[JRowe]

I just want to compare sun (and/or moon) sightings: date, time, azimuth and elevation (and moon "face" orientation if applicable).

We share the same frame of reference so, if we cooperate, we ought to be able to verify if the DET model for the apparent location and motion of the celestial bodies matches what can be observed, particularly regarding rising/setting of those celestial bodies.

Again, what is it you are expecting to see? I don't get the point of this, we know where the Sun and moon are generally going to be at any given time, it's a predictable, repeating system with hundreds of years of recorded data.

Explain how rotating out of view changes distance?

...I explicitly said distance was the cause twice now. It's just because that's what causes the Sun to move across the sky, its rotation; when it goes all the way across it doesn't stop or reverse, it keeps moving which means you see the unlit side cut it off.

Give me some numbers. Estimated is okay. How far away from me is the sun when it "rotates out of view?"  Tonight, when the sun does set, I can verify where it will appear to be at its zenith over head another point on earth. How high up will it's projection be? 3000 miles, or is that an errant FET number?

I don't like giving speculation, I've tried before and it always gets twisted out of context. I don't agree with the 3000 figure, the experiment behind that is flawed in part because of the fact that makes the figure harder to give; space isn't constant, so distant isn't as trivial a concept.

And given that the orthodox spinning globe orbiting a distant sun works so well to explain what I see re. the sun, I'm working really hard to understand why a more difficult to comprehend alternative is even necessary.

Because it doesn't, you're just more used to it. You'd have to get onto why it's spinning, what started that, what causes it, and that's even without getting onto the rest of the model. yes, I'm aware you have answers, but I hope you can see how the comparison is far from as clear cut as you're used to.
Yes, DET is complicated. That's at least partly down to the fact it starts with a different basis to mainstream physics, you don't begin with years of familiarity and acceptance. If we were in a world where you'd instead been raised with DET, and I tried to explain mass-attracts-mass, subsequent circular motion rather than straightforward attraction etc, you'd be just as bewildered.
Plus diffcult to understand isn't a barometer of truth, assumptions are, and the DET model overall minimizes them because it all comes back to one property.

[Bobby Shafto]

I just want to compare sun (and/or moon) sightings: date, time, azimuth and elevation (and moon "face" orientation if applicable).

We share the same frame of reference so, if we cooperate, we ought to be able to verify if the DET model for the apparent location and motion of the celestial bodies matches what can be observed, particularly regarding rising/setting of those celestial bodies.

Again, what is it you are expecting to see? I don't get the point of this, we know where the Sun and moon are generally going to be at any given time, it's a predictable, repeating system with hundreds of years of recorded data.

Then there should be no worries, but forget it.  Just use my observation. Where was the sun at its zenith when it was rising from my vantage point here in San Diego at 6:01am? And where will it be when I watch it set tonight at 7:4x-something?

How far away from me is that?
How high is the sun (or the projection of the sun) at those two points?
With that we can have a value for the "distance" explanation instead of a handwave and see if the numbers make sense for "perspective" to be the reason why the elevation angle appears to go to 0.

Not only that, but we can check relative bearing to the sun. Does it track across the sky in both elevation and azimuth as a rotating spotlight sun projected onto a dome would predict?

It would certainly refine such an exercise to garner another set of data from another vantage point on earth, but if you don't want to do that, fine. This sun/moon model doesn't make sense in terms of what I feel like I observe, so I want to check.  The model is supposed to explain observable phenomena and I fail to understand the simultaneous departure of the spotlight pattern with the "cutting off" of the sun by the horizon at sunset (or vice versa at sunrise). I understand the mechanics of the rotating sun and how you describe its spotlight nature and its aether-flow driven projection of that light onto the dome; but I don't understand how that manifests in what I can see with my eyes and measure with a compass and inclinometer.  "Perspective" being the reason for an elevation angle diminishing to 0 doesn't make sense given what I think the distances that are involved. I want numbers, which you resist, to demonstrate that. Claiming "distance" does nothing for me. How much distance? Distance to what? Is the light from the spotlight projection doing anything funky like in EAT? Or is it just a straight line path and DET relies on the Rowbotham explanation of Perspective?

You've invited people to inspect your theory, and I'm doing that. If you choose to be nasty or condescending about the effort I'm making and the questions I'm posing, then I can just leave you to be sure of yourself, satisfied that you've answered all challenges. But if you want dialogue, then don't handwave me off with attitude. There's enough of that here already.

[edby]

Yes, DET is complicated. That's at least partly down to the fact it starts with a different basis to mainstream physics ...

Why not publish in a peer reviewed journal? Physics is not all about mainstream physics, as I am sure you know.

[JRowe]

Yes, DET is complicated. That's at least partly down to the fact it starts with a different basis to mainstream physics ...

Why not publish in a peer reviewed journal? Physics is not all about mainstream physics, as I am sure you know.

Because anything that begins with 'the Earth is flat' isn't going to be read any further. Aether as a concept is one I might be able to get in, but I'd need much greater resources to put up anything worth publishing, and even then it'd be hard to continue it without the Earth's shape entering into it.
Mainstream physics is self-fulfilling. Anything contrary gets laughed at as a crank, and so any study on it is only going to end up published in journals with no credibility.

Then there should be no worries, but forget it.  Just use my observation. Where was the sun at its zenith when it was rising from my vantage point here in San Diego at 6:01am? And where will it be when I watch it set tonight at 7:4x-something?

How far away from me is that?
How high is the sun (or the projection of the sun) at those two points?
With that we can have a value for the "distance" explanation instead of a handwave and see if the numbers make sense for "perspective" to be the reason why the elevation angle appears to go to 0.

Not only that, but we can check relative bearing to the sun. Does it track across the sky in both elevation and azimuth as a rotating spotlight sun projected onto a dome would predict?

It would certainly refine such an exercise to garner another set of data from another vantage point on earth, but if you don't want to do that, fine. This sun/moon model doesn't make sense in terms of what I feel like I observe, so I want to check.  The model is supposed to explain observable phenomena and I fail to understand the simultaneous departure of the spotlight pattern with the "cutting off" of the sun by the horizon at sunset (or vice versa at sunrise). I understand the mechanics of the rotating sun and how you describe its spotlight nature and its aether-flow driven projection of that light onto the dome; but I don't understand how that manifests in what I can see with my eyes and measure with a compass and inclinometer.  "Perspective" being the reason for an elevation angle diminishing to 0 doesn't make sense given what I think the distances that are involved. I want numbers, which you resist, to demonstrate that. Claiming "distance" does nothing for me. How much distance? Distance to what? Is the light from the spotlight projection doing anything funky like in EAT? Or is it just a straight line path and DET relies on the Rowbotham explanation of Perspective?

You've invited people to inspect your theory, and I'm doing that. If you choose to be nasty or condescending about the effort I'm making and the questions I'm posing, then I can just leave you to be sure of yourself, satisfied that you've answered all challenges. But if you want dialogue, then don't handwave me off with attitude. There's enough of that here already.

Apologies, the attitutde was mostly directed at another thread I responded to around the time I wrote that post.
Greenland I think would see noon when it's sunrise where you are; my issue's with getting that distance, long-range distances aren't exactly trivial to measure. Flights give you time, but speed isn't constant. GPS is circular, reliant on landmarks... I can typically agree that land distances are basically correct but the error bars for measurements oversea or through the air are significant.

It might be easier to think of this from the perspective of the inside of the Earth. Two dimensions are easier to imagine than three, and that's basically where the projection comes from. You've got a circle, and in the middle the same spotlight rotating on the spot. Bearing in mind the shape of the lit face, think of how that is going to look from any point on the rim of that circle.
Moving until the light is visible, peering out from behind the unlit face, then the lit circle going across your field of view, until it's cut off at the far side again, and when it's cut off it vanishes as it rose.
Obviously not a perfect way to see it because you've got to translate that to above, but hopefully it gives an idea of where it all comes from, especially bearing in mind what the sectors of a circle represent for the flat Earth.
The only reason I 'resist' numbers is because they're speculation, you deserve better than what is going to be little more than guesswork with the resources I have. Numbers give you a lot of work with no real meaning, precisely because I can't give them with any degree of certainty.
Though, yes, light is affected, I'd assumed you'd read that. Principle's explained under the sinking ship part of the DET FAQ.

[Bobby Shafto]

Sorry, but I was already working on this before you posted, so it isn't responsive to that last post.

But here are my numbers, with a 3D modeling of what I think is the DET mechanism from projection of the sun over the earth:



I'll let you absorb that for a bit. I'm taking information from timeanddate.com for the location of the sun over earth at my time of sunrise, solar noon and sunset today (7/28/2018). And distances to those points come from Google. The elevation of the sun at solar noon is from Stellarium. And the relative bearing (azimuth) is manual measured on the bearing lines to sunrise and sunset on the north polar equidistant azimuthal map I used for the northern hemiplane.

I calculated the height of the sun based on the distance to its zenith at my solar noon and the elevation angle of the sun at that point from my location.

As the spotlight rotates clockwise from solar noon to sunset, that sun projection will move westward, with slant distance increasing as the azimuth also changes CW. At sunset, the ground distance from me to sun's zenith calculates to around 6200 miles and with sun appearing to set on a map-measured 313° bearing line.

So, despite actually being 3900-4000 miles above the earth, the sun (you say) will appear to intersect with the earth due to Perspective because the distance (6200 miles) is so great.  This, even though astronomically (via trig calculation) the angle of sun elevation should be 32°. The difference between 0° and 32° is too great for "Perspective" to overcome as an explanatory too.

The measured azimuths of sunrise and sunset are off too from predicted/observed. Sunrises are now happening in San Diego in the mid-60s degrees azimuth and sunsets approaching 290°, not 42° and 313° respectively. My manual measurements can't be more than 3-5° margin for error.

Too many things are off. Is it the map? Is it the distances provided by Google? The zenith locations of the sun from TimeandDate? The angle of elevation at solar noon of the sun by Stellarium? Am I missing something about DET that makes straight line paths for space on/above the hemiplane or Euclidean geometry for  calculating angles and distance flawed? I apprehend (if not comprehend) that's there's a flow of space (aether) occuring, but it's not impacting our ability to measure and observe from locations on the earth's surface to the projections on the dome, is it? We all share the same reference frame and can agree on time/space dimensions within the boundaries of the dome and the earth's surface, correct?

This is my problem. I get the notion of the spotlight sun rotating and how that is projected above us to present a sun that circles above the earth. But it ultimately has the same geometry problems of the TFES "orthodox" flat earth model in that it doesn't present a sun (or moon) that I can watch and compare with others, or that's been modeled and patterned for years, including reliable tools like TimeandDate, Stellarium, etc. I've never caught any of these in a mistake.

How a celestial body many miles above a flat earth can ever decline to a 0 degree elevation within the confines of the distances of that flat earth is beyond me, and "distance" due to perspective doesn't work as an explanation. You'd need millions (oops; exaggeration) hundreds of thousands of miles of distance to work the sun down to an angular elevation of 1°. It can't reach the "vanishing point" on a horizon without some other "bendy light" kind of explanation.

And if the sun IS at 20-30° above the horizon, but it's just out of view because it's spot light has rotated away, its projection should still be angled in a such a way that I should be able to see it in the distance, with enough magnification and assuming no extinction, diffusion or opaqueness in the atmoplane.

I think the numbers are critical to testing the model, else you're just making assertions that unverifiable. It makes no sense to me that the rotation of a spot light sun is simultaneously the reason for the sun appearing to set behind a horizon line AND for the light pattern of the spot to pass away from a vantage point. Those two aspects do not coincide logically to me, nor if I try to visualize it in a model.

[JRowe]

Too many things are off. Is it the map? Is it the distances provided by Google?
...
Am I missing something about DET that makes straight line paths for space on/above the hemiplane or Euclidean geometry for  calculating angles and distance flawed? I apprehend (if not comprehend) that's there's a flow of space (aether) occuring, but it's not impacting our ability to measure and observe from locations on the earth's surface to the projections on the dome, is it? We all share the same reference frame and can agree on time/space dimensions within the boundaries of the dome and the earth's surface, correct?

Primarily these. As you said, it doesn't really respond to the post I made, my answers are there.

I think the numbers are critical to testing the model, else you're just making assertions that unverifiable.

Yes, numbers help, but I can only provide what it is physically possible for me to determine. It doesn't matter what the ideal situation would be; you have the same resources as me most likely, how would you suggest they be calculated? It's pointless to ask for things that there is no possible way for one person with one person's resources to provide.

It makes no sense to me that the rotation of a spot light sun is simultaneously the reason for the sun appearing to set behind a horizon line AND for the light pattern of the spot to pass away from a vantage point. Those two aspects do not coincide logically to me, nor if I try to visualize it in a model.

Again, best explanation I have in my last post, I can't help until I know what your issue is.
My best guess is that you're too focused on making it analogous with the uniplanar FE model's view of the Sun, and viewing the Sun as basically identical to that. Instead, look at the aspect unique to DET, as I went over back then think of how that would look. An arc across the sky, being cut off at each side. Think about that, don't think of it as the uniplanar FET's Sun circling over a disc. It isn't that.

[Bobby Shafto]

It might be easier to think of this from the perspective of the inside of the Earth. Two dimensions are easier to imagine than three, and that's basically where the projection comes from. You've got a circle, and in the middle the same spotlight rotating on the spot. Bearing in mind the shape of the lit face, think of how that is going to look from any point on the rim of that circle.
Moving until the light is visible, peering out from behind the unlit face, then the lit circle going across your field of view, until it's cut off at the far side again, and when it's cut off it vanishes as it rose.
Obviously not a perfect way to see it because you've got to translate that to above, but hopefully it gives an idea of where it all comes from, especially bearing in mind what the sectors of a circle represent for the flat Earth.
The only reason I 'resist' numbers is because they're speculation, you deserve better than what is going to be little more than guesswork with the resources I have. Numbers give you a lot of work with no real meaning, precisely because I can't give them with any degree of certainty.

Doing as you say, without regard to the impact of perspective on perceived size with increasing distance, and without the 3rd dimension of elevation of the projection above the hemiplane, this is what I see/model for a lit circle with slightly more than 180° of illumination:



Is this what you mean?

Edit to add:

[Bobby Shafto]

But that's if I'm looking directly at the light from the perimeter of the circle. That's not what you're describing with DET. Rather, I'm somewhere inside the circle looking toward the perimeter at a projection, like this:
 


From a "mid latitude" vantage point, the projection never rotates more than 30° oblique. The sun would never be 'cut off' simply by the rotation as long as I have a direct, unobstructed view toward it. But even here, the sun wouldn't retain it's round, circular shape as the angle of obliqueness to the projection changes. It would become oblong.

This is all, of course, just imagining a view under the hemiplane disc before considering the 3rd dimension, aether flow and how the light translates to a dome projection above and is viewed from some point on top of the hemiplane. But by the time you get to that process, any 'cutting off' due to rotation is done. Ony then do you get into how high on the dome the light is being projected, distance impacts on angular size and perceived elevation due to distance (perspective) from the equivalent vantage point on top of the dome, and any downward bending of the subsequent light path due to downward space/aether flow.

But I cannot model or visualize what you mean about how the rotation of the spotlight sun is responsible for the cutting off the sun like we see at sun set, or why that also coincides necessarily with distance corresponding to a horizon.

[JRowe]

i can't keep doing this. There is no other way for me to explain it, and you're repeating yourself but you are either deliberately misrepresenting me, or just not understanding, and you repeating your claims isn't helping me clarify.

The cutting off comes from basically the same mechanic as the moon's phases, that is all the observation from within the Earth was meant to illustrate, as well as the correllation with distance. it's when we move beyond that cutting off to you rother objections that the rest of what i've said should be applied.

[Bobby Shafto]

i can't keep doing this. There is no other way for me to explain it, and you're repeating yourself but you are either deliberately misrepresenting me, or just not understanding, and you repeating your claims isn't helping me clarify.

The cutting off comes from basically the same mechanic as the moon's phases, that is all the observation from within the Earth was meant to illustrate, as well as the correllation with distance. it's when we move beyond that cutting off to you rother objections that the rest of what i've said should be applied.

I spent quite some time developing illustrations based on and interpreting what you say you are trying to clarify. I'm not merely repeating myself. I'm truly not understanding.

I don't see how the "mechanic" you describe can possibly work to achieve either the moon phases, or the cutting off of the sun or moon at the horizon. I've taken up the moon phase issue in another discussion topic. I'm focusing here on night/day spotlight sun pattern and the APPARENT eclipsing of the sun at sunrise and sunset. I think I'm a a pretty clever person with a flexible mind, and I like alternate, non-orthodox concepts. I'm not being emotionally antagonistic toward DET. I'm just not getting it, and apparently not able to get across to you why I think your described mechanism doesn't achieve the phenomena to which you attribute it.

Modify or correct my illustrations if they are wrong or misrepresenting what you are trying to convey.

Or, if it's all just too frustrating or aggravating, ignore me and I'll move on from trying to fathom how the DET model works.

[JRowe]

I think I'm a a pretty clever person with a flexible mind, and I like alternate, non-orthodox concepts. I'm not being emotionally antagonistic toward DET. I'm just not getting it, and apparently not able to get across to you why I think your described mechanism doesn't achieve the phenomena to which you attribute it.

I'm aware of that, I do enjoy discussions like this, it's just that evidently my explanations aren't good enough. I just saw that other thread, I'll focus on that, and hopefully it'll click if you come at the problem from a different angle.

The obvious thing to point out with the illustrations is that you've reverted to modelling a 2-D circle when we already established that the lit face does have an arc to it.

[Bobby Shafto]

The obvious thing to point out with the illustrations is that you've reverted to modelling a 2-D circle when we already established that the lit face does have an arc to it.

I was following your suggestion:

It might be easier to think of this from the perspective of the inside of the Earth. Two dimensions are easier to imagine than three, and that's basically where the projection comes from. You've got a circle, and in the middle the same spotlight rotating on the spot. Bearing in mind the shape of the lit face, think of how that is going to look from any point on the rim of that circle.
Moving until the light is visible, peering out from behind the unlit face, then the lit circle going across your field of view, until it's cut off at the far side again, and when it's cut off it vanishes as it rose.
Obviously not a perfect way to see it because you've got to translate that to above, but hopefully it gives an idea of where it all comes from, especially bearing in mind what the sectors of a circle represent for the flat Earth.
The only reason I 'resist' numbers is because they're speculation, you deserve better than what is going to be little more than guesswork with the resources I have. Numbers give you a lot of work with no real meaning, precisely because I can't give them with any degree of certainty.

The 3 illustrations I created, especially the animated one, were intended to portray that.
1. Apparent shape of the spotlight if looking directly at it rotate
2. Apparent shape in relationship to varying perspective on the perimeter looking at the spotlight (vantage point moving vice spotlight rotating)
3. Perspective from within the circle following the projected spotlight pattern around the circle

These intentionally ignored the mechanism that translates the spotlight projection to above the hemiplane and what happens then, including arc.

Your response was:

The cutting off comes from basically the same mechanic as the moon's phases, that is all the observation from within the Earth was meant to illustrate, as well as the correllation with distance. it's when we move beyond that cutting off to you rother objections that the rest of what i've said should be applied.

But where's the "cutting off"? It doesn't happen if I'm inside the circle watching the spotlight projection go around the circle. It does happen if I'm looking directly at the spotlight, but it becomes squashes and oblong vertically, not an orb that gets cut horizontally like a sunset.

I've modeled what you've described and I can't illustrate why the sun (or moon) should look the way they do at sunrise/sunset as a result of that mechanism.

But okay. Let's you and I table this and follow-up with the moon discussion topic, since it's basically the same problem (although in DET the moon orbiting of the sun adds an additional mechanical element). The moon is easier to examine since it isn't as bright and has distinctive features we can mark. 

[Bobby Shafto]

Let's you and I table this and follow-up with the moon discussion topic, since it's basically the same problem (although in DET the moon orbiting of the sun adds an additional mechanical element). The moon is easier to examine since it isn't as bright and has distinctive features we can mark.

I forgot that before I suggested we table this discussion, JRowe, I had drawn up this graphic to further my point in interpreting your DET model:



Toward the end of July, the sun's sub-solar spot when 12 hours away from a San Diego solar noon was over the north Arabian Sea, approximately 8800 miles from San Diego.

At that point, the DET spotlight sun would have been pointing 180° away from San Diego, and its light carried by the aether up around the edge of the north hemiplane and back down to create a projection of that spotlight sun above the Arabian Sea sub-solar point. The spotlight pattern between day and night on the earth would reach a little over the north pole with the pattern terminator n northern Canada.

Using "distance" as an explanation for why, despite it being night in San Diego, one couldn't find the sun in the night sky, akin to a star or planet, isn't sufficient. "Perspective" does diminish height with distance, but at 8800 miles of distance, a 3000 mile high sun would only appear 18.8° above the horizon -- not at the horizon (without some other influencing factor). To drop to 1°, the sun would have to be 153 miles above the sub solar point.

"Space isn't constant" says DET, suggesting that there is some additional factor beyond "distance." The only clue I can find in the DET write up is that aether/space continues to influence light to bend downward so any light emanating from the sun at the spotlight edges not traveling perpendicular to the earth will gradually bend downward until perpendicular, and it is this characteristic that creates the boundary between day/night and not merely "distance" and perspective. This is basically a reverse-"bendy light" explanation, compared to the upward curve of light in the Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory (EAT).

Without light bending, the distant sun would be visible with a telescope in the DET model. The rotation of the spotlight can't, by itself, explain either the sun intersecting the horizon at sunset/rise or the demarcation between night and day on the surface of the flat earth (nor other features of the sun like its constant angular width between sunrise/sunset or the elevation angles as it arcs across ones' local sky).