[TitanicShark]

If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.

[3DGeek]

If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.

Again - I hate to be an FE "apologist" - but the sun appears to move across the sky in RE theory too...very slowly...but at sunset and sunrise, especially near the equator - you can easily see the sun moving.   The motion of the FE sun is claimed to produce identical motion across the sky as we see in the real world...at identical speeds.

For one specific spot on the Earth's surface, there is indeed a route that both FE Sun and FE Moon might take to mimic the RE experience.

The HUGE problem is that no possible set of FE sun/moon/star/planet motions can explain the positions of those bodies at multiple locations simultaneously.

That may not have been a problem in the 1800's and 1900's - but here in 2017, we have instant communications around the world - with web-cams accessible in many cities.   This makes it MUCH harder for FE'ers to explain the motions of their sun and moon.

At this point, they usually appeal to "refraction" and various other distortions of the path of light from a straight line.

This is clearly needed because without that, there can be no sunrises and sunsets in Europe while it's midday in China or the USA.

If the FE'ers carefully explained how all of this works - you could tear their explanation down instantly - but they remain incredibly vague on the details...so we're back to nailing Jello to the ceiling.

[TitanicShark]

If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.

Again - I hate to be an FE "apologist" - but the sun appears to move across the sky in RE theory too...very slowly...but at sunset and sunrise, especially near the equator - you can easily see the sun moving.   The motion of the FE sun is claimed to produce identical motion across the sky as we see in the real world...at identical speeds.

For one specific spot on the Earth's surface, there is indeed a route that both FE Sun and FE Moon might take to mimic the RE experience.

The HUGE problem is that no possible set of FE sun/moon/star/planet motions can explain the positions of those bodies at multiple locations simultaneously.

That may not have been a problem in the 1800's and 1900's - but here in 2017, we have instant communications around the world - with web-cams accessible in many cities.   This makes it MUCH harder for FE'ers to explain the motions of their sun and moon.

At this point, they usually appeal to "refraction" and various other distortions of the path of light from a straight line.

This is clearly needed because without that, there can be no sunrises and sunsets in Europe while it's midday in China or the USA.

If the FE'ers carefully explained how all of this works - you could tear their explanation down instantly - but they remain incredibly vague on the details...so we're back to nailing Jello to the ceiling.

What I am saying is it would be much easier to see the Sun moving

[3DGeek]

No - not if it were 30 miles across and 3000 miles away and moving at a speed that made it *look* just like the RE sun.

At a single location - the FE claims for their sun looking convincingly like the RE sun - are plausible.

It's not until you start to look at it from multiple places in the world - the FE sun can't be in multiple places at once - hence their theories start to fall apart.

Debunking FE isn't as easy as it first seems.  FE proponents have been thinking hard about this stuff - and fending off all kinds of *simple* objections - for at least 200 years.

However, as the modern world reveals more and more evidence - and we can actually CHECK what happens in places like Australia in realtime - the FE theories start to get more and more holes.

[Boodidlie]

I'm STILL waiting for a FErs answer to this question ............ w a i t i n g

[Oami]

If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.

If we assume that the distances between latitudes are the same in both theories (about 111 km) then it is easy to calculate. The tropic of cancer, over which the sun is on summer solstice, is 7396 km from the north pole. The tropic of capricorn, over which the sun is on the winter solstice, is 12604 km from the north pole.

So, the tropic of cancer should have a length of 2π*7396 km = 46470 km, and the tropic of capricorn 2π*12604 km = 79193 km.

In either case, a full round takes 24 h, so the speeds should be 1936 km/h and 3300 km/h respectively (or 1203 mph and 2051 mph respectively). These are the minimum and the maximum: between the solstices it is then something between these.

[Rounder]

A full round takes 24 hours ON AVERAGE.  On only four days a year will the sun's full circuit across the sky take exactly 24 hours, the rest of the year the sun 'moves' across the sky in less than 24 hours or more than 24 hours. 



That's important to include in speed calculations.  It means that the sun does not smoothly accelerate from the slowest Tropic of Cancer speed up to the fastest Tropic of Capricorn speed while spiralling outward/southward, and then smoothly decelerate back down to the slowest Tropic of Cancer speed as in spirals inward/northward.  I'm not going to try and create the graph on my iPad, but once I'm back at my computer I will create a spreadsheet to illustrate the speed and acceleration curves for a flat earth's sun.

[Oami]

A full round takes 24 hours ON AVERAGE.  On only four days a year will the sun's full circuit across the sky take exactly 24 hours, the rest of the year the sun 'moves' across the sky in less than 24 hours or more than 24 hours. 

Ok, thanks.

So the time difference from 24 hours is between -17 and +14 minutes, right? Then the maximum time for one round is 24h14' = 1454 minutes and the minimum 23h43' = 1423 minutes.

But the relation between these is only 1454/1423 = 1.02, which doesn't quite explain my calculations where it is more like 1.7.

[Tom Bishop]

I'm STILL waiting for a FErs answer to this question ............ w a i t i n g

[Oami]

No, that's not how perspective works.

While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity. Of course, the nearer the lines are to each other, the less distance is required to make them seem to converge. But for 3000 miles, it requires a lot, lot more than 6000 miles. A lot more than what you claim to be the size of the earth. A distance that, if true, would affect the apparent size of the sun as well. (Of course 6000 miles should affect that as well, but I'm not going to that here. The sun should shrink to a dot before it sets.)

What that video actually claims is that nothing, that is over 6000 miles away, can be seen above the horizon, since at that distance every horizontal line converges there. Which makes one ask, where are the stars that can be seen after the sunset, and which seem to be everywhere around the sky.

The video uses a picture of wall panels, but in that picture those panels do not have a converging point until lines are drawn over them. That is understandable, since the maker of the video obviously didn't find an infinitely long wall. As you look closer on the wall, you see how the horizontal panels are being supported by vertical beams: and as you look further and further away, the apparent distances between these vertical beams become smaller and smaller: very unlike the sun on its path down, marked with green spots which seem to be placed pretty evenly.

[Tom Bishop]

While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.

That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.

The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.

[Rama Set]

While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.

That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.

The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.

Can you show a real world example where parallel rail tracks converge in reality and not just the optical illusion that you sadly cling to as a necessary physical reality?  If you can show me a photo from 3 feet away from the convergence point I will believe in a FE. 

[Oami]

While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.

That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.

But you surely know that the rails of a railway track actually are parallel. That they seem to not be is only an illusion. Of course, they are closer to each other than 3000 miles to begin with, and that's why they seem to converge relatively sooner than the claimed path of the sun and the horizon.

The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.

The problem with the video is that it tries to present a model of a 3-dimensional universe by a 2-dimensional picture. It is a mathematic inevitability that every such model is predestined to fail; some just fail more than others.

Maybe you could add the third dimension, time: look at the railway when there is a train going towards the horizon on it. While the rails seem to come closer and closer to each other, and the train seems to become smaller and smaller, the train also seems to become slower and slower. If the railway really reaches the horizon and the view is unobstructed, then, just a little before the train finally disappears, it should look like a tiny dot and not moving at all.

And this is what should also happen to the sun on its way towards the "vanishing point": while moving on its way towards the horizon, it should seem to become both smaller and slower, before disappearing.

[Rounder]

Tom and the video narrator continue to make the age old mistake typical of the flat earth mind: ignoring how BIG things are!  Two parallel rows of tulips are a certain distance apart, let's call that distance d.  They visually appear to converge at a distance, let's call that x.  How far away is x in terms of d?  Is it 1000d?  100d?  Certainly more than 10d, from looking at the photo.  Do the same for the "wall of slats" the video narrator is so proud of.  Pick any pair of adjacent slats and you will see they are still visually distinct at the far end of the frame, probably 20 or 30 slat-widths away.  Do the same for railroad tracks.  Again, the convergence point is a good bit more than 10d away.  Do it again for the sides of a road, for containers on a cargo ship, for whatever parallel lines you like.  Always the convergence is a very large multiple of d away.  Now take the flat earth's sun.  With a d of a mere 3000 miles up, it can never be more than about FIVE times that far away at MIDNIGHT, and therefore must be closer than 5d at sunrise and sunset.  But we are expected to believe that the same rules of perspective that keep tulips, railroads, and everything else visually distinct beyond 10d, when applied to the flat earth's sun these rules can somehow magically have different results at less than 5d?

Another thing every flat earther conveniently ignores when using these "perspective pictures" to try and prove something: as these parallel things get closer to the visual convergence point, they get smaller.  The sun never does that.  Ever.  The distance from observer to sun does change on a round earth, but the percentage of the overall distance is too small for the difference to be noticeable by eye.  The distance to the flat earth's sun should more than double between noon and sunset, but somehow it stays visually exactly the same size?

[Boots]

Tom and the video narrator continue to make the age old mistake typical of the flat earth mind: ignoring how BIG things are!  Two parallel rows of tulips are a certain distance apart, let's call that distance d.  They visually appear to converge at a distance, let's call that x.  How far away is x in terms of d?  Is it 1000d?  100d?  Certainly more than 10d, from looking at the photo.  Do the same for the "wall of slats" the video narrator is so proud of.  Pick any pair of adjacent slats and you will see they are still visually distinct at the far end of the frame, probably 20 or 30 slat-widths away.  Do the same for railroad tracks.  Again, the convergence point is a good bit more than 10d away.  Do it again for the sides of a road, for containers on a cargo ship, for whatever parallel lines you like.  Always the convergence is a very large multiple of d away.  Now take the flat earth's sun.  With a d of a mere 3000 miles up, it can never be more than about FIVE times that far away at MIDNIGHT, and therefore must be closer than 5d at sunrise and sunset.  But we are expected to believe that the same rules of perspective that keep tulips, railroads, and everything else visually distinct beyond 10d, when applied to the flat earth's sun these rules can somehow magically have different results at less than 5d?

Another thing every flat earther conveniently ignores when using these "perspective pictures" to try and prove something: as these parallel things get closer to the visual convergence point, they get smaller.  The sun never does that.  Ever.  The distance from observer to sun does change on a round earth, but the percentage of the overall distance is too small for the difference to be noticeable by eye.  The distance to the flat earth's sun should more than double between noon and sunset, but somehow it stays visually exactly the same size?

Hey! You're gonna start confusing us if you go on much longer about things like d and x.

[TomInAustin]

While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.

That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.

The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.

All this ignore the fact that the sun maintains a fixed relative size.  If perspective was the cause of a sun sut the sun would look tiny as it set.

[Tom Bishop]

While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.

That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.

The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.

Can you show a real world example where parallel rail tracks converge in reality and not just the optical illusion that you sadly cling to as a necessary physical reality?  If you can show me a photo from 3 feet away from the convergence point I will believe in a FE.

I didn't say it was physical reality. The two lines in a rail road perspective scene will just eventually appear to converge at a set point, since two lines pointed at each other must eventually meet. The sun set in FE is also an illusion. It is not a physical reality that the sun is intersecting with the earth. There is no contradiction there.

[Tom Bishop]

But you surely know that the rails of a railway track actually are parallel. That they seem to not be is only an illusion.

Let me stop you there. The sun setting in FET is also an illusion. The sun seems to set, like the railroad perspective lines seem to intersect.

[Tom Bishop]

While perspective really makes parallel lines to converge, that doesn't happen after 6000 miles, but in infinity.

That is not true. In a railroad perspective scene we have two lines that are angled towards each other. Two lines which are angled towards each other will not meet in "infinity". There must be a set distance to where they will meet. It is not possible for two lines to point towards each other and never meet. The only way they would do that is if they were parallel lines.

The example in the video, the wall, also creates lines which must meet at some point in the distance. It is literally impossible for two lines to be pointed at each other and continue on forever.

All this ignore the fact that the sun maintains a fixed relative size.  If perspective was the cause of a sun sut the sun would look tiny as it set.

This was discussed by Samuel Birley Rowbotham over 150 years ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Alternatively, you may visit the sun magnification article in our Wiki which we have long provided for people with queries on this subject, and basically provides the same explanation as is in Earth Not a Globe.

[3DGeek]

I can see what the author of this video is saying - but it's not correct at all...and he cheated.  The error is a common rookie mistake that people new to computer graphics make.

Here is the 100% classic railroad track perspective:

The red lines converge at infinity.

But lets draw a line for each railroad tie...which we assume are pretty equally spaced in the real world:


And for clarity - let's just look at those red and green lines:


What you see is that not only do the two red lines get closer together - but so do the green ones.

What this means is that although the distant sun is being converged towards the horizon - each step of equal distance away from the eye takes it smaller and smaller increments towards the horizon.

So even though it's going to get closer to the horizon, it can NEVER get low enough to look like it's setting.   Sorry - no way - that's a horrible misunderstanding of how perspective works.  When we say "Parallel lines converge at infinity"...we truly mean "INFINITY" - not the horizon...and certainly not ~8,000 miles away.

But there is a much more serious problem with the "perspective" argument.

Look at the trees in our picture...don't they seem kinda *SMALLER* at the horizon than up close?   Why!  Yes they do!

So if the compression of size due to perspective can shrink the vertical position of the sun to the horizon - how come it doesn't ALSO make the sun shrink to a teeny-tiny dot when it sets?

You can't have it both ways.   If visual perspective seems to shrink things the further they are from us (which it undoubtedly does) then why is the sun the same exact size on the horizon as it is at noon?

In RE, it's not a problem - the sun is always at the same distance (well, more or less) so it's size is the same no matter where it is in the sky.

So, sorry Flat Earthers - your video is bogus.  BUSTED.