*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
"You are imaging that we can see forever into the distance and through the atmosphere"
...of course, I am not.  I am using your analogy of the race car racing along the equator, but I don't prefer the analogy so I will discard it.

The race car/jet ski disappearing at a close distance away is reality. If you are discarding reality in favor of how you think things should be, then your argument is invalid and there is nothing left to discuss.

In reality, what's the altitude of the sun over the plane? And, in reality, what's the altitude of a jet ski over the plane?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline uru38

  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Wow. I'm in shock. Thanks for the same link again Tom Bishop. I was going to ask for some clarification because most of what is written on that Wiki doesn't make any sense. Others have already asked though and something has now become clear to me: you're in such deep intellectual denial I don't think you'll ever be convinced otherwise. Either that or you really don't understand the issue of the Sun's position at equinox and likely other issues with flat Earth theory.

*

Offline MCToon

  • *
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Wow. I'm in shock. Thanks for the same link again Tom Bishop. I was going to ask for some clarification because most of what is written on that Wiki doesn't make any sense. Others have already asked though and something has now become clear to me: you're in such deep intellectual denial I don't think you'll ever be convinced otherwise. Either that or you really don't understand the issue of the Sun's position at equinox and likely other issues with flat Earth theory.

Yeah, no surprises to be found here.  I'm still wondering about the disconnect on the wiki with how real world observations comport with flat earth.

Quote
During Equinox the sun is over the equator, with its circular area of light pivoting around the point of the North Pole. The points on the edge of the sun's circular area of light are tracing along the latitude lines, the time of the Equinox being a circle pivoting around itself. Further, the circlular latitude of the equator is very large, and if one were to zoom into a segment of that circle, down to human standards of an observer's relatively small circle of vision, down to a town/personal scale, the curve of the equator beneath the observer would straighten out. The latitude line beneath you locally is relatively straight.

Absolutely, looking at the line of the equator for just the short distance under your feet it will appear straight.  However, on the day of the equinox any observer on the equator sees the sun for about 50% of the sun's path around the equator.  This is not a zoomed in segment, it is a massive amount of it.  If the sun were traveling over "...the circlular latitude of the equator...", this would be apparent.  At sunrise the sun would appear North-East, move horizontally through it's course, pass directly overhead from due east, then continue to move horizontally and set North-West.  There is no playing with words to avoid this truth.  You may reject the AE style maps, this is reasonable, but the problem doesn't get solved.

To select a map consistent with observations on the equator on the day of the equinox you must select a map with a straight equator.  However, a flat map with a straight equator requires Pac-Manning, most people are not up for this.

So, once again, it seems there is a lot of work to do on the equinox explanation for a flat earth.  Or, maybe just abandon the idea since it can't work.
I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile

Actually, we have a Wiki article on the subject of the Equinox.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

Thanks for the reply Tom but I believe the point still stands. There is no explanation as to why the sun should be viewed east anywhere (even at the equator) on a flat Earth during a sunrise.

The article addresses that here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox#A_Flat_Earth_Equinox

And the article which addresses that says:
Quote
Q. How can the sun rise from even within two degrees of Due East in the Flat Earth model?

A. This is a popular topic point, but is based on a common misconception. The top down views of the Flat Earth sun models might imply that the observer can see infinitely across the earth, and see the sun at all times. However, we cannot see infinitely into the distance. The distance to the our horizon is limited to a very finite circle around us. We cannot see that far. The distance to the horizon is limited by the thickness of the atmolayer. The atmolayer is not perfectly transparent. At night when we look out at where the sun would be across the plane of the earth we are looking into hundreds of miles of fog, and thus the sun is dark and unseen.
...

So, Mr. Bishop, if you might be so kind as to explain how that correlates with Australia and their 14 hours of daylight during their summer.

Seeing my attached diagram, you can see that them Australians can see the sun when it is just setting or rising, 7 hours away from high noon.
That distance just happens to be very close to half of the flat earth's diameter - so whatever you pick as the size of the earth, half that diameter is the distance the Australians are seeing the sun at sunset or sunrise.
(As a side note, how can northern Alaska be having 69 days of darkness at this exact season, when it's obviously closer to the sun?)

And does the sun really rise and set 53 degrees North of due east or due west?

I know you said wiki explains it but I'm having a hard time getting everything to jive in my head because well I'm just not that bright and since we know the sun goes around its path every 24 hours, it's plain to see that if them Australians can see the sun 7 hours after high noon during the summer, the sun must have traveled quite some distance, yes?

I would so value your explanation of this because I know you have a very high standard for science and would never believe it if you couldn't demonstrate it, nor would you resort to illusionary solutions.

To recap:
How can Australians see the sun 7 hours after it was directly overhead, even though it's thousands of miles away?
Do they really see it rise and set about 53 degrees north of due east/due west?
How can northern Alaska be suffering from 69 days of plague like darkness when it's closer to the sun then Australia is at sunset?

Thanks!

*

Offline EartherUnMaster

  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Hello I like bacon
    • View Profile
(Sorry if this is a necro)
Reading the linked site on the FE Wiki, I'm getting the impression that one's 'local dome of visibility' and the maximum distance you can see the sun have two different radii? The article makes it clear that we only see a small part of the sun's circular path, making it appear straight and an east-west apparent motion possible. That is reinforced by:

Given that at sea level we can only see perhaps 30 miles through the atmosphere […]

If this is the case, then the sun is outside of our field of view, but it is still able to illuminate much more further out than that. If the sun is 3000 miles up then of course the sun has to be at least 3000 miles to someone experiencing noon, and more for anyone else at any other time. This is well outside the 30 mile range. What properties does the sun and other celestial bodies have that make them appear much further out than our maximum vision? Correct me if I have your explanation wrong

Mysfit

(Sorry if this is a necro)
Reading the linked site on the FE Wiki, I'm getting the impression that one's 'local dome of visibility' and the maximum distance you can see the sun have two different radii? The article makes it clear that we only see a small part of the sun's circular path, making it appear straight and an east-west apparent motion possible. That is reinforced by:

Given that at sea level we can only see perhaps 30 miles through the atmosphere […]

If this is the case, then the sun is outside of our field of view, but it is still able to illuminate much more further out than that. If the sun is 3000 miles up then of course the sun has to be at least 3000 miles to someone experiencing noon, and more for anyone else at any other time. This is well outside the 30 mile range. What properties does the sun and other celestial bodies have that make them appear much further out than our maximum vision? Correct me if I have your explanation wrong
I know where you're going wrong. Not to worry, you had me for a bit there too.
This assumes that from the ground to the sun is ALL atmosphere, I bet that a big chunk of it is space.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
(Sorry if this is a necro)
Reading the linked site on the FE Wiki, I'm getting the impression that one's 'local dome of visibility' and the maximum distance you can see the sun have two different radii? The article makes it clear that we only see a small part of the sun's circular path, making it appear straight and an east-west apparent motion possible. That is reinforced by:

Given that at sea level we can only see perhaps 30 miles through the atmosphere […]

If this is the case, then the sun is outside of our field of view, but it is still able to illuminate much more further out than that. If the sun is 3000 miles up then of course the sun has to be at least 3000 miles to someone experiencing noon, and more for anyone else at any other time. This is well outside the 30 mile range. What properties does the sun and other celestial bodies have that make them appear much further out than our maximum vision? Correct me if I have your explanation wrong
I know where you're going wrong. Not to worry, you had me for a bit there too.
This assumes that from the ground to the sun is ALL atmosphere, I bet that a big chunk of it is space.

Luckily for us, the atmosphere appears to extend beyond the Moon! Well, at least enough detectable Hydrogen atoms are out there...

https://www.space.com/amp/earth-atmosphere-extends-beyond-moon.html


*

Offline EartherUnMaster

  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Hello I like bacon
    • View Profile
I know where you're going wrong. Not to worry, you had me for a bit there too.
This assumes that from the ground to the sun is ALL atmosphere, I bet that a big chunk of it is space.

It's good to get a response. Let me see if I am visualizing this right.



Pardon my crude drawing, obviously simplified and out of scale - instead of the simple dome as by the left part of the image, our true field of vision in 3-D space is more of a dual-lobed figure like the one on the right? As the atmosphere gets thinner, the light from outside sources can travel further distances, extending the range of vision further out in the sky, and allowing us to see the celestial bodies. Any heavenly body (sun, stars) that we see on the horizon must be passing through the sloped cone on the outer lobe. Anything outside of the field is invisible to our eyes. Is this correct?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 08:56:38 PM by EartherUnMaster »

 Hello everyone,
 
  We're in luck the equinox isn't too far away. We can watch sunrise, the sun move across the sky and sunset on March 20. I think you can tell a lot just by lookin.
   On the spherical earth the sun is real far away 93,000,000 miles so when the sun rises over the equator it is due east for everyone on earth, got that. I live at 38 degrees north latitude so the sun should rise from the horizon due east and travel up at an angle of 38 degrees south of vertical, be 38 degrees south of vertical overhead at noon, and set or travel down at an angle of 38 degrees south of vertical. The Sun should travel sort of on a plane circling around the center of the earth. And should be visible for right at 12 hours or half its journey.
   On the flat earth at equinox the sun is at 3,000 miles up and travels over the equator. If the sun is visible for 12 hours or half its journey as it circles overhead, the sun should appear at sunrise traveling due south circling around south of me turning west and then circling and traveling due north at time of disappearance or sunset, as it is visible for half its journey. The sun should travel as though it is on a plane circling overhead with polaris at its center.
   This is just my reasoning or the way it seems to me so I know I've made mistakes. Especially on flat earth as I don't really understand it or how the apparent sun works.
 
   If someone who lives at a different latitude than me would tell me at what angle from vertical the sun rises from on the equinox would be helpful. Manicminer at 51.5 degrees north, for you the sun should rise at 51.5 degrees from vertical on round earth.

   Also on Tom's wiki link, I believe it shows the chart for equal day and night with 90 degrees south, Antarctica, having half year day and half year night. That couldn't be right. I could be reading it wrong, wouldn't be first time.
   Please flat and round earthers be nice as this is my first post.
 You can tell a lot just by lookin.

manicminer

Quote
If someone who lives at a different latitude than me would tell me at what angle from vertical the sun rises from on the equinox would be helpful. Manicminer at 51.5 degrees north, for you the sun should rise at 51.5 degrees from vertical on round earth.

I can confirm that to be true because I have measured it. Last year I measured the altitude of the Sun 30, 60,90 and 120 minutes after sunrise on the day of the spring equinox. By joining these points to form a line and then extrapolating that line so it intersected with a second horizontal line to represent the horizon, the angle between the lines was 51 degrees.  This also confirmed that within a few minutes of arc the Suns rising point was due east.

I used a Meade LX200 telescope which was mounted in alt azimuth mode with the tripod first levelled using a circular bubble level. The declination setting circle on the fork mount therefore measured the altitude of the Sun. To ensure the Sun was centred in the FOV I used a full aperture white light solar filter and a low powered, reticle eyepiece to create a cross hair. I then made sure than the Suns disk was accurately centred in the FOV and then read off the Suns altitude on the setting circle.

I think the above counts as a genuine investigation based purely on observation. I had my prediction, based on a hypothesis and I was able to confirm that hypothesis through direct observation.  Conclusion based on observed data:  Prediction confirmed.

Sorry tomfoolery didn't mean to steal your name will try to change it, thought it sounded good. Couldn't remember where I seen it.

   My observations of the equinox was made many years ago. Like the 60's. I had an equatorial mount telescope, little cheapie no electronics just a little drive motor. Point the axis of pivot on the north star. Polaris was 38 degrees above north horizon, celestial equator is 90 degrees from north star. So anythng on celestial equator would rise due east at an angle of 38 degrees from vertical with the telescope following it at 38 degrees from vertical till it set.
  The moon follows close to the ecliptic and crosses the celestial equator twice a month. While the moon crosses the celestial equator it follows practically the same path as the sun at equinox.

manicminer

Quote
The moon follows close to the ecliptic and crosses the celestial equator twice a month

Correct. The moon follows a path through the sky which is inclined by 5 degrees to the ecliptic. That is because the plane of the Moons orbit around the Earth is inclined by 5 degrees to the Earths orbit around the Sun.  So from our viewpoint on Earth we see the Moon move +/- 5 degrees from the ecliptic. The Earths shadow on the sky is rather less which is why we don't see a lunar eclipse every month. 

A fifty year time span is nothing on the celestial sphere in terms of the motion of the Sun and Moon. So your observations are just as relevant as mine are. An equatorial mount aligns with the celestial sphere so by pointing the polar axis at the celestial north (or south) pole you can follow celestial targets with just one direction of motion (RA).  If you were located at the north or south pole then the equatorial mount becomes an alt-azimuth because the celestial pole is directly overhead. Any star with a declination of (90 - your latitude) will pass through your overhead point or zenith.

When I made my observations with the LX200 I didn't bother to turn the electronics on.  Didn't need to.  I just locked the axes of the mount and then used the slow motion controls to centre the Sun in the FOV.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2019, 08:24:59 PM by manicminer »

 On the wiki document it says the sun rise at the equinox varies as much as “multiple sun diameters” . At 38 degrees north I know the sun rises due east within a degree or two, maybe closer than that, will check on equinox day. I would like to know where the sun rises at “multiple sun diameters” from due east. This is something we may need to look into. They say at the north and south poles it just circles the horizon. But if its circling overhead it seems it would have to come from the north headed south. Will study and try to understand the “apparent sun” and how it affects sunrise.

manicminer

Well you have your observations at 38 degrees and I have mine at 51.5 degrees. The Suns diameter on the sky is half a degree so multiple sun diameters would be in the order of a few degrees.  There would seem to be some discrepancy then between real world observations performed at two different latitudes by two independent observers and a sentence on a webpage.

At the north or south pole the horizon corresponds to the celestial equator. At the time of the equinoxes the Suns declination is zero degrees so it will circle the horizon as seen from the poles.  For the March equinox it will then climb above the horizon as the Sun moves into the northern half of the celestial equator, reaching a maximum altitude of 23.5 degrees by the time of the June solstice. The opposite happens for the south pole with the Sun reaching 23.5 degrees altitude by the time of the December solstice.

These observations tie in perfectly with the RE view that the Earths polar axis tilt it 23.5 degrees relative to the plane of its orbit. The N/S movement of the Sun relative to the celestial equator is explained by RE theory as the Earths orbit around the Sun. FE theory on the other hand states that the Sun moves in a circle of varying diameter over the Earths surface. It doesn't seem to have a clear explanation for why this variation in diameter happens.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2019, 09:13:19 PM by manicminer »

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Sorry tomfoolery didn't mean to steal your name will try to change it, thought it sounded good. Couldn't remember where I seen it.
No need to change your name! You got a great one. I think you're the 4th Tom I've seen here, so it's all cool.

I agree the sun is a problem for flat earth. The best solutions seem to be to somehow theoretically contort the earth into some duality of dimensions to where it's not actually flat but it's still not considered spherical.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
On the wiki document it says the sun rise at the equinox varies as much as “multiple sun diameters”

Multiple sun diameters? 4 suns would be 2 degrees. It reminds me of the man who sent his four sons to college and only two of them got degrees.

By my calculations, the sun should set 53 degrees north of due west during the longest day of summer in Australia.
The wiki must be wrong. It should be a hundred and six sun diameters.


manicminer

We have been talking about the angle that the Sun makes as it rises and how that angle varies with latitude. For the northern hemisphere this angle points to the south, maximising at 90 degrees for the equator. As you move south of the equator the angle starts to aim to the north.  At the equator the Sun rises vertically throughout the year with the rising point varying from 23.5 degrees north of the east point through to 23.5 degrees south of the east point.

Observers in the northern hemisphere see the Sun swing to the south, passing through the south point (meridian) at or around noon.  Observers in the south see the Sun swing to the north, passing through the north point (meridian) at noon.

Now think of the FE model which has the Sun moving in a circular path centred on the north pole.  It doesn't take too much imagination to figure that in this configuration the Suns motion would not match what is observed. The varying diameter of the circle would lead to the N/S movement either side of the equator to an extent. Where the FE version falls down though, apart from being unable to explain why the Sun should move N/S of the equator in this way, is that if the Sun moved in a circle over a flat surface observers in the southern hemisphere would not see the Sun swing to the north as it rises.  It would instead rise north of the east point on the horizon but it would still swing to the south.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2019, 01:21:24 PM by manicminer »