[edby]

Wrong. On the GE model, the sun rising when seen from the equator maintains a constant azimuth.

Being needlessly selective doesn't help anyone, especially when, again, you have failed to justify your selectiveness.

I was replying to your claim that 'The angle between the Sun and the observer's line of sight is also not constant in either model.' In the GE model, and in reality, the azimuth remains constant.

I am not denying that the sun appears to get higher in the sky as it rises. Is that your point?

[Pete Svarrior]

the azimuth remains constant.

I'd like to know why you're being so selective.

I am not denying that the sun appears to get higher in the sky as it rises. Is that your point?

No.

Or do you claim that by following an East-West line, the RET Sun significantly changes in altitude above the Earth over the course of just a few minutes?

[edby]

the azimuth remains constant.

I'd like to know why you're being so selective.

I am not being selective. My point is that under one model (RET) the azimuth of the sun as it rises is constant, under the other (FET - Rowbotham model) the azimuth must change.  That's all.

A simple experiment could resolve which model is correct. Does that make sense now?

[Pete Svarrior]

I am not being selective.

Well, if you're not willing to even admit your cherry-picking, let alone justify or reconcile it, then I doubt we'll get very far here.

[edby]

I am not being selective.

Well, if you're not willing to even admit your cherry-picking, let alone justify or reconcile it, then I doubt we'll get very far here.

You need to explain how I'm cherry picking. I am stating what the FET model predicts, and what the RET predicts. How is that 'cherry picking'?

[Pete Svarrior]

You need to explain how I'm cherry picking

I already did. Your jump from "direction" to "azimuth" and your prior non-acknowledgement of how nonsensical RET would become if we accepted your idea of "direction" are making your claim very difficult to take seriously. I don't see the merit of contemplating a hypothetical world in which nothing can change direction "by definition".

[edby]

You need to explain how I'm cherry picking

I already did. Your jump from "direction" to "azimuth" and your prior non-acknowledgement of how nonsensical RET would become if we accepted your idea of "direction" are making your claim very difficult to take seriously. I don't see the merit of contemplating a hypothetical world in which nothing can change direction "by definition".

Wow. From the dictionary.

Azimuth is the direction of a celestial object from the observer, expressed as the angular distance from the north or south point of the horizon to the point at which a vertical circle passing through the object intersects the horizon.

You see the word 'direction'?

I did not say the perceived direction of an object cannot change. Clearly it can. I gave a geometrical proof to show that if an approaching object appears to be coming always from the same direction, it must be travelling in a straight line. If it appears to change direction (from which I perceive it) then its path cannot be straight.

[Pete Svarrior]

Wow. From the dictionary.

Ah, yes, *the* dictionary. Fantastic referencing there.

You see the word 'direction'?

Okay. I'm sure I could find a dictionary that will tell us an apple is a fruit. Yet, if I made a claim about all fruit and then suddenly shifted the goalposts to apples, the definition of an apple wouldn't help.

[edby]

Wow. From the dictionary.

Ah, yes, *the* dictionary. Fantastic referencing there.

'Azimuth' is the Arabic word for 'direction'. Many terms in astronomy (and names for stars) come from Arabic.

[Pete Svarrior]

'Azimuth' is the Arabic word for 'direction'. Many terms in astronomy (and names for stars) come from Arabic.

Would you mind staying on topic, by any chance?

[Tom Bishop]

Of the Flat Earth YouTube channels, I believe that P-Brane best explains perspective in his series of videos.



The Equinox is described at 7:30 ish.

P-Brane is mostly focusing on the Monopole model, but I believe the basic tents from his videos would apply for the Bi-Polar model as well.

[RonJ]

The flat earth design would be interesting if we lived on it. When I was actively flying airplanes the air traffic controller could say to me: fly heading 270 degrees, slow to 140 knots, and maintain 4000 feet.  After acknowledging the directive, I was then obligated to navigate the aircraft to those exact specifications.  Flying a heading of 270 degrees (assuming no wind) meant that I would have no course components either to the North or to the South, my latitude would remain constant.  Now the other very important thing is the altitude. My directive was to maintain 4000 feet.  That means stay at a constant level above the surface of the earth.  If I were facing a fixed point in space off the earth somewhere and the earth wasn’t rotating my aircrafts nose would indeed appear to steadily move lower & lower relative that fixed point.  The aircraft’s pitch attitude would be slowly changing.  This illustrates the importance of the Z axis on a sphere.  Usually the autopilot would be engaged, and it would keep me at a constant distance above the ground.

The flat earth design throws away the Z axis altogether.  If I were to ‘fly my vector’ on a flat earth it would be different.  Say there was another fixed reference point somewhere in space and the flat earth was not accelerating upwards and I lined up that reference point to a dot on the aircraft’s windshield on a 270 degree heading at the instant we started.  To maintain a constant latitude (fixed distance to the North Pole) I would have to continue a slow constant turn to stay on the latitude circle.  My fixed point in space would then slowly move horizontally on the windshield. 

The bottom line is this.  On a flat earth flying a straight East or West heading and keeping your latitude constant as your longitude changes means that you would have a constant change in the yaw axis. No way around that.  On any circle to traverse the circumference requires a change in both the X and Y axis while you hold the distance from the center constant.  That completely earth agnostic, it’s just geometry.  On a globe earth you would traverse the X axis and the Z (pitch) axis to fly in a straight line and there would be no turning required to stay on a straight Easterly or Westerly heading.  Again, this is strictly earth agnostic and is a property of any sphere.

In the real world in the air or on the high seas you never have to make an adjustment in you azimuth (yaw axis) to stay on the same latitude line.  That means flat earth 0  Round Earth 1.  Your're argument isn't with me, it's with basic geometry.

[George Jetson]

The flat earth design would be interesting if we lived on it. When I was actively flying airplanes the air traffic controller could say to me: fly heading 270 degrees, slow to 140 knots, and maintain 4000 feet.  After acknowledging the directive, I was then obligated to navigate the aircraft to those exact specifications.  Flying a heading of 270 degrees (assuming no wind) meant that I would have no course components either to the North or to the South, my latitude would remain constant.  Now the other very important thing is the altitude. My directive was to maintain 4000 feet.  That means stay at a constant level above the surface of the earth.  If I were facing a fixed point in space off the earth somewhere and the earth wasn’t rotating my aircrafts nose would indeed appear to steadily move lower & lower relative that fixed point.  The aircraft’s pitch attitude would be slowly changing.  This illustrates the importance of the Z axis on a sphere.  Usually the autopilot would be engaged, and it would keep me at a constant distance above the ground.

The flat earth design throws away the Z axis altogether.  If I were to ‘fly my vector’ on a flat earth it would be different.  Say there was another fixed reference point somewhere in space and the flat earth was not accelerating upwards and I lined up that reference point to a dot on the aircraft’s windshield on a 270 degree heading at the instant we started.  To maintain a constant latitude (fixed distance to the North Pole) I would have to continue a slow constant turn to stay on the latitude circle.  My fixed point in space would then slowly move horizontally on the windshield. 

The bottom line is this.  On a flat earth flying a straight East or West heading and keeping your latitude constant as your longitude changes means that you would have a constant change in the yaw axis. No way around that.  On any circle to traverse the circumference requires a change in both the X and Y axis while you hold the distance from the center constant.  That completely earth agnostic, it’s just geometry.  On a globe earth you would traverse the X axis and the Z (pitch) axis to fly in a straight line and there would be no turning required to stay on a straight Easterly or Westerly heading.  Again, this is strictly earth agnostic and is a property of any sphere.

In the real world in the air or on the high seas you never have to make an adjustment in you azimuth (yaw axis) to stay on the same latitude line.  That means flat earth 0  Round Earth 1.  Your're argument isn't with me, it's with basic geometry.

This completely contradicts every other account from RE pilots who claim that there is no adjustment necessary for the z axis because gravity somehow keeps the plane flying at a constant equipotential curve.

Case in point:   https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea  "There is no adjustment needed as the aircraft will naturally follow the curvature of the earth without any input from the pilot. This is because the aircraft flies through the atmosphere which also follows the curvature of the earth."

[RonJ]

You don't understand.  There's no equipotential curve except for your altitude.  The altitude is based upon atmospheric pressure.  The autopilot adjusts the pitch of the aircraft to stay at the set altitude.  The only other place you would see any z-axis effects would be on the artificial horizon.  The mechanical gyroscopes in the artificial horizon had to be reset by the pilot fairly frequently anyway.  If you were straight & level at a fixed altitude you just pushed in on the knob, reset the gauge and pulled it out again.  Now your horizon on the instrument panel is again accurate.   If you were flying on a constant latitude line then only the X and Z axis would be changing.  When flying on a constant longitude line only the Y and Z axis would be changing.  In any other situation the X, Y and Z axes would be changing.  If you were flying above a flat earth forget about the Z axis altogether because it wouldn't apply for a constant altitude above the flat earth.  But then be ready to fly in a slow circle when going straight West or East. 

[edby]

Of the Flat Earth YouTube channels, I believe that P-Brane best explains perspective in his series of videos.

The 'explanation' was incoherent, and does not seem to apply to the current question.

(1) We have an observer in Miami watching sunrise during the Equinox. The apparent position of the sun is due East.

(2) We know as a fact that the sun is directly overhead the place in the Congo, i.e. directly over that place on the Flat Earth.

(3) Place in the Congo is close to the Equator, far south of Miami.

(4) In addition, everyone on the same longitude as Miami, i.e. everyone who can see the sun rising, sees it as lying due East.

How does FET explain this? The earth is undeniably flat, the sun is directly overhead the Congo, everyone sees it rise in the East.

[BillO]

edby is correct.  On the real world the sun rises directly due east on an equinox no matter what latitude you're are at.  This is what we observe, and you can do it yourself this coming March 20th, 2019.  On a flat earth model (pick whichever you like), this cannot happen.  On a flat earth, there would be only one specific latitude where the sun would rise directly due east, and it is certainly not the equator.  Since this does not match actual observation, the only conclusion is that the earth is not flat.  No matter how many straw men Pete expertly pulls out to confuse the matter, nor any total nonsense Tom tries to obfuscate things with the fact remains that the FE does not accurately predict where the sun rises on an equinox for every latitude.

Get your zetetic on and look east next equinox.  See it with your own eyes.  Don't take my word for it.

[Tom Bishop]

That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Equinox

[shootingstar]

On the real world the sun rises directly due east on an equinox no matter what latitude you're are at.

This is true.  Set Stellarium or any planetarium software to an equinox date (March or September 21st) and then alter the latitude setting only and you will find that the Sun rises due east and sets due west for regardless of latitude.  For an observer at the equator the Sun rises vertically from due east, passes through the zenith at local noon and the sets due west. For anyone at the S or N poles the Sun will skim the horizon. As you move towards the north pole from the equator the suns line will tilt more and more towards the south, if you move towards the south pole the Sun line will tilt more and more towards the north until as I said by the time you reach the pole (either) the angle of the Suns line goes to zero.

[edby]

That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Equinox

The claim is that at the equinox, the direction of the sun upon rising is independent of latitude. If you have specific evidence to contradict this claim, please provide it.

[Tom Bishop]

That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Equinox

The claim is that at the equinox, the direction of the sun upon rising is independent of latitude. If you have specific evidence to contradict this claim, please provide it.

Linked in what you quoted. The exactly East on Equinox claim is admitted to be wrong.