[edby]

Another sunrise question closely related to the one that Bobby raised here.

We are standing somewhere on the equator, say Quito, Ecuador, during the equinox. According to GE theory, the sun will rise due East. Also it will maintain the same position (i.e. due East) as it rises, until midday when it turns instantly due West, and sets in the same direction (i.e. due West).

This cannot be consistent with FE theory, where the equator is a circle around the north pole, so the sun must change direction as it rises.

Also, according to GE theory, at the time of sunrise at the equinox, the sun will appear in the same direction, i.e. due East, at for any observer anywhere who sees it rising.

For example, on 21 March 2019 an observer at Quito will see sunrise at 6:25 AM, due East. An observer at Buffalo NY will see it rise at the same time and from the same direction.

This could not be possible on a Flat Earth, for it would suggest the Sun was a very long distance away, much further than 3,000 miles or whatever.

Has anyone performed this test?

[Pete Svarrior]

This cannot be consistent with FE theory, where the equator is a circle around the north pole, so the sun must change direction as it rises.

Substantiate this statement. I see no reason why the Sun wouldn't follow the same cardinal directions in either model.

[edby]

This cannot be consistent with FE theory, where the equator is a circle around the north pole, so the sun must change direction as it rises.

Substantiate this statement. I see no reason why the Sun wouldn't follow the same cardinal directions in either model.

Which part are you challenging? Let's start with the claim that (according to FE) the equator encircles the North Pole. On the assumption that the Earth is flat, what other shape would the equator take?

[edit]
In the wiki here, Carpenter is quoted as saying

38.When the Sun crosses the equator, in March, and begins to circle round the heavens in north latitude

I will look up Rowbotham later.

[edby]

Rowbotham chapter VII-VIII of ENAG. See the picture below, and the accompanying text.

This supports both my claims. First, that the equator encircles the Pole. Rowbotham shows only the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, both as circles around the North Pole, but since the equator lies exactly between these, by implication it is also a circle.

Second, the Sun is claimed to follow a course between these, although it alternates according to season.

[Pete Svarrior]

None of this is relevant. Please focus on substantiating your claim that, on a Flat Earth, the Sun above the Equator would do anything but go East/West

[edby]

None of this is relevant. Please focus on substantiating your claim that, on a Flat Earth, the Sun above the Equator would do anything but go East/West

You didn't specify what part of my claim you were objecting to. So you agree that, during the equinox, and according to FE, the sun follows a circle around the equator?

[Pete Svarrior]

You didn't specify what part of my claim you were objecting to.

I did:

This cannot be consistent with FE theory, where the equator is a circle around the north pole, so the sun must change direction as it rises.

Substantiate this statement. I see no reason why the Sun wouldn't follow the same cardinal directions in either model.

[edby]

Then see below. Assume the observer is standing at the point where the equator circle cross the E-W line on the diagram. It is sunrise, so the sun cannot be directly above that spot. Therefore it must lie at some point on the circle in an easterly direction. But not due East, for it is travelling in a circle. It must appear somewhere to the North East.



A second reason is this. If an object is approaching me and is seen always from the same direction, then it must be travelling in a straight line.

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm sorry, what does the line labelled E-W have to do with the directions of East and West on the Flat Earth?

[edby]

I'm sorry, what does the line labelled E-W have to do with the directions of East and West on the Flat Earth?

I assume that on the Flat Earth, East is a direction at right angles to the direction of North.

Please also take on board my second reason. If an object is approaching me and is seen always from the same direction, then it must be travelling in a straight line. There is an elementary geometrical proof of this.

[Pete Svarrior]

I assume that on the Flat Earth, East is a direction at right angles to the direction of North.

Why, then, did you draw it as a straight line? That would only be correct at a single point.

[edby]

I assume that on the Flat Earth, East is a direction at right angles to the direction of North.

Why, then, did you draw it as a straight line? That would only be correct at a single point.

The line indicates a direction. A direction cannot be curved, by definition. Also, please take a look at the second reason, which does not require a diagram.

[Pete Svarrior]

The line indicates a direction. A direction cannot be curved, by definition.

That's complete nonsense. Cardinal directions are curved in either model. 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?

No, this won't do at all.

[edby]

The line indicates a direction. A direction cannot be curved, by definition.

That's complete nonsense. Cardinal directions are curved in either model. 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?

No, this won't do at all.

Again, a direction cannot be curved. And please observe the second reason. If an object travelling towards me is seen at the same direction, i.e. azimuth, it must be travelling in a straight line. Are you familiar with the concept of azimuth?

[edby]

Azimuth

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

Again, a direction cannot be curved.

Stating this with no substantiation doesn't make it any less nonsense. I can draw a similar line over RET and ask you why the Sun isn't zooming away into space. After all, it must be following a straight line, because the path can't be curved.

[edby]

Again, a direction cannot be curved.

Stating this with no substantiation doesn't make it any less nonsense. I can draw a similar line over RET and ask you why the Sun isn't zooming away into space. After all, it must be following a straight line, because the path can't be curved.

I was not talking about 'path' but 'direction'. A path can be curved, a direction, which has units of angle, cannot.

Regarding the second reason, proof. Let the observer be looking from A to an object located at B, and let the object move from B to B’ – see the diagram below. Then BAB’ subtends an angle, and the observer will perceive this as a change of direction.

If the perceived direction does not change, then the object must be moving along the line BA.

[Pete Svarrior]

I was not talking about 'path' but 'direction'. A path can be curved, a direction, which has units of angle, cannot.

Pointless, empty semantics. The angle between the Sun and the observer's line of sight is also not constant in either model.

[edby]

I was not talking about 'path' but 'direction'. A path can be curved, a direction, which has units of angle, cannot.

Pointless, empty semantics. The angle between the Sun and the observer's line of sight is also not constant in either model.

Wrong. On the GE model, the sun rising when seen from the equator maintains a constant azimuth. I explained the concept of azimuth above.

[edit]On the FE model as expounded by Rowbotham and Carpenter, the azimuth must change.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.