Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #60 on: December 30, 2018, 05:35:42 PM »
And it's very weird. See the picture below modified from my previous example. I scrubbed out 'east' and 'west', and simply drew the shadows of three objects A B and C.

Assume that on the equinox all shadows run in the same direction. Now the Sun rotates in a circle around the flat earth. But how can it be casting parallel shadows?

This can't be explained by light bending, because in order for the shadow to be straight, the light must be straight. Does it go in a curved direction until it hits the object producing the shadow? But look at object C, which lies closer to the sun. The light has stopped being curved and starts travelling in a straight line as it hits C. What about an object even closer than C? Well the light from that must be travelling straight too.

This is very perplexing.


*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 513
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #61 on: December 30, 2018, 05:44:18 PM »
Linked in what you quoted. The exactly East on Equinox claim is admitted to be wrong.
The Permaculture Institute is a bunch of hippie type low impact farming proponents and not an acceptable source of reliable information on astronomical phenomenon.   Your using them to substantiate your nonsense is a glaringly pathetic joke.  Please find something from the Royal Astronomical Society or university astronomy department.

I've been through your wiki from end to end and side to side.  There is nothing in there except ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.  In fact, claims that are impossible to substantiate at all.
To be fair, Russell Sampson is a mainstream astronomer, teaching at a University department. However his article is merely addressing the observed position due to refraction, as I noted above. He supports, rather than challenges, mainstream science.
No argument there edby.  I read the article and decided it was just another case of Tom (or whoever wrote that wiki page) not understanding the content they are using.  Every time I have tried to argue an issue like this (misunderstanding real science) here, I just run into the the same misunderstanding over and over again.  There just seemed to be no point in trying to clarify Sampson's point.  It is clear to most of us what he was saying.  Not so much to Tom.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 513
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #62 on: December 30, 2018, 05:49:07 PM »
Flat earthers generally don't accept any kind of evidence that requires expensive instrumentation. It has to be either naked eye, or some experiment that can easily be reproduced.
Which brings up an off-topic point.  It amazes me that they accept and use other technology that defies that kind of eyewitness or even direct scientific observation, such as computers, internet, cell phones, etc...  However, that's a topic for another discussion.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 05:51:31 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

shootingstar

Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #63 on: December 30, 2018, 06:15:17 PM »
Quote
Flat earthers generally don't accept any kind of evidence that requires expensive instrumentation. It has to be either naked eye, or some experiment that can easily be reproduced.


Sounds like the Amish!  In other words they don't accept any kind of evidence that can clearly challenge their beliefs. In astronomy I sometimes like to go back to basics and just use a simple pair of binoculars or a manual telescope to find objects in the sky manually. Takes me back to my youth when GOTO telescopes and the like were not around. That doesn't mean I don't realise or respect how much more amateurs can do nowadays with the aid of technology.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #64 on: December 30, 2018, 07:03:40 PM »
Quote
Flat earthers generally don't accept any kind of evidence that requires expensive instrumentation. It has to be either naked eye, or some experiment that can easily be reproduced.

Sounds like the Amish!  In other words they don't accept any kind of evidence that can clearly challenge their beliefs.
I don't think it's quite like that. They have a healthy suspicion of the establishment, and the scientific establishment, and they would like to see things demonstrated from first principles. Accepting science as a form of authority is argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.

As for 'not challenging beliefs', the game of this forum is to come up experiments and arguments that rely on basic equipment or the naked eye. That gets you back to the roots of astronomy when science didn't have high tech. It's amazing how many simple experiments demonstrate globe earth. Or rather, how many simple observations are more simply explained by globe earth model. It's a lot of fun.

shootingstar

Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #65 on: December 30, 2018, 08:33:50 PM »
I don't know why anyone should want to cast a healthy suspicion on science. It has fascinated me all through my life but only because I want to know more about how the world around me works. Why does nature work in the way that it does?

I think it is wonderful what amateur astronomy can offer people nowadays. And yes as a teenager I was intrigued by experiments I could do myself with minimal equipment and what I could learn from them. When I see the rings of Saturn or the satellites of Jupiter I don't have any suspicions about what I am seeing. I just appreciate being able to see for myself what astronomers discovered in times gone by. Only difference is that with the benefits of modern optics I can see those sights clearer than they did. Galileo saw an elongated planet Saturn but his telescopes were not of a quality that allowed him to see the rings separately from the planet.

I actually like to imagine how it must have been for the ancients who saw the sky just like we do and try to appreciate how difficult it must have been for them to interpret correctly the reasons for what they were seeing. Without the benefit of knowing what we do now.  I just don't see any point in denying current scientific knowledge. I appreciate it.

shootingstar

Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #66 on: December 30, 2018, 10:07:39 PM »
Quote
Flat earthers generally don't accept any kind of evidence that requires expensive instrumentation. It has to be either naked eye


That is such a shame because as anyone with a telescope knows there is no much more to the Universe than can be seen with the naked eye. Showing someone the rings of Saturn, cloud belts of Jupiter or mountains and craters of the Moon for the first time and seeing the fascination that comes with that is priceless. Telescopes don't have to be expensive and you can learn so much from them if you know what you are looking at.

shootingstar

Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #67 on: December 31, 2018, 12:57:12 AM »
Well the Sun won't kill all of us but if there is still any life on Earth in about 4.6 billion years time I wouldn't  envy them!

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 513
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #68 on: December 31, 2018, 05:57:50 AM »
Well the Sun won't kill all of us but if there is still any life on Earth in about 4.6 billion years time I wouldn't  envy them!
Not so sure.  Some kind of life may have evolved to withstand the prevalent conditions of the time.  They may be complaining about global cooling.  Who can guess ... life adapts.

One thing is for sure.  The earth will still be approximately  spheroid.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #69 on: January 01, 2019, 12:04:20 AM »
And it's very weird. See the picture below modified from my previous example. I scrubbed out 'east' and 'west', and simply drew the shadows of three objects A B and C.

Assume that on the equinox all shadows run in the same direction. Now the Sun rotates in a circle around the flat earth. But how can it be casting parallel shadows?

This can't be explained by light bending, because in order for the shadow to be straight, the light must be straight. Does it go in a curved direction until it hits the object producing the shadow? But look at object C, which lies closer to the sun. The light has stopped being curved and starts travelling in a straight line as it hits C. What about an object even closer than C? Well the light from that must be travelling straight too.

This is very perplexing.



What makes you think that an observer can see infinitely across the earth? The horizon isn't that far away from us. Our view of the earth is limited. Very limited, if we compare the area of what we see to the area of the entire earth.

If you will refer to Earth Not a Globe and our Magnification of the Sun at Sunset wiki article, the sun is projecting its images onto the atmolayer all around it. Along the outer edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise. The observer sees the sunrise if that edge were to intersect the observer's personal circle, or "dome," of vision.

If we zoom into the circular path of the equator on the Flat Earth maps, to human standards, it straightens out. The initial near-Eastwardly bearing of sunrise may also be explained in EAT in that manner.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 01:39:48 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #70 on: January 01, 2019, 01:53:50 AM »
And it's very weird. See the picture below modified from my previous example. I scrubbed out 'east' and 'west', and simply drew the shadows of three objects A B and C.

Assume that on the equinox all shadows run in the same direction. Now the Sun rotates in a circle around the flat earth. But how can it be casting parallel shadows?

This can't be explained by light bending, because in order for the shadow to be straight, the light must be straight. Does it go in a curved direction until it hits the object producing the shadow? But look at object C, which lies closer to the sun. The light has stopped being curved and starts travelling in a straight line as it hits C. What about an object even closer than C? Well the light from that must be travelling straight too.

This is very perplexing.



What makes you think that an observer can see infinitely across the earth? The horizon isn't that far away from us. Our view of the earth is limited. Very limited, if we compare the area of what we see to the area of the entire earth.

If you will refer to Earth Not a Globe and our Magnification of the Sun at Sunset wiki article, the sun is projecting its images onto the atmolayer all around it. Along the outer edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise. The observer sees the sunrise if that edge were to intersect the observer's personal circle, or "dome," of vision.

If we zoom into the circular path of the equator on the Flat Earth maps, to human standards, it straightens out. The initial near-Eastwardly bearing of sunrise may also be explained in EAT in that manner.

What "Flat Earh maps" are you referring to? By your own admission, there is no such thing, resource/money constraints and all.

Is it magnification of the sun (ENAG) or is it EAT? If the answer is unknown, then it just as easily could be caused by a heliocentric globe earth model.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #71 on: January 01, 2019, 01:58:38 AM »
And it's very weird. See the picture below modified from my previous example. I scrubbed out 'east' and 'west', and simply drew the shadows of three objects A B and C.

Assume that on the equinox all shadows run in the same direction. Now the Sun rotates in a circle around the flat earth. But how can it be casting parallel shadows?

This can't be explained by light bending, because in order for the shadow to be straight, the light must be straight. Does it go in a curved direction until it hits the object producing the shadow? But look at object C, which lies closer to the sun. The light has stopped being curved and starts travelling in a straight line as it hits C. What about an object even closer than C? Well the light from that must be travelling straight too.

This is very perplexing.



What makes you think that an observer can see infinitely across the earth? The horizon isn't that far away from us. Our view of the earth is limited. Very limited, if we compare the area of what we see to the area of the entire earth.

If you will refer to Earth Not a Globe and our Magnification of the Sun at Sunset wiki article, the sun is projecting its images onto the atmolayer all around it. Along the outer edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise. The observer sees the sunrise if that edge were to intersect the observer's personal circle, or "dome," of vision.

If we zoom into the circular path of the equator on the Flat Earth maps, to human standards, it straightens out. The initial near-Eastwardly bearing of sunrise may also be explained in EAT in that manner.

What "Flat Earh maps" are you referring to? By your own admission, there is no such thing, resource/money constraints and all.

Is it magnification of the sun (ENAG) or is it EAT? If the answer is unknown, then it just as easily could be caused by a heliocentric globe earth model.


Regardless of continental layout, the equator is still very big in FET. If we zoom in to a personal/town scale, rather than a continental scale, the equator line is practically straight. The rays of the sun which approach the observer's circle or dome of vision will be more easterly.

It doesn't really matter if we use ENAG's projection of the sun onto the atmoplane, or EAT. At the edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 02:03:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #72 on: January 01, 2019, 02:44:11 AM »
And it's very weird. See the picture below modified from my previous example. I scrubbed out 'east' and 'west', and simply drew the shadows of three objects A B and C.

Assume that on the equinox all shadows run in the same direction. Now the Sun rotates in a circle around the flat earth. But how can it be casting parallel shadows?

This can't be explained by light bending, because in order for the shadow to be straight, the light must be straight. Does it go in a curved direction until it hits the object producing the shadow? But look at object C, which lies closer to the sun. The light has stopped being curved and starts travelling in a straight line as it hits C. What about an object even closer than C? Well the light from that must be travelling straight too.

This is very perplexing.



What makes you think that an observer can see infinitely across the earth? The horizon isn't that far away from us. Our view of the earth is limited. Very limited, if we compare the area of what we see to the area of the entire earth.

If you will refer to Earth Not a Globe and our Magnification of the Sun at Sunset wiki article, the sun is projecting its images onto the atmolayer all around it. Along the outer edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise. The observer sees the sunrise if that edge were to intersect the observer's personal circle, or "dome," of vision.

If we zoom into the circular path of the equator on the Flat Earth maps, to human standards, it straightens out. The initial near-Eastwardly bearing of sunrise may also be explained in EAT in that manner.

What "Flat Earh maps" are you referring to? By your own admission, there is no such thing, resource/money constraints and all.

Is it magnification of the sun (ENAG) or is it EAT? If the answer is unknown, then it just as easily could be caused by a heliocentric globe earth model.


Regardless of continental layout, the equator is still very big in FET. If we zoom in to a personal/town scale, rather than a continental scale, the equator line is practically straight. The rays of the sun which approach the observer's circle or dome of vision will be more easterly.

It doesn't really matter if we use ENAG's projection of the sun onto the atmoplane, or EAT. At the edges of the sun's circular area of light is sunrise.

I'm not seeing it from an ENAG or from an EAT perspective. On a flat earth, this is how the shadows would be (blue lines):



In both ENAG and EAT you would have to bend light sideways and the sun and/or atmosphere would essentially have to have some sort of mechanism to do so, depending on location, bending it to the right then bending it to the left. I can't rationalize that.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #73 on: January 01, 2019, 03:29:02 AM »
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun. Its projection upon the atmoplane.

The apparent sun at sunrise is on the rim of the sun's area of light and is racing along the equator or your latitude line to you. However straight your latitude line is in your local area where you can see will be how the sun appears.

If you were on the equator, and there was a race car (or jet ski) racing along the surface of the earth to you on the circular equator line, and you only see it until it is nearby, would you see it from the East or very near the East? If so, there is your answer.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 03:41:26 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #74 on: January 01, 2019, 05:10:02 AM »
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun. Its projection upon the atmoplane.

The apparent sun at sunrise is on the rim of the sun's area of light and is racing along the equator or your latitude line to you. However straight your latitude line is in your local area where you can see will be how the sun appears.

If you were on the equator, and there was a race car (or jet ski) racing along the surface of the earth to you on the circular equator line, and you only see it until it is nearby, would you see it from the East or very near the East? If so, there is your answer.
So then how does the light 'bend'? The 'apparent sun' puts it in a different position (by apparently quite a large number of degrees) what mechanism brings it there? How does it bend it the correct way/amount depending on where you are? What evidence do you have that the sun we see at sunrise is not reflective of where the actual sun is?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #75 on: January 01, 2019, 07:14:22 AM »
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun.
Where is the actual sun?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #76 on: January 01, 2019, 10:42:37 AM »
Using the Miami sunrise at Equinox example, according to suncalcs, the actual sun is over central Africa some 6800 miles from Miami which doesn’t make it “nearby”. So the sun rays would have to bend sideways, to the right, in order to create an Eastward shadow.  I don’t see how ENAG (Sun is really far away) or EAT (Light is being bent sideways, not up) accounts for this.

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

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #77 on: January 01, 2019, 11:29:12 AM »
In both ENAG and EAT you would have to bend light sideways and the sun and/or atmosphere would essentially have to have some sort of mechanism to do so, depending on location, bending it to the right then bending it to the left. I can't rationalize that.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, why are shadows straight? If the rays of light are slightly curved before they hit a tall post, why is the shadow straight? Curved light would cause curved shadows.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #78 on: January 01, 2019, 11:09:44 PM »
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun. Its projection upon the atmoplane.

The apparent sun at sunrise is on the rim of the sun's area of light and is racing along the equator or your latitude line to you. However straight your latitude line is in your local area where you can see will be how the sun appears.

If you were on the equator, and there was a race car (or jet ski) racing along the surface of the earth to you on the circular equator line, and you only see it until it is nearby, would you see it from the East or very near the East? If so, there is your answer.
So then how does the light 'bend'? The 'apparent sun' puts it in a different position (by apparently quite a large number of degrees) what mechanism brings it there? How does it bend it the correct way/amount depending on where you are? What evidence do you have that the sun we see at sunrise is not reflective of where the actual sun is?

Consider what happens when you walk into a dark movie theater. There is a projector at the back of the room, shining an image on the screen. When you look at the screen, you are not looking in the direction of the ultimate source of the light. The light from the projector doesn't need to bend at all in that scenario, just reflect.

You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun.
Where is the actual sun?

Probably further North.

Wise did have an interesting thread last year where not all of the shadows in daylight scenes were coming from the sun, and seemed to be coming from another direction. He had a bunch of examples of that happening. Maybe it's somewhere on the other FES website.

In the movie projector example above, there is still recurrent light coming from the projector source. If you look back at the projector, it shines light on you, despite you not being between the projector and the screen. It would be interesting if it could be determined which other direction the shadows were coming from in that thread, which I can't seem to find at the moment.



« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 11:17:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #79 on: January 02, 2019, 01:28:48 AM »

Consider what happens when you walk into a dark movie theater. There is a projector at the back of the room, shining an image on the screen. When you look at the screen, you are not looking in the direction of the ultimate source of the light. The light from the projector doesn't need to bend at all in that scenario, just reflect.

And if I turn around to look at the source of light, it the projector.  Up there at the back of the theater.  There's no "apparent" projector below a horizon.  Just a bright light with a focusing lens magnifying an image on a screen.  This doesn't help your case. 

Probably further North.
When it's "sunrise" at one place, it should be easy to find exactly where the sun is somewhere else.  It's gotta be noon somewhere, so I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find.  Not hard on a round earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?