*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2018, 01:27:38 AM »
The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth.
I'm still having a problem with the 'over the earth' idea. I think it means, the unique place where the sun is directly overhead. There will be such a place on both flat earth and globe earth. Is that what is meant?

Here's my interpretation. Each red line in the image represents me looking East from Punta Arenas, Chile yesterday at sunrise. Suncalc has the sun directly over a little East of Madagascar. I’m kind of guessing as to what looking East on the AE and Bi-Polar FE models looks like. Feel free to correct. The globe model matches Suncalc's observable sun path, the FE models do not. So a couple of things:

- Is Suncalc not correct, meaning it is an inaccurate tool?
- Should I be looking at the FE models differently?



Why do you guys keep trying to connect Argentina to some point on the surface of the earth?

The last time I checked the sun was not an orange ball that rolled on the surface of the earth in the Round Earth model. The sun isn't on the surface of the earth. The sun is, allegedly, very far away. In RET the direction of 'East' would go out into space, not along the surface of a globe.

Should we assume that this creative thinking must be done, rather than simply drawing out the geometric model, because the 93 million mile distant sun and a tilted earth in a Sun-Earth model is difficult to explain?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 02:04:07 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #41 on: December 28, 2018, 01:28:28 AM »
If you plot the great circle route between the Sunrise at Ushuaia at 54deg-48'S and 68deg-19'W and the Sun's zenith point Near Madagascar at 23deg-30'S / 57deg-30'E, the route leaves Ushuaia at about 135 degrees.  It's been confirmed by both using Google earth and by the old fashioned Zetetic way using a globe, string and protractor.  Everything is in agreement.  I did use SunCalc and feel that is an accurate and very useful tool.  The data from the Naval Observatory also agreed as well.  I don't see any problems with matching up the observable solar events with the globe earth tools both new and old. 

I drew out a flat earth map and will see if I can get something that will match up with the actual, confirmed, observations that have been made.  So far nothing seems to be working. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #42 on: December 28, 2018, 01:32:51 AM »
I think that the whole idea was to unambiguously illustrate what the zenith point for the Sun looks like on the globe earth.  This answers the question of why the Sun's azimuth is exactly where it is for a given location and at a given time.  The Sun Earth model is a little hard to visualize especially when a long great circle route around a pole is involved.  You might expect the Sun to rise directly in the East and set directly in the West, but that's not always the case.  The examples illustrate clearly how the phenomenon works in this specific case. A nice detailed diagram could be produced with any specification you desire, but it wouldn't alter the underlying facts.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 01:44:37 AM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3873
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2018, 02:28:47 AM »
Should we assume that this creative thinking must be done, rather than simply drawing out the geometric model, because the 93 million mile distant sun and a tilted earth in a Sun-Earth model is difficult to explain?
No, you should assume that we're discussing a real world observation in a flat earth context.  The question, which no one seems to want to answer, is this: when an observer at one location is watching the sun rise, where is the sun at its zenith on the flat earth?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2018, 03:06:37 AM »
Should we assume that this creative thinking must be done, rather than simply drawing out the geometric model, because the 93 million mile distant sun and a tilted earth in a Sun-Earth model is difficult to explain?
No, you should assume that we're discussing a real world observation in a flat earth context.  The question, which no one seems to want to answer, is this: when an observer at one location is watching the sun rise, where is the sun at its zenith on the flat earth?

The Flat Earth explanation is revealing itself. As the only attempted explanations are done through connecting points on the surface of the earth, rather than geometric RET model of the Sun-Earth system, those same methods tell us that the sun is close over the earth.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3873
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2018, 03:43:45 AM »
Should we assume that this creative thinking must be done, rather than simply drawing out the geometric model, because the 93 million mile distant sun and a tilted earth in a Sun-Earth model is difficult to explain?
No, you should assume that we're discussing a real world observation in a flat earth context.  The question, which no one seems to want to answer, is this: when an observer at one location is watching the sun rise, where is the sun at its zenith on the flat earth?

The Flat Earth explanation is revealing itself. As the only attempted explanations are done through connecting points on the surface of the earth, rather than geometric RET model of the Sun-Earth system, those same methods tell us that the sun is close over the earth.
Then feel free to present a geometric flat earth model that explains the observation in question.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2018, 04:37:59 AM »
Why do you guys keep trying to connect Argentina to some point on the surface of the earth?
You're trying to understand how the sun can appear along a given bearing at sunset/rise, correct? Connecting the location on a globe earth where the sun appears on the horizon with the location on a globe earth where the sun is directly overhead gives you that bearing.



The reason for the sun setting or rising at a horizon on a globe is because the surface slopes away from the location where the sun appears directly overhead.

If it helps, think of that line across the globe between those two points like a shadow formed by two long ropes from each point extending up to the sun. That shadow lies under the two ropes that come together at the sun. At the earth, the ropes are practically parallel because of the distance to the sun is so great. But the angle each forms with the shadow varies from 90° to 0° depending on where on that curved globe surface the rope is attached.  The shadow is the azimuth angle to the sun for the location where the elevation angle is near 0°.

Edit: I realized after I wrote this that maybe you're confusing angles. There are two: azimuth and elevation. So, the bearing line -- the line drawn between these two non-random points -- is the azimuth angle when the elevation angle is near 0° (sunset/sunrise).
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 04:42:19 AM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2018, 04:56:09 AM »

I've spent a lot of time explaining to you how it CAN work on a globe. You don't get it. Fine.
Now, explain to me how it can work on a flat earth. I might not get it, but at least try to explain it to me as I've tried to explain the globe to you.

I'm giving up hope that this is ever going to get answered.


The Flat Earth explanation is revealing itself. As the only attempted explanations are done through connecting points on the surface of the earth, rather than geometric RET model of the Sun-Earth system, those same methods tell us that the sun is close over the earth.

I wish the flat earth explanation WAS revealing itself since I can't coax it out of anyone.

How can the sun rise as seen from Punta Arenas appear to rise from the southeast near the time of the southern solstice on a flat earth? That's been no more revealed than the opening question of how the sun seen from Pic du Canigó can appear to rise from the northeast over the Alps in the south of France in May.

My explanations for a globe do not "reveal" a flat earth explanation at all.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #48 on: December 28, 2018, 08:33:55 AM »
The diagram and path of light you provided above seems very similar to the one I made.

Why do you guys keep trying to connect Argentina to some point on the surface of the earth?
You're trying to understand how the sun can appear along a given bearing at sunset/rise, correct? Connecting the location on a globe earth where the sun appears on the horizon with the location on a globe earth where the sun is directly overhead gives you that bearing.

Consider what you guys are saying happens at Equinox, for example. The sun is over the equator, and you tell us that someone in Miami would see the sun rising from directly East. The sun (allegedly) rises directly from the East. Right?

Yet, if we used your method of connecting Miami along the surface of the globe, over to where the sun is directly over the equator, the observer would be looking to the South of East.



If this surface of the earth method is accurate, how would you explain the above?

I did exactly what you told us was necessary to get the bearing of the sun. I made a line between Miami and the Equator, to where the sun is most directly over. Yet the rays of the sun are still coming in from the East.

It seems clear, to me, that these would have to be lines that stretch out into space to depict this, not along the surface of a globe. If the above analogy is valid, then it suggests that all of the illustrations of the observer-to-sun paths along the surface of the globe, including the one in the first post of your OP, are in question.

This directly answers your question in the OP in regards to bearings and the surface-of-the-earth method of sun bearing that is used.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 09:40:40 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2018, 09:09:04 AM »
Yet, if we used your method of connecting Miami along the surface of the globe, over to where the sun is directly over the equator, the observer would be looking to the South of East.
Correct. 21-Dec-2018, sunrise at Miami 7:12AM, azimuth of sun = 116 degrees, which is 26 degrees or East-Southeast. Is that a problem?

There most certainly would be a problem with that if we were to look up the dates of the Equinox.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #50 on: December 28, 2018, 09:11:27 AM »
Yet, if we used your method of connecting Miami along the surface of the globe, over to where the sun is directly over the equator, the observer would be looking to the South of East.
Correct. 21-Dec-2018, sunrise at Miami 7:12AM, azimuth of sun = 116 degrees, which is 26 degrees or East-Southeast. Is that a problem?

There most certainly would be a problem with that if we were to look up the dates of the Equinox.
Not with you (i.e. I don't understand).

Oh right, sorry, yes 21 Dec is not the equinox.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 09:15:13 AM by edby »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #51 on: December 28, 2018, 09:17:52 AM »
Starting again. 21 Jun 2018 Miami. Sunrise 5:31, azimuth 63 degrees, so east north east.

I'm not sure why that would be.


Starting again. 21 Sep 2018, which really is the equinox. Sunrise 6:23 AM 90 degrees exactly. Due East.

So Tom is correct.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 09:22:34 AM by edby »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #52 on: December 28, 2018, 12:41:26 PM »
Which suggests a connected problem. Tom and I agree that when standing on the equator at the equinox, we see the sun rise due East. Then the sun comes straight towards me until it stands directly overhead at noon.

How is this possible on a flat earth?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #53 on: December 28, 2018, 03:22:04 PM »
The diagram and path of light you provided above seems very similar to the one I made.
But you're making a key error. I'll explain:

Consider what you guys are saying happens at Equinox, for example. The sun is over the equator, and you tell us that someone in Miami would see the sun rising from directly East. The sun (allegedly) rises directly from the East. Right?

Correct.

Yet, if we used your method of connecting Miami along the surface of the globe, over to where the sun is directly over the equator, the observer would be looking to the South of East.

No. The Miami observer would be facing due East. The path to the sun on the Equator doesn't stay due east on a globe for someone not on the equator. Miami is at a latitude north of the equator, so even though it's a straight path due east at first, that straight line will not follow the eastward line of latitude on a globe. The globe's east line will curve left. To keep seeing east, your vision would have to curve to the left somehow. But light doesn't do that. It stays straight. Thus, on a globe, a straight line will follow a great circle arc, not a constant line of latitude.  So the bearing will gradually shift south the further you go until it reaches the Equator.

Like this:






If this surface of the earth method is accurate, how would you explain the above?

I did exactly what you told us was necessary to get the bearing of the sun. I made a line between Miami and the Equator, to where the sun is most directly over. Yet the rays of the sun are still coming in from the East.


Look at the difference between what you have above and these correct images below and see if you can see the difference.


Both of these depict a straight line on a globe. I just rotated the globe.

In your graphic, your line is not straight. It's straight on a 2D surface, but over a 3D surface of the globe, it would curve. It's the reason that Google Maps projection I showed you above has the actual straight line of a globe looking curved. You can't draw a straight line on a flat map and call it straight on a globe. That's why I suggested using a ball. Or go get a globe and stretch a string from Miami to Gabon and see for yourself. That's how the globe works.


It seems clear, to me, that these would have to be lines that stretch out into space to depict this, not along the surface of a globe. If the above analogy is valid, then it suggests that all of the illustrations of the observer-to-sun paths along the surface of the globe, including the one in the first post of your OP, are in question.
Because you're not grasping what is being explained to you. They're in question because you are trying to apply a flat mindset and technique to a globe. I'm not asking you to believe in a globe. Just pretend for a moment and assume a globe and try to comprehend how a globe works.

This directly answers your question in the OP in regards to bearings and the surface-of-the-earth method of sun bearing that is used.

But it doesn't answer the question about a flat earth. How can the sun appear to rise directly east in Miami if the sun is over Gabon on the Equator?


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #54 on: December 28, 2018, 03:54:30 PM »
What you've drawn here is straight on the 2D graphic. But it's not the straight line on a globe.



I made a video to illustrate:



And here's is the Suncalc graphic:



Note that arcing orange line on the superimposed sphere? That's the equator. The yellow line depicts the bearing of sunrise from Miami. But because that orange line is not also a straight line, that means that bearing line will have to follow a great circle arc and become more southerly as it approaches the equator.

If you move the location from Miami south in Suncalc, down to the equator, you'll see that orange line straighten out and become parallel with the rising sun line. That's because from a position on the equator, the path to the sun IS the equator. Only there will a straight line due east stay due east. Any northern or south and the straight line will cross lines of latitude.

With this, I'm done defending the globe. I haven't ignored you, right? I just am at my limit as to how to explain.

I only now ask for the courtesy of showing me how these observations (May sunrise from the Pyrenees, Feb sunset from south of France, winter soltice sunrise from Punta Arenas, summer solstice sunset from Nenana, AK, or equinox sunrise from Miami) work on a flat earth model.  I might have the same difficulty with that as you are having with the globe. Can we try?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #55 on: December 28, 2018, 05:52:51 PM »
I only now ask for the courtesy of showing me how these observations (May sunrise from the Pyrenees, Feb sunset from south of France, winter soltice sunrise from Punta Arenas, summer solstice sunset from Nenana, AK, or equinox sunrise from Miami) work on a flat earth model.  I might have the same difficulty with that as you are having with the globe. Can we try?

Looking at another topic, it's all too clear that there's a major, fundamental disconnect between flat earth and globe earth advocates. The globe doesn't make sense to some flat earthers and the flat earth doesn't make sense to some globe earthers.

I'm a globie. The globe makes sense to me and matches observation. I can't seem to help Tom (a flat earther) make sense of the globe.
Tom is a flat earther. I assume the flat earth model makes sense to him and matches his observations.
But I, a globe earther, can't make sense of how a flat model matches observations. All I'm asking for is for someone to do for the flat earth what I've tried to do for a globe earth.

I'll pick Tom's example of Miami sunrise at the equinox.  Show me the path from Miami (red dot) to the sun's position directly over the earth at the time it is seen rising in Miami (yellow dot ) on either of these or any other preferred model representation of a flat earth:





When I've tried to show what I think as I understand it, I've been rebuked. So show me how.

If the question itself is making an incorrect assumption, correct it. Don't just tell me it's incorrect. If I have the sun in the wrong place, put it in the right place.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 05:58:03 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #56 on: December 28, 2018, 07:48:33 PM »
Bobby, we would first need to show that the premise of this argument is correct before we attempt to explain "how does this work in FET."

You made the same diagram that I made.

Here is a screen capture from your video. The earth is slightly tilted forwards in the below image, but nonetheless, we can see the problem:



Which direction is the sun coming from on Equinox? The East that leads to the Equator along a globe, or the straight-line East into space?

How is it that these seem to be two different directions? Which way is East?

Should it matter more where the light is going, or where the earth is curving?

It seems to me that in RET the direction of East, for the purposes of the sun, would broadcast out into space, not along the surface of a globe...

I am sure that we can all see what the confusion is here with this argument.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 07:56:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #57 on: December 28, 2018, 08:08:25 PM »
The only confusion i see is that you don’t understand spherical geometry and the difference between a direction bearing, azimuth, and a path on said sphere. To follow an easterly path on the globe you continually curve left slightly in the Northern Hemisphere  and right slightly in the Southern Hemisphere.

Take a globe. Draw a line connecting north and south poles. Pick any point away from the equator a bit, measure 90 degrees, continue that line around the curve and draw that straight line or use a rubber band.  That line is not a path someone would take to continuously head east.  It is due east for that location on the globe however.  Before any progress can be made, this fundamental concept has to be understood.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2018, 08:16:47 PM »
The only confusion i see is that you don’t understand spherical geometry and the difference between a direction bearing, azimuth, and a path on said sphere.

Sorry, what does the sphere have to do with this at all? If the earth were a cube in your Sun-Earth model, the concept of curvature and "spherical geometry" doesn't exist at all, and yet the sun is still coming in from the East during Equinox to a point on the side of the cube, when the cube earth rotates to face the sun.

What does the shape of the earth matter? This is a simple light diagram.

Here is a diagram:



Please explain your spherical geometry using the model above.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 08:30:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #59 on: December 28, 2018, 08:34:45 PM »
The only confusion i see is that you don’t understand spherical geometry and the difference between a direction bearing, azimuth, and a path on said sphere.

Sorry, what does the sphere have to do with this at all? If the earth were a cube in your Sun-Earth model, the concept of curvature and "spherical geometry" doesn't exist at all, and yet the sun is still coming in from the East during Equinox to a point on the side of the cube, when the cube earth rotates to face the sun.

What does the shape of the earth matter? This is a simple light diagram.

I can't believe I'm doing this but this Globebusters vid explains this quite well. Watch the first 5 minutes:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.