I have explained above, with proof, how that is impossible.
In your scenario if someone on the plane was to shine a light on the clouds which is powerful enough that the cloud casts a shadow then even though FROM MY PERSPECTIVE the jet appears below the cloud it is still PHYSICALLY above the cloud and so the shadow would be angled downwards. That is how shadows work. If you don't understand that then I'd suggest it is not my mental grasp which is being eluded.
Reflection is a better answer but the ground would have to be pretty much be mirror-like to produce that amount of brightness and cast shadows like in that photo so it's implausible.
While we're here, perspective also cannot explain the photo above which only shows part of the disc of the sun. If the sun is 3,000 miles above the plane of the earth then it cannot be seen to slowly disappear below the horizon as it does every single day.
I just thought of a simple experiment. Hold your hand horizontally near a lamp post at night. The top your hand is light and the bottom is dark. Move your eyes to different heights and see the light "above" and "below" your hand. When it appears below, the bottom of your hand does not light up. It stays dark. If you line up your hand and lamp and eye in a straight line, you will see that you are looking up. When you stand on a mountain (or other high place) and line up your eye, that tree below you in the distance and the setting sun (or moon) you will see that you are looking down.
-
I just thought of a simple experiment. Hold your hand horizontally near a lamp post at night. The top your hand is light and the bottom is dark. Move your eyes to different heights and see the light "above" and "below" your hand. When it appears below, the bottom of your hand does not light up. It stays dark. If you line up your hand and lamp and eye in a straight line, you will see that you are looking up. When you stand on a mountain (or other high place) and line up your eye, that tree below you in the distance and the setting sun (or moon) you will see that you are looking down.
Yes, that is basically the experiment I did above with the lamp and the Rubik's cube. I changed my perspective so the light appeared below the cube but the underside of the cube didn't light up because a shadow's angle is dictated by the PHYSICAL relationship between objects, not your perspective.
-
Plus, the area around the mountain in question (Rainier, in the State of Washington) has a great deal of freshwater, saltwater, and snow, surrounding it all times of the year.
Cool story. Too bad it isn't true
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/TFU4hCv1wfkFA3BRHV-Y7FST0DJTPlFMet_1lRTzCCxKu7WRN27vIcNVWbeXJj1Slw6xjoe3vf_42h2tcaDVAqllcjfyEzuD1esqc2H95yFtw0RcQCb0EsaCaKuM-wlZg-1aiY86_sqmOO5SVog-VCPxSN6iXX22bod1WUcZFj1Pen9HLxGqbN28ehhqrxOQeJZviAObmAOR-aSL5UGATe0efdak-cI2cerol3d-T9bBaJeisPwp4xlE5PckEypmIlJRhDmSODYjXty30DeOeWhn1gQYHMgRLk6k15G7evC0Vf9lDYv_4dXJy_ODmRsPgNmZhsG8gKclmDgfcwKt6Kt5fjxztPa_ErNOhc9PgaHHPhtW9qRbGS_CzTs3bSFd6jn2iBwrahZfY--CGNMRmqCCtNoRHp7JjtzHF4jWnFQiabsegARaBS_RZaaNXEif8tGPtjbwVmrnzKRi91hmT8YIeH8iMiLLj1Q6vo1dBKXKs2uXQrISeVjWAfb60loHnMowkQTT9U-B-ctSAIRUiJkdmbA2Sw2b-1FNiqhv_sfKsuU8_ci_FbT6qk469eJtiMTM9K7bD9W-RePy_G_al0psRbsTAZutdMvPxIIg7v6YMdqRUM8QkkJDKCrFjJYWXV_YqvA_b88zMoLD9BS5x8Fc2kU062qSLA=w2262-h1106-no)
-
Plus, the area around the mountain in question (Rainier, in the State of Washington) has a great deal of freshwater, saltwater, and snow, surrounding it all times of the year.
Cool story. Too bad it isn't true
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/TFU4hCv1wfkFA3BRHV-Y7FST0DJTPlFMet_1lRTzCCxKu7WRN27vIcNVWbeXJj1Slw6xjoe3vf_42h2tcaDVAqllcjfyEzuD1esqc2H95yFtw0RcQCb0EsaCaKuM-wlZg-1aiY86_sqmOO5SVog-VCPxSN6iXX22bod1WUcZFj1Pen9HLxGqbN28ehhqrxOQeJZviAObmAOR-aSL5UGATe0efdak-cI2cerol3d-T9bBaJeisPwp4xlE5PckEypmIlJRhDmSODYjXty30DeOeWhn1gQYHMgRLk6k15G7evC0Vf9lDYv_4dXJy_ODmRsPgNmZhsG8gKclmDgfcwKt6Kt5fjxztPa_ErNOhc9PgaHHPhtW9qRbGS_CzTs3bSFd6jn2iBwrahZfY--CGNMRmqCCtNoRHp7JjtzHF4jWnFQiabsegARaBS_RZaaNXEif8tGPtjbwVmrnzKRi91hmT8YIeH8iMiLLj1Q6vo1dBKXKs2uXQrISeVjWAfb60loHnMowkQTT9U-B-ctSAIRUiJkdmbA2Sw2b-1FNiqhv_sfKsuU8_ci_FbT6qk469eJtiMTM9K7bD9W-RePy_G_al0psRbsTAZutdMvPxIIg7v6YMdqRUM8QkkJDKCrFjJYWXV_YqvA_b88zMoLD9BS5x8Fc2kU062qSLA=w2262-h1106-no)
Have you ever been to Ranier?
If not, then you need more than a snapshot from Google Earth to even comment.
I suggest you refrain from posting on this topic.
Ranier receives some (if not, the MOST) of the highest yearly snowfall totals in the contiguous 48 states.
Bye bye!
-
And the whole issue of perspective eludes your mental grasp.
Yes. I remember one time I couldn't work out why a frisbee I could see kept getting bigger.
Then it hit me...
On any certain day of observation, I can watch a jet pass overhead, exceeding the ceilings of the clouds. As that jet passes further down range, the cloud (which the jet obviously passed over the top of just seconds prior) now appears lower in the sky to me than does the cloud, yet the jet made no change to altitude.
Yes. I literally showed how that could work with the photo of the row of lamp posts above.
But "perspective" was Tom's answer to how SHADOWS can be cast upwards. I have explained above, with proof, how that is impossible.
In your scenario if someone on the plane was to shine a light on the clouds which is powerful enough that the cloud casts a shadow then even though FROM MY PERSPECTIVE the jet appears below the cloud it is still PHYSICALLY above the cloud and so the shadow would be angled downwards. That is how shadows work. If you don't understand that then I'd suggest it is not my mental grasp which is being eluded.
I doubt any man-made light would be powerful enough to cast a light on any natural surface found on Earth, but the point still remains regarding why the Sun (obviously higher than the jet, larger than the jet) can still appear "lower than the clouds<" and still account for being able to "illuminate and cast shadows," under the clouds.
Reflection is a better answer but the ground would have to be pretty much be mirror-like to produce that amount of brightness and cast shadows like in that photo so it's implausible.
Implausible? I do not think so.
If you have ever been subject to the Sun's reflected rays off of water or snow, not only can you be permanently blinded by these reflected rays (just as you would by direct exposure), you can suffer severe burns just as you would by direct exposure, with no change in severity.
While we're here, perspective also cannot explain the photo above which only shows part of the disc of the sun. If the sun is 3,000 miles above the plane of the earth then it cannot be seen to slowly disappear below the horizon as it does every single day.
That is a common misconception and, unfortunately, the answer lies in the way you choose to word things.
You claim below, I choose the word beyond.
I am not under some delusion I can see all things above my head at all times. Sometimes they still remain above the flat plane but are beyond my visual acuity for any number of reasons.
-
You claim below, I choose the word beyond.
You're kidding me right? If the sun circles overhead the earth then wouldn't it just disappear as it gets smaller and smaller?
-
You claim below, I choose the word beyond.
You're kidding me right? If the sun circles overhead the earth then wouldn't it just disappear as it gets smaller and smaller?
The chapter in Rowbotham called Why the Sun is bigger when setting than at noontime (or whatever exactly it is called) explains that the magnifying effect of the air makes the far away sun get bigger. It is a magical air that makes the sun (and moon) look the same size regardless of where you are on earth and how far away it is. So, sadly, it is not a joke. If you do not look at things and just think about it, you might be able to convince yourself that there is some way the earth can be flat, at least in your hemisphere. Oops, I just realized that hemisphere admits the earth is a sphere. In your hemiplate, would be better.
-
Implausible? I do not think so.
If you have ever been subject to the Sun's reflected rays off of water or snow, not only can you be permanently blinded by these reflected rays (just as you would by direct exposure), you can suffer severe burns just as you would by direct exposure, with no change in severity.
Well, as I said your theory is at least possible and it's a better answer than Tom shouting "PERSPECTIVE". I got my threads mixed up earlier, my demonstration of why perspective isn't possible is in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.160
BUT while your theory is at least possible
1) That is quite specific conditions, there would have to be a very reflective surface and this surely can't explain every single photo of underlit clouds
2) If the sun is in the sky then we should expect light from it to be shining down too, not just reflecting upwards, that isn't what the photo shows.
Noctilucent clouds can easily be explained on a round earth - the sun has gone down from ground level but the clouds are high enough that there is still an unobstructed line from the sun to them, so they are illuminated. Can this be explained with the flat earth model?:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/owq48cciThU/maxresdefault.jpg
That is a common misconception and, unfortunately, the answer lies in the way you choose to word things.
You claim below, I choose the word beyond.
I am not under some delusion I can see all things above my head at all times. Sometimes they still remain above the flat plane but are beyond my visual acuity for any number of reasons.
OK. But what I don't understand is why the sun which is perfectly large and bright at sunset can sink slowly below or behind the horizon. Surely it would just shrink or fade out. I think I'm going to need some diagrams to understand how you think sunset works on a flat earth. Tom's response is perspective, I have proved that cannot be the explanation, I'm still not clear how this could actually work.
-
totallackey's theory is totally implausible. We should not give any semblance of credit to it, because while the Earth's surface reflects light (that's how we see it!), it does not reflect anywhere close to all of it (unless it's really snowy outside). In particular, the photo provided by AllAroundTheWorld has the clouds and Sun over water. The albedo of open ocean is 0.06 (and presumably that of lakes and such is close to that), so the direct sunlight to your eyes would have to be at least 16 times stronger than that reflected by the ocean. This is not including the fact that the ocean diffuses the reflected light over a much wider area than the clouds (this is also why you can see the ocean!), severely diminishing the intensity of the sunlight. The Sun would have to be much brighter for you to see the clouds lit by reflected light from the ocean.
-
You claim below, I choose the word beyond.
You're kidding me right? If the sun circles overhead the earth then wouldn't it just disappear as it gets smaller and smaller?
The chapter in Rowbotham called Why the Sun is bigger when setting than at noontime (or whatever exactly it is called) explains that the magnifying effect of the air makes the far away sun get bigger. It is a magical air that makes the sun (and moon) look the same size regardless of where you are on earth and how far away it is. So, sadly, it is not a joke. If you do not look at things and just think about it, you might be able to convince yourself that there is some way the earth can be flat, at least in your hemisphere. Oops, I just realized that hemisphere admits the earth is a sphere. In your hemiplate, would be better.
The phenomenon you're referring to as "a magical air" is just the way light behaves when moving through a medium, by bending. It's called refraction, and you can observe it by sticking a straw into a glass of water.
You don't notice it everywhere you look in the sky because you're not looking through the same VOLUME of air.
If you actually care to understand why and how this works, I can explain.
-
Implausible? I do not think so.
If you have ever been subject to the Sun's reflected rays off of water or snow, not only can you be permanently blinded by these reflected rays (just as you would by direct exposure), you can suffer severe burns just as you would by direct exposure, with no change in severity.
Well, as I said your theory is at least possible and it's a better answer than Tom shouting "PERSPECTIVE". I got my threads mixed up earlier, my demonstration of why perspective isn't possible is in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.160
BUT while your theory is at least possible
1) That is quite specific conditions, there would have to be a very reflective surface and this surely can't explain every single photo of underlit clouds
If there was not specific conditions, then someone would take a snapshot of Ranier everyday! Ranier does not exhibit such a shadow everyday, does it?
2) If the sun is in the sky then we should expect light from it to be shining down too, not just reflecting upwards, that isn't what the photo shows.
Who says the Sun is not shining down in the photo?
Noctilucent clouds can easily be explained on a round earth - the sun has gone down from ground level but the clouds are high enough that there is still an unobstructed line from the sun to them, so they are illuminated. Can this be explained with the flat earth model?:https://i.ytimg.com/vi/owq48cciThU/maxresdefault.jpg
Again, I would submit reflected rays from any number of light sources.
There are even a whole bunch of artificial light sources capable of producing noctilucent clouds, and I have no further information than the picture in order to deduce a possible cause.
OK. But what I don't understand is why the sun which is perfectly large and bright at sunset can sink slowly below or behind the horizon. Surely it would just shrink or fade out. I think I'm going to need some diagrams to understand how you think sunset works on a flat earth. Tom's response is perspective, I have proved that cannot be the explanation, I'm still not clear how this could actually work.
The Sun disappears beyond the horizon, not below the horizon.
-
The sun sets. It goes down. In the north it is very slow but near the equator it drops fast. It is not moving away, it is going down. It is a sunset. I was in Fiji and I said "want to wait and watch the sunset?" "No, lets just go" However before we could walk back to the shack, the sun had gone down and it was dark. In the morning it rises. It is not coming from some distance. It is rising. Go and watch a sun rise and a sun set. In the Arctic on Jan 22 at noon, I had to climb the hill to see the sun pop up and then pop down. It was not coming closer and then farther. Pop up and pop down. Half the earth is lit at all times. Phone some person far away from you. Ask them if the sun is there.
-
And when the stars go down below the horizon, just before they disappear, they keep the same distances between them. As the stars come closer and move away, the distances between them should change. We should not all be able to recognize the same constellations all the time if they are circling around a flat earth. Perspective makes telephone poles look closer together as they get farther away. Train tracks converge to a point. Stars for some reason just look the same all the time.
-
The sun sets. It goes down. In the north it is very slow but near the equator it drops fast. It is not moving away, it is going down. It is a sunset. I was in Fiji and I said "want to wait and watch the sunset?" "No, lets just go" However before we could walk back to the shack, the sun had gone down and it was dark. In the morning it rises. It is not coming from some distance. It is rising. Go and watch a sun rise and a sun set. In the Arctic on Jan 22 at noon, I had to climb the hill to see the sun pop up and then pop down. It was not coming closer and then farther. Pop up and pop down. Half the earth is lit at all times. Phone some person far away from you. Ask them if the sun is there.
There is no proof that "half the Earth," is lit by the Sun at all times and this is certainly not the case in FE.
But if you have access to timeanddate.com and can pull up their mercator projection with the current outline of the Sun over the face of the plane and then transcribe that outline of the Sun coverage to the AEP used by the USGS, I think you will find less than half being illuminated this time of year.
-
And when the stars go down below the horizon, just before they disappear, they keep the same distances between them. As the stars come closer and move away, the distances between them should change. We should not all be able to recognize the same constellations all the time if they are circling around a flat earth. Perspective makes telephone poles look closer together as they get farther away. Train tracks converge to a point. Stars for some reason just look the same all the time.
The perceived size of constellations (such as Orion) is almost always larger at first/last appearance in the night sky than when directly overhead.
-
And when the stars go down below the horizon, just before they disappear, they keep the same distances between them. As the stars come closer and move away, the distances between them should change. We should not all be able to recognize the same constellations all the time if they are circling around a flat earth. Perspective makes telephone poles look closer together as they get farther away. Train tracks converge to a point. Stars for some reason just look the same all the time.
The perceived size of constellations (such as Orion) is almost always larger at first/last appearance in the night sky than when directly overhead.
This is the problem I have with people in the northern hemisphere neglecting the southern hemisphere. They will claim that the amount of sun hitting the earth varies by season when the people in the south know that their seasons exactly mimic the north. I said nothing about perceived size of the constellations. If you look at a picture in a book at an angle it gets distorted. The constellations should distort the same way if they are moving away on a flat earth. They should be subject to perspective the same as everything else. They would no longer look like a hunter just like the picture in the book if they are moving away on a flat plane. Go and look at the moon and the sun and the constellations when they are near the horizon and overhead. Use your finger at arms length to get a measure of their size and the distances. They do not change. I mentioned in a different thread that when you watch football on TV when they use a telephoto lens the players in the distance look like giants because your brain expects the farther away people to look smaller. If you freeze the image and compare, the players are the same size if you measure them with your fingers. So things might look bigger on the horizon because your brain is comparing them to the trees in the distance. Overhead you have nothing to compare with so they appear smaller.
-
My "proof" that half the earth gets lit half the time is the 22 different countries I have been in and the sun rises and sets according to the webpage that tracks the light of the earth. It would be unlikely they would know which countries I am going to travel to and somehow get the sun to agree with their webpage to rise above the horizon and set below the horizon just for the places I go to. And these include countries in the southern hemisphere. Is there anyone reading this that does not believe they get equal amounts of sunlight and darkness over a year. If so, where do you live?
-
My "proof" that half the earth gets lit half the time is the 22 different countries I have been in and the sun rises and sets according to the webpage that tracks the light of the earth. It would be unlikely they would know which countries I am going to travel to and somehow get the sun to agree with their webpage to rise above the horizon and set below the horizon just for the places I go to. And these include countries in the southern hemisphere. Is there anyone reading this that does not believe they get equal amounts of sunlight and darkness over a year. If so, where do you live?
Your "proof," is limited to the amount of time you were:
1) Able to spend in each country at the "same time"; and
2) Drop mic and end conversation...
-
At least he has proof, because TFE has none and has never shown any, while RE has.
-
On this point the author apparently did not read Earth Not a Globe which explains why this occurs. We have a writeup in our Wiki: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
The article was written by real descendant of "Dr" Rowbotham and successor of his "science".
First part is hope that reader will not understand the difference between sharp view of the light source itself, and surrounding camera glare.
Second part uses description of divergence of laser or light beam, as if eye is big enough to receive the whole beam at observing point.
How can configuration of Sun spots remain the same in "projection" with just direct beam, without set of lenses to project the image?
Ever seen a movie or slide projector?
If you focus camera well and set short enough exposure, or add filter, you will see the real size of the light source, not the glare blur around it.
If you get cheap welding mask from Lowe's and a calliper, you can see and measure the Sun itself, not the glare around it.
In that case calliper will show you constant size (angular diameter) of the Sun through the day, not of the glare around it.
Moon has light just faint enough to see her that way without filter.
Through the night Moon keeps the constant apparent size as well.
Moon image is also detailed in "projection" without set of lenses.
Of course, there are more precise instruments, if you have access.
Some other FE sources are not talking about dispersed light, but air magnification.
(How convenient. If someone starts talking about one explanation, then we point out the other one.)
How high is required refraction index of air, and why such air doesn't magnify airplanes and balloons.
Sun is at 3000 miles above the ground, and 99% of the air is up to 30 miles high.
(Air density measured and confirmed no matter who did it, Flat Earther or Globe Earther.)
High-altitude balloons are unmanned balloons, usually filled with helium or hydrogen and rarely methane,
that are released into the stratosphere, generally attaining between 18,000 to 37,000 metres (59,000 to 121,000 ft;
11 to 23 mi). In 2002, a balloon named BU60-1 attained 53.0 km (32.9 mi; 173,900 ft).
Above that the molecules are too far from each other to have any noticeable optical effect.
Why air shows magnification effect on Sun and Moon and not on anything else, especially objects 100 or more miles away?
And I'm not talking about glare blur around.
-
My "proof" that half the earth gets lit half the time is the 22 different countries I have been in and the sun rises and sets according to the webpage that tracks the light of the earth. It would be unlikely they would know which countries I am going to travel to and somehow get the sun to agree with their webpage to rise above the horizon and set below the horizon just for the places I go to. And these include countries in the southern hemisphere. Is there anyone reading this that does not believe they get equal amounts of sunlight and darkness over a year. If so, where do you live?
Your "proof," is limited to the amount of time you were:
1) Able to spend in each country at the "same time"; and
2) Drop mic and end conversation...
Just like Rowbotham, drop mic and run away. If you said to me "prove that people have hearts in their chests and not their head," we could grab someone and kill them and rip out their beating heart. You would say "that only proves that guy did, it does not prove everyone does." So we kill 22 people and then you could say "that does not prove everyone does." That is your argument. My argument is that there is a website that shows where the earth is light and where it is dark at any time. I went to 22 different countries and it matched the website at that time. Your argument is that we have to rip out everyone's heart and once everyone is dead you can say "no one has their hearts in their chests because we ripped them all out." We now have to include statistician in the list of jobs an FEer cannot morally work as (you should not accept money for doing something you believe is fake).
-
My "proof" that half the earth gets lit half the time is the 22 different countries I have been in and the sun rises and sets according to the webpage that tracks the light of the earth. It would be unlikely they would know which countries I am going to travel to and somehow get the sun to agree with their webpage to rise above the horizon and set below the horizon just for the places I go to. And these include countries in the southern hemisphere. Is there anyone reading this that does not believe they get equal amounts of sunlight and darkness over a year. If so, where do you live?
Your "proof," is limited to the amount of time you were:
1) Able to spend in each country at the "same time"; and
2) Drop mic and end conversation...
I went to 22 different countries and it matched the website at that time.
I am to believe you went to 22 countries just for the sole purpose of matching the sunlight to website?
Or even took the time to do so?
That is laughable at best, an outright lie more likely.
Come on, stop fooling around Ratboy...
-
I am to believe you went to 22 countries just for the sole purpose of matching the sunlight to website?
The problem is in "sole purpose".
We don't know why he traveled, but since he was already there, he checked it out.
If you were somewhere, would you miss the opportunity to check things of interest?
Besides, your effort is futile, because other people live there.
If there were any errors they would gladly expose them.
Discrediting his honesty won't disprove the data.
-
Just like Rowbotham, drop mic and run away. If you said to me "prove that people have hearts in their chests and not their head," we could grab someone and kill them and rip out their beating heart. You would say "that only proves that guy did, it does not prove everyone does." So we kill 22 people and then you could say "that does not prove everyone does." That is your argument. My argument is that there is a website that shows where the earth is light and where it is dark at any time. I went to 22 different countries and it matched the website at that time. Your argument is that we have to rip out everyone's heart and once everyone is dead you can say "no one has their hearts in their chests because we ripped them all out." We now have to include statistician in the list of jobs an FEer cannot morally work as (you should not accept money for doing something you believe is fake).
No my argument is not killing people.
You have been to 22 countries, fine.
You checked the websites for sunrise, solar noon, and sunset times in each of the countries you were at, while you there, (highly fucking dubious!) fine...
That still does nothing to prove an equal amount of sunlight/darkness everywhere on the entire surface of the Earth, nor rotundity.
-
This is all very interesting but I still haven't seen any FE answers for
And if it is circling above the flat earth then what keeps it in the sky? Why doesn't it fall on us?
I see that seasons are explained by the circular motion changing so it is a tighter circle in summer and bigger circle in winter. What causes the sun to move between these orbits and what makes it speed up in winter and slow down in summer as it would have to as the circumference of the circle changes, otherwise the day / night cycle would change length
If the sun is a sphere then what causes the spotlight effect? The Wiki compares it to a lighthouse but in a lighthouse the light is focused by lenses. What focuses the light in the flat earth model and stops it shining over the whole earth?
And of course there is sunset, I mentioned that in the original post too. The sun has to be physically below the level of the clouds for clouds to be lit from below. In the FE model it never is.
-
I'll give the FE explanation:
Remember, FE denies gravity. The FE answer for why the Sun doesn't fall onto us is that nothing makes it do so. Both the Sun and Earth are accelerating at the same rate, (or you can view it as a magical force affects only us on "shielded" surfaces by Einstein's equivalence principle -- that makes the idea seem rightly absurd).
It moves due to a 4th form of gravitation.
Distortion.
See the problem with FE believers? They don't quantify anything, just assert that these words can catch all of the problems with their hypothesis.
-
Right. So does Celestial Gravitation only work one way?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
"an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies"
I like the fact that it's only a thing in "some" flat earth models.
There is a clue there, they pretty much admit they don't have a coherent model.
Does Celestial Gravitation exist or not? Is the moon self-illuminating or not? Is there one pole or two?
These are pretty fundamental things which they can't agree on, they don't have a map they can make work.
Pickel laments that this is because there is so much funding for "round earth" ideas and so little for "flat earth" ones. Maybe there's a reason for that...
It's like me lamenting the lack of investment in alchemy research. What would be the point? It's a waste of money.
No-one serious about science is going to invest in research into a model which was shown to be wrong thousands of years ago.
It is bizarre they they cling so stubbornly to a model which has such glaring holes in it. They can't even explain sunset without shouting "PERSPECTIVE!" and then running away when I prove that for clouds to be lit from below the sun has to be physically below the clouds, or appear so.
-
My "proof" that half the earth gets lit half the time is the 22 different countries I have been in and the sun rises and sets according to the webpage that tracks the light of the earth. It would be unlikely they would know which countries I am going to travel to and somehow get the sun to agree with their webpage to rise above the horizon and set below the horizon just for the places I go to. And these include countries in the southern hemisphere. Is there anyone reading this that does not believe they get equal amounts of sunlight and darkness over a year. If so, where do you live?
Your "proof," is limited to the amount of time you were:
1) Able to spend in each country at the "same time"; and
2) Drop mic and end conversation...
I went to 22 different countries and it matched the website at that time.
I am to believe you went to 22 countries just for the sole purpose of matching the sunlight to website?
Or even took the time to do so?
That is laughable at best, an outright lie more likely.
Come on, stop fooling around Ratboy...
When a person travels, they do take note of the change of time zone. Of course they do. That was not the purpose of any of these trips. People that live near the equator do not think much about changes in the length of day because it does not vary much. I noticed that when you say to someone in Thailand "nice weather today" they look at you weird because the weather is not something they think about when they get up and get dressed. When you live in a part of the world where the temperature one day can be 60F different than the day before, you look at the weather forecasts often. When you live where you get 20 hours of daylight in the summer and 4 in the winter you do take note of sunrises and sunsets just out of habit.
So when I go to different countries I do notice stuff about weather and sunsets and lengths of days. I have been in 13 different time zones. I did not go there just to reset my watch and to see if the sunsets when it is supposed to. But I did notice it. It just amazes me how fast the sun sets at the equator. I do not know how to explain a fast setting sun at the equator and a setting sun that takes more than an hour in the north if it is just circling around a pie plate. Zenetic research is about just looking at stuff.
So it goes back to proof. The two choices are: 1. Accept a model that does not fit stuff we can see. 2. Accept a model that fits everything we see. Just because we cannot do an infinite number of tests we should not reject everything we think we know. There could be a hole in Greenland with an underground world where there is more sun than dark, but why bother believing in that? Or rather why reject that there is an equal amount of day and night everywhere on earth just because there might be this hole?
There are so many more things. I flew from Seattle WA to Frankfurt Germany (note that this is west to east so travelling the opposite way the sun moves). That website of the sun tracking told me it would be daylight the whole time. It was. How can a flat earth do that for me? So when I look at what should happen if the earth is round and it works and I try to think how it is possible to do that with a flat earth and it does not, I think that "proves" the earth is not flat. It may not prove the round to your satisfaction since there might be a hole in Greenland or something, but it is good enough for me.
-
The way day lengths vary per latitude and season is a good point. I wonder if there is a way any flat earth model can explain this.
-
The way day lengths vary per latitude and season is a good point. I wonder if there is a way any flat earth model can explain this.
But in particular, I am thinking about how the sun hangs near the horizon for so long in the extreme latitudes and drops so fast at the equator, not just length of day but length of sunset. I am always caught in the dark when I go too close to the equator because I misjudge how much time I have before it gets dark. And then it gets really dark. Like there is a whole round globe between me and the sun. In the north (or south) the sun may not get too high at noon, but it takes a long time to drop too far down that there is not enough twilight to finish up on the 18th hole after the sun already set a half hour ago. Explain that on a flat earth.
In the flat earth model, the sun is farther away at midnight when you can see it from Resolute Bay in July, than it is at noon in December when you cannot.
-
I've just found that video and I think we owe flat earthers an apology. Sunset IS possible on a flat earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_9cFTQg7NE
Admittedly you have to be clearly below the horizon somehow and the sun has to be dragging along the ground, presumably scorching and killing the terrified residents of wherever it is or boiling the sea as it goes.
Still, it's good enough for me.
-
Although since the residents of the seashores are alive, that sun clearly isn't reality.
-
I've just found that video and I think we owe flat earthers an apology. Sunset IS possible on a flat earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_9cFTQg7NE
Admittedly you have to be clearly below the horizon somehow and the sun has to be dragging along the ground, presumably scorching and killing the terrified residents of wherever it is or boiling the sea as it goes.
Still, it's good enough for me.
Why he has to position camera below table surface?
Why he has to drag coin on the surface to skip questions about 3000 miles?
Why he hsa to use this deception, if there's real proof?
Is there?
-
Why he has to position camera below table surface?
Because if he didn't then all you'd see is the coin getting smaller and bigger as it moved away from or towards the camera.
By positioning the camera below the table and moving the coin you can simulate a sunrise or sunset. It should be fairly obvious even from his video that if the coin/sun were above the level of the table you'd be able to see it at all times.