The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: CuddleBuns on February 23, 2018, 11:31:47 PM
-
Hi! I'm curious to know how the sun works in a flat earth universe. Are there any leading theories/general consensus on how it functions?
-
Maybe start with the FAQ and wiki.
-
I have also recently described the sun rise and sun set in FET here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8949.msg142010#msg142010
-
That deals with sunrise and sunset. Incorrectly, as I have explained, but at least it's an answer.
But how does it WORK? That is the question? In conventional physics it is powered by nuclear fusion, far enough away that we are not burnt to a crisp and massive enough that it has enough fuel to keep it going.
In your model what powers it?
If it is as small as you suppose how does it have enough fuel to keep shining for millennia?
What keeps it orbiting above the plane of the earth?
What makes it keep changing orbit to cause seasons and moon phases? It must have to keep changing height and speed, what makes that happen?
What causes the spotlight effect and if it is a spotlight how does it also illuminate the moon?
I've not seen answers to any of these questions on here or in the Wiki.
-
That deals with sunrise and sunset. Incorrectly, as I have explained, but at least it's an answer.
But how does it WORK? That is the question? In conventional physics it is powered by nuclear fusion, far enough away that we are not burnt to a crisp and massive enough that it has enough fuel to keep it going.
In your model what powers it?
How would we know? That doesn't sound like something that could be emperically observed abd determined. We have higher standards than making a wild guess at things
-
I have also recently described the sun rise and sun set in FET here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8949.msg142010#msg142010
You use the word perspective to mean what you want, not what the actual definition of it is.
-
How would we know? That doesn't sound like something that could be emperically observed abd determined. We have higher standards than making a wild guess at things
You think that modern science basically boils down to "making a wild guess"?!
Wow.
You don't have higher standards, you just start with the premise of a flat earth and then try and work everything around that.
If you are keen on empirical observations then I have suggested experiments you can do to prove the sun is as close as you suppose (spoiler: it isn't), the horizon is "where perspective points meet" (it isn't) and that shadow length and angle is affected by perspective (they aren't).
Feel free to post your findings if I'm wrong, and some documentation of the Bishop Experiment would be good while you're there.
-
How would we know? That doesn't sound like something that could be emperically observed abd determined. We have higher standards than making a wild guess at things
You think that modern science basically boils down to "making a wild guess"?!
Wow.
Modern Astronony works by making up a mechanism or interaction as the explanation and then considering it to be the true cause until it is shown to be impossible or unlikely. Hardly any of it is experimentally determined.
What experiments did Stephen Hawking conduct on the universe before coming up with his theory of the metric expansion of space?
You don't have higher standards, you just start with the premise of a flat earth and then try and work everything around that.
Actually we do. The standards of an empericist are much higher than the standards of a rationalist. The first chapter of Earth Not a Globe covers many of the fallacies of rationalism. I will suggest you read it.
If you are keen on empirical observations then I have suggested experiments you can do to prove the sun is as close as you suppose (spoiler: it isn't), the horizon is "where perspective points meet" (it isn't) and that shadow length and angle is affected by perspective (they aren't).
All of that sounds interesting. But I believe we have already discussed many of these experiments and their empirical conclusions. We are willing to look at them again with you if you start a thread.
-
How would we know? That doesn't sound like something that could be emperically observed abd determined. We have higher standards than making a wild guess at things
You think that modern science basically boils down to "making a wild guess"?!
Wow.
Modern Astronony works by making up a mechanism or interaction as the explanation and then considering it to be the true cause until it is shown to be impossible or unlikely. Hardly any of it is experimentally determined.
What experiments did Stephen Hawking conduct on the universe before coming up with his theory of the metric expansion of space?
You don't have higher standards, you just start with the premise of a flat earth and then try and work everything around that.
Actually we do. The standards of an empericist are much higher than the standards of a rationalist. The first chapter of Earth Not a Globe covers many of the fallacies of rationalism. I will suggest you read it.
If you are keen on empirical observations then I have suggested experiments you can do to prove the sun is as close as you suppose (spoiler: it isn't), the horizon is "where perspective points meet" (it isn't) and that shadow length and angle is affected by perspective (they aren't).
All of that sounds interesting. But I believe we have already discussed many of these experiments and their empirical conclusions. We are willing to look at them again with you if you start a thread.
Measuring the angle of the sun from many different places at different times has been discussed before, I believe you agree that timeanddate.com is correct so
you can determine the shape of the earth from that data.
-
Modern Astronony works by making up a mechanism or interaction as the explanation and then considering it to be the true cause until it is shown to be impossible or unlikely. Hardly any of it is experimentally determined.
What experiments did Stephen Hawking conduct on the universe before coming up with his theory of the metric expansion of space?
No, it absolutely does not work like that. Science works now like it always has. Theories are formed which explain observations and generally have predictive powers. Future observations are checked against that theory, if observations don't match then the theory is amended or, if needed, discarded. Thousands of years ago we probably did think the world was flat because if you look out to sea you do just see a flat horizon. But that is not a sufficient observation to conclude definitively you live on a flat earth. Other shapes, like a sphere for example, can look flat locally if they are big enough. This is not your "eyes playing tricks on you" any more than merging perspective lines are your eyes playing tricks. Your visual acuity is only so good. A small enough curve and a straight line are not distinguishable.
The famous stick experiment can be explained in two ways, a close sun or a curved earth.
Your response is "the earth is flat, ergo the explanation must be a close sun". That is not a rational.
What experiments have you done to determine whether that is the correct explanation? If you haven't done any then it is you who have made up something (a close sun) because it reinforces your flat earth belief and are assuming it to be true without trying to verify it in any way.
A distant sun has been long established in different ways, I'll leave you to Google how.
I can't sensibly talk about metric expansion of space. I did Google it and the Wiki article doesn't mention Hawking. Some of modern physics is, admittedly, highly theoretical. But they aren't just making up stuff. Take the fact that stars are moving apart. Clearly one cannot directly measure this, but if you understand spectroscopy (elements have different and consistent "signitures") and the Doppler effect (the apparent frequency of waves is altered by velocity) then you can work out that stars are moving away from us. Both of these concepts can be tested by experiment. We can't go and measure the velocity of a star directly but you can calculate it. Just like if you know the resting pitch of a sound source and drove it away from (or towards) an observer at a certain speed then the observer could measure the change in pitch and calculate the speed without directly measuring it. Experiments like this can be done to build confidence in the science behind all this which gives confidence in the conclusion that the stars are moving away from us.
You call things like this "rationalisation" simply because they don't fit in with your world view.
But you apply different standards to things which do. You say you don't, but your "shadow object" is made up. What experiments have you done to determine whether it even exists? You say "there's a shadow on the moon so there must be something which casts it". Fairly sound logic, but no less sound than "Doppler shift is observed in starlight so the stars must be moving away from us". Both start with an observation and result in a conclusion without direct observation of the explanation.
I will have a look at that Rowbotham chapter and I'll look at starting a thread about those experiments I mentioned, but if you claim you are an empiricist it seems strange that you have concluded the sun's distance or what the horizon is when these things can be so easily verified by experiment and I see no evidence that any experimentation has been done.
-
What experiments did Stephen Hawking conduct on the universe before coming up with his theory of the metric expansion of space?
Stephen Hawking did not come up with Inflation theory. Not sure where you got that. I would humbly point out that just because you don't know of any experiments concerning Inflation doesn't mean there haven't been any. Further, you are not talking about Astronomy. You are talking about Cosmology. I would recommend you start with Edwin Hubble's work since he is the one that proved the universe is expanding.