The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Sphaera on November 14, 2010, 06:38:50 AM
-
The flat earth model of the sun’s movement faces a very observable problem: the direction of the sunrise and sunset. In FET, the sun travels above the earth in a circular orbit centered over the North Pole. It makes one such orbit every 24 hours, accounting for the 24 hour day. During the equinox, there are 12 daylight hours, meaning the sun must be visible for half its orbit. Now let’s assume for the moment that the FE explanations of sunrise and sunset due to a perspective effect work. As the sun gets further away from the observer, it gets fainter due to there being more of the earth’s atmosphere in the way, and at a certain point it appears to disappear into the horizon due to a perspective effect. Let’s also assume for the sake of simplicity, that the observer is on the equator. Now midday will occur when the sun is overhead of the observer. Sunrise occurs 6 hours before midday, and sunset 6 hours after midday. If the sun is travelling at a constant speed in its orbit, this means that sunrise must occur ¼ of an orbit before midday, and sunset ¼ of an orbit after midday. This places sunrise and sunset at these positions on the diagram.
(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5607/sunorbit2.jpg)
The problem is that these positions are not due east and due west of the observer; rather they are exactly 45 degrees from that. Sunrise and sunset are at due North East and due North West, respectively, as shown below.
(http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5754/sunorbit3.jpg)
Remember that this is for an observer on the equator. Now these effects will be less noticeable the further north one goes, i.e. the 45 degree angles will become smaller and smaller, until at the North Pole the round earth model and flat earth model both predict the same sun locations. Conversely the further south one goes the greater the effect, i.e. the angles will become larger. Nevertheless, the observable evidence blatantly contradicts the FE model for the sun’s movement. Anyone can test this, simply get up early enough to see the sun rise and point a marker at its position. Something long and solid that won’t move over the course of the day, just leave a broom laying on the ground or something. Leave it there all day. At sunset, note where the sun appears to set. You can check it with the marker. If it is opposite the sunrise, then FE model of sun motion is wrong. If it is at 90 degrees to the position of sunrise, however, then the FE model of sun motion is correct, and we should rally the troops and march on NASA headquarters and demand the truth!
-
Great first post. I don't have any corrections. I find this convincing. FET is indeed false.
I would amplify that no one has expressed that EAT bends light in any direction but up so EAT doesn't save FET here.
Again, great job.
-
To be honest, I am personally of the view that Rowbotham's perspective theory is open to a whole raft of criticisms. This and other simple experiments are what convince me that the Sun's actual and apparent positions are not the same.
-
To be honest, I am personally of the view that Rowbotham's perspective theory is open to a whole raft of criticisms. This and other simple experiments are what convince me that the Sun's actual and apparent positions are not the same.
So what evidence do you have that your position, that the Sun's actual and apparent positions are not the same, especially Sphaera's excellent challenge's example, is more correct than RE's?
So you'd rather believe in an unknown, unseen action fooling your senses of sight and feel than in RE? Why would you ever trust your senses on anything then?
-
To be honest, I am personally of the view that Rowbotham's perspective theory is open to a whole raft of criticisms. This and other simple experiments are what convince me that the Sun's actual and apparent positions are not the same.
I asked from you on the other thread but never got the answer. Why is it that you believe the Earth to be flat because there is direct sensory evidence for that(you see it). But in the case of the Sun you don't believe what you see. Why?
-
To be honest, I am personally of the view that Rowbotham's perspective theory is open to a whole raft of criticisms. This and other simple experiments are what convince me that the Sun's actual and apparent positions are not the same.
I asked from you on the other thread but never got the answer. Why is it that you believe the Earth to be flat because there is direct sensory evidence for that(you see it). But in the case of the Sun you don't believe what you see. Why?
You do seem rather fickle, LW. Can you answer the challenge here? When do you believe your direct sensory inputs?
-
To be honest, I am personally of the view that Rowbotham's perspective theory is open to a whole raft of criticisms. This and other simple experiments are what convince me that the Sun's actual and apparent positions are not the same.
So you trust your model of the sun's behavior more than you trust your senses? What happened to your "I believe that the earth is flat until my senses tell me otherwise" attitude? Here is a perfect example of your senses telling you otherwise.
-
And in such a scenario, what exactly are my senses telling me? You guys are falling over yourselves to reach conclusions, whereas I am assuming nothing beyond direct sensory evidence. Why don't you try working from first principles, instead of assuming that the Earth is round and then filling in the blanks?
-
And in such a scenario, what exactly are my senses telling me? You guys are falling over yourselves to reach conclusions, whereas I am assuming nothing beyond direct sensory evidence. Why don't you try working from first principles, instead of assuming that the Earth is round and then filling in the blanks?
The diagram has been provided, not sure what is so confusing about this.
-
And in such a scenario, what exactly are my senses telling me? You guys are falling over yourselves to reach conclusions, whereas I am assuming nothing beyond direct sensory evidence. Why don't you try working from first principles, instead of assuming that the Earth is round and then filling in the blanks?
If you senses tell you that on the day of the equinox the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west about 12 hours later no matter where you are on the earth, then what does that tell you about all of the FE model that have been presented so far?
-
Woah woah woah, when did various FE models enter the equation? We are talking about the conclusions one could or should draw from direct sensorial evidence, not how such sensorial evidence accords with various theoretical models. For the purposes of this thought experiment, those models do not exist. If I'm going to be accused of inconsistency, then I am going to insist on absolute consistency in this debate. My thread about direct sensorial evidence is a 'first principles' argument, in which I argue that direct sensorial evidence is the only basis from which conclusions about the world should be drawn. Straight away you guys are bringing all kinds of assumed knowledge to the table, but that simply isn't on.
-
The flat earth model of the sun’s movement faces a very observable problem: the direction of the sunrise and sunset. In FET, the sun travels above the earth in a circular orbit centered over the North Pole. It makes one such orbit every 24 hours, accounting for the 24 hour day. During the equinox, there are 12 daylight hours, meaning the sun must be visible for half its orbit. Now let’s assume for the moment that the FE explanations of sunrise and sunset due to a perspective effect work. As the sun gets further away from the observer, it gets fainter due to there being more of the earth’s atmosphere in the way, and at a certain point it appears to disappear into the horizon due to a perspective effect. Let’s also assume for the sake of simplicity, that the observer is on the equator. Now midday will occur when the sun is overhead of the observer. Sunrise occurs 6 hours before midday, and sunset 6 hours after midday. If the sun is travelling at a constant speed in its orbit, this means that sunrise must occur ¼ of an orbit before midday, and sunset ¼ of an orbit after midday. This places sunrise and sunset at these positions on the diagram.
(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5607/sunorbit2.jpg)
The problem is that these positions are not due east and due west of the observer; rather they are exactly 45 degrees from that. Sunrise and sunset are at due North East and due North West, respectively, as shown below.
(http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5754/sunorbit3.jpg)
Remember that this is for an observer on the equator. Now these effects will be less noticeable the further north one goes, i.e. the 45 degree angles will become smaller and smaller, until at the North Pole the round earth model and flat earth model both predict the same sun locations. Conversely the further south one goes the greater the effect, i.e. the angles will become larger. Nevertheless, the observable evidence blatantly contradicts the FE model for the sun’s movement. Anyone can test this, simply get up early enough to see the sun rise and point a marker at its position. Something long and solid that won’t move over the course of the day, just leave a broom laying on the ground or something. Leave it there all day. At sunset, note where the sun appears to set. You can check it with the marker. If it is opposite the sunrise, then FE model of sun motion is wrong. If it is at 90 degrees to the position of sunrise, however, then the FE model of sun motion is correct, and we should rally the troops and march on NASA headquarters and demand the truth!
I watch the sunset regularly, and I've never seen it rise exactly due east and set exactly due west.
-
I watch the sunset regularly, and I've never seen it rise exactly due east and set exactly due west.
Irrelevant.
-
I watch the sunset regularly, and I've never seen it rise exactly due east and set exactly due west.
Have you ever watched the sunrise or sunset on the days of the equinox? If so, have you ever measured the direction of said sunrise or sunset with a compass and adjusted for magnetic declination?
-
Woah woah woah, when did various FE models enter the equation? We are talking about the conclusions one could or should draw from direct sensorial evidence, not how such sensorial evidence accords with various theoretical models.
*sigh* OK, what can you conclude from watching the sunrise and sunset on the days of the equinox?
-
I watch the sunset regularly, and I've never seen it rise exactly due east and set exactly due west.
Tom, I remember reading that you live in California. This means you are now experiencing autumn / winter. According to FET you should therefore see the sun rise in an east north easterly direction, pass overhead through the course of the morning so that it is in a south / overhead direction by midday, and finally reverse this pattern in the afternoon so that it sets in the west north westerly direction in the evening, as shown below.
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2494/sunorbit4.jpg)
According to RET on the other hand, it should rise in the east south east, rise to a southerly / overhead direction by midday, and then set in the west south west. I suggest you watch the sun rise and set and tell us which of these occurs.
I can tell you I have done these simple observations myself, and given that I live in South Australia, about 35 degrees south of the equator, the northern displacement of sunrise and sunset that I described in my OP should be even more apparent for me than they are for you, yet I observed that sunrise and sunset were directly opposite one another.
-
You're making certain assumptions about the size of the sun's spotlight, the size of the sun's orbit around the northern hub, and the size and layout of the map.
-
You're making certain assumptions about the size of the sun's spotlight, the size of the sun's orbit around the northern hub, and the size and layout of the map.
Then please present a model that shows the correct size and shape of the sun's spotlight, the correct size of the sun's orbit around the northern hub and correct size and layout of the FE map. Unless you can provide an accurate, detailed, coherent model, then we have nothing but assumptions to go on. I realize that a coherent, accurate, detailed model is the last thing that you want to present, but I don't know how FET can ever gain any acceptance in the mainstream scientific community if such a model isn't developed.
-
And in such a scenario, what exactly are my senses telling me? You guys are falling over yourselves to reach conclusions, whereas I am assuming nothing beyond direct sensory evidence. Why don't you try working from first principles, instead of assuming that the Earth is round and then filling in the blanks?
But you are assuming that the Suns position is not there where it is. Direct sensory input through eyes says to you that the Sun is there where it is but you say that actually it is in another place. I wouldn't asked if you wouldn't said that. Clarify it a little so that others can understand.
-
Woah woah woah, when did various FE models enter the equation? We are talking about the conclusions one could or should draw from direct sensorial evidence, not how such sensorial evidence accords with various theoretical models.
*sigh* OK, what can you conclude from watching the sunrise and sunset on the days of the equinox?
From the afformentioned first principles? The Earth appears to be generally flat no matter where I go. Yet the apparent movements of the Sun and the distrabution of light are in conflict with this. One of the bodies thus cannot be as it appears to be. The greater proximity of the Earth and the greater sensorial evidence associated with it lead me to conclude that it is more likely that the Sun's movements are not as they appear to be. This is especially likely given the abundence of optical anomalies associeted with light (atmospheric refraction etc.)
-
From the afformentioned first principles? The Earth appears to be generally flat no matter where I go. Yet the apparent movements of the Sun and the distrabution of light are in conflict with this. One of the bodies thus cannot be as it appears to be. The greater proximity of the Earth and the greater sensorial evidence associated with it lead me to conclude that it is more likely that the Sun's movements are not as they appear to be. This is especially likely given the abundence of optical anomalies associeted with light (atmospheric refraction etc.)
Given that the earth (flat or round) is very large and the range of human senses is fairly limited, what makes you believe that you have seen enough of the earth's surface at one time to make an accurate assessment of its true shape?
-
The flat earth model of the sun’s movement faces a very observable problem: the direction of the sunrise and sunset. In FET, the sun travels above the earth in a circular orbit centered over the North Pole. It makes one such orbit every 24 hours, accounting for the 24 hour day. During the equinox, there are 12 daylight hours, meaning the sun must be visible for half its orbit. Now let’s assume for the moment that the FE explanations of sunrise and sunset due to a perspective effect work. As the sun gets further away from the observer, it gets fainter due to there being more of the earth’s atmosphere in the way, and at a certain point it appears to disappear into the horizon due to a perspective effect. Let’s also assume for the sake of simplicity, that the observer is on the equator. Now midday will occur when the sun is overhead of the observer. Sunrise occurs 6 hours before midday, and sunset 6 hours after midday. If the sun is travelling at a constant speed in its orbit, this means that sunrise must occur ¼ of an orbit before midday, and sunset ¼ of an orbit after midday. This places sunrise and sunset at these positions on the diagram.
(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5607/sunorbit2.jpg)
The problem is that these positions are not due east and due west of the observer; rather they are exactly 45 degrees from that. Sunrise and sunset are at due North East and due North West, respectively, as shown below.
(http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5754/sunorbit3.jpg)
Remember that this is for an observer on the equator. Now these effects will be less noticeable the further north one goes, i.e. the 45 degree angles will become smaller and smaller, until at the North Pole the round earth model and flat earth model both predict the same sun locations. Conversely the further south one goes the greater the effect, i.e. the angles will become larger. Nevertheless, the observable evidence blatantly contradicts the FE model for the sun’s movement. Anyone can test this, simply get up early enough to see the sun rise and point a marker at its position. Something long and solid that won’t move over the course of the day, just leave a broom laying on the ground or something. Leave it there all day. At sunset, note where the sun appears to set. You can check it with the marker. If it is opposite the sunrise, then FE model of sun motion is wrong. If it is at 90 degrees to the position of sunrise, however, then the FE model of sun motion is correct, and we should rally the troops and march on NASA headquarters and demand the truth!
I watch the sunset regularly, and I've never seen it rise exactly due east and set exactly due west.
Thats a dodge the likes of which would impress John Madden. Please provide your counter model or an explanation as to what you disagree with about this model.
-
From the afformentioned first principles? The Earth appears to be generally flat no matter where I go. Yet the apparent movements of the Sun and the distrabution of light are in conflict with this. One of the bodies thus cannot be as it appears to be. The greater proximity of the Earth and the greater sensorial evidence associated with it lead me to conclude that it is more likely that the Sun's movements are not as they appear to be. This is especially likely given the abundence of optical anomalies associeted with light (atmospheric refraction etc.)
There are no such permanent and consistent from day to day appearing large scale optical phenomenons/anomalies observed. All optical phenomenons/anomalies are short lived. I see no reason to doubt that the Sun must be somewhere else than it is.
As for a direct sensory evidence... I am sure that you agree that with shapes and physical objects we can reduce the scales and do observations also on smaller scales? As you have traveled and you can get the distances between the places then you can somehow grasp how big the Earth is. Lets say for the sake of simplicity that it's 20 000 km times 20 000 km square. To scale it down to 1 meter times 1 meter square you must reduce it 20 million times(Am I right?). Try now to fold the 1 m x 1m square around the ball somehow and reduce your size of human figure 20 million times and put it on the ball. If you look at the tiny dot(I guess it's so small that you can't actually see it) on the quite big ball then you have quite direct sensorial evidence that you can never grasp anything other than flat piece of ground if you are on the ground. How come you deny such kind of direct sensorial evidence achieved with simple models on scale?
-
Given that the earth (flat or round) is very large and the range of human senses is fairly limited, what makes you believe that you have seen enough of the earth's surface at one time to make an accurate assessment of its true shape?
What reason would I have to doubt that what I do sense is not accurate? It looks flat. I need direct sensorial evidence that it is not flat before I draw conclusions about it.
There are no such permanent and consistent from day to day appearing large scale optical phenomenons/anomalies observed. All optical phenomenons/anomalies are short lived. I see no reason to doubt that the Sun must be somewhere else than it is.
The Sun appears to move relative to the Earth, yet you conclude it does not move relative to the Earth. Clearly you believe this is some kind of visual effect produced by our perspective. I see no reason why, given a first principles situation, it would not make sense to conclude that some kind of visual effect could be at work here.
As for a direct sensory evidence... I am sure that you agree that with shapes and physical objects we can reduce the scales and do observations also on smaller scales? As you have traveled and you can get the distances between the places then you can somehow grasp how big the Earth is. Lets say for the sake of simplicity that it's 20 000 km times 20 000 km square. To scale it down to 1 meter times 1 meter square you must reduce it 20 million times(Am I right?). Try now to fold the 1 m x 1m square around the ball somehow and reduce your size of human figure 20 million times and put it on the ball. If you look at the tiny dot(I guess it's so small that you can't actually see it) on the quite big ball then you have quite direct sensorial evidence that you can never grasp anything other than flat piece of ground if you are on the ground. How come you deny such kind of direct sensorial evidence achieved with simple models on scale?
you can go and directly observe the large spherical shape somewhere and
I don't deny it. However, all I have there is direct evidence that said balls are spherical. There is no evidence there that suggests that the Earth is spherical.
-
No, the sun appears to rotate around the earth, meaning either it is fixed and the earth is rotating, or the sun is orbiting around us. Since no FE models can accurately explain the particular way in which it revolves around us, we must accept the RE model.
-
Given that the earth (flat or round) is very large and the range of human senses is fairly limited, what makes you believe that you have seen enough of the earth's surface at one time to make an accurate assessment of its true shape?
What reason would I have to doubt that what I do sense is not accurate? It looks flat. I need direct sensorial evidence that it is not flat before I draw conclusions about it.
If your senses are too limited to observe the overall shape of the earth, then it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions either way about the shape of the earth.
-
Given that the earth (flat or round) is very large and the range of human senses is fairly limited, what makes you believe that you have seen enough of the earth's surface at one time to make an accurate assessment of its true shape?
What reason would I have to doubt that what I do sense is not accurate? It looks flat. I need direct sensorial evidence that it is not flat before I draw conclusions about it.
If your senses are too limited to observe the overall shape of the earth, then it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions either way about the shape of the earth.
That's really important point, markjo!
A good scientist never eliminates a contending theory when the observational evidence supports both. Here when you look out your window you do not see enough to conclude that either FET or RET is right (or wrong). The scientist would then look for differences in the contending theories's predictions and run experiments to determine which matches reality. Here RET correctly predicts the position of the Sun, while FET fails. The scientist would tend to discard FET, not modify it (such as invoking a new type of bendy light).
-
There are no such permanent and consistent from day to day appearing large scale optical phenomenons/anomalies observed. All optical phenomenons/anomalies are short lived. I see no reason to doubt that the Sun must be somewhere else than it is.
The Sun appears to move relative to the Earth, yet you conclude it does not move relative to the Earth. Clearly you believe this is some kind of visual effect produced by our perspective. I see no reason why, given a first principles situation, it would not make sense to conclude that some kind of visual effect could be at work here.
I am confused here. How do you conclusively detect that the Sun is the one that moves? It is like the situation where you are in some sort of vehicle which moves and you stand still and the other things appear to move. In the case of the Sun and the Earth you don't have absolutely any visual or any other evidence that the Sun is the one that moves actually and not the Earth.
As for a direct sensory evidence... I am sure that you agree that with shapes and physical objects we can reduce the scales and do observations also on smaller scales? As you have traveled and you can get the distances between the places then you can somehow grasp how big the Earth is. Lets say for the sake of simplicity that it's 20 000 km times 20 000 km square. To scale it down to 1 meter times 1 meter square you must reduce it 20 million times(Am I right?). Try now to fold the 1 m x 1m square around the ball somehow and reduce your size of human figure 20 million times and put it on the ball. If you look at the tiny dot(I guess it's so small that you can't actually see it) on the quite big ball then you have quite direct sensorial evidence that you can never grasp anything other than flat piece of ground if you are on the ground. How come you deny such kind of direct sensorial evidence achieved with simple models on scale?
I don't deny it. However, all I have there is direct evidence that said balls are spherical. There is no evidence there that suggests that the Earth is spherical.
I wanted to know how can you say that the earth is flat when it actually can be round or whatever other shape. It is quite clear and can be showed with simple models that you can't grasp the shape of the thing on which you stand if this thing is very-very big. Therefore there is absolutely no direct sensorial evidence that can show us that the entire Earth is flat and there isn't also any evidence which can even suggest the flatness of the entire Earth. There is no way that you can deduce the shape of the object when you observe only the surface and you do it only by very small areas. Give me some other direct sensorial evidence because your current one is totally worthless.
-
What reason would I have to doubt that what I do sense is not accurate? It looks flat. I need direct sensorial evidence that it is not flat before I draw conclusions about it.
Except it doesnt look flat, does it? There are numerous threads already explaining how if it looked flat youd be able to see land over bodies of water, where you cant. Stop denying this has already been discussed because it makes you feel uncomfortable.
-
Given that the earth (flat or round) is very large and the range of human senses is fairly limited, what makes you believe that you have seen enough of the earth's surface at one time to make an accurate assessment of its true shape?
What reason would I have to doubt that what I do sense is not accurate? It looks flat. I need direct sensorial evidence that it is not flat before I draw conclusions about it.
Senses are accurate? Let me prove you otherwise:
(http://yeinjee.com/discovery/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/optical-illusion-02.gif)
(http://www.innocentenglish.com/funny-pics/best-pics/alphabet-optical-illusion.gif)
-
Please explain how those images prove that the senses are inaccurate.
-
What reason would I have to doubt that what I do sense is not accurate? It looks flat. I need direct sensorial evidence that it is not flat before I draw conclusions about it.
This contradicts bendy light.
-
What reason would I have to doubt that what I do sense is not accurate? It looks flat. I need direct sensorial evidence that it is not flat before I draw conclusions about it.
This contradicts bendy light.
Bendy Light isn't real and that has been proven a zillion times. Not all FE'ers believe in bendy light.
-
Please explain how those images prove that the senses are inaccurate.
You can read a sentence in the first image, where there's actually no letters written, our brain interprets the blank spaces our eyes see like if there were letters.
In the second image, with the same graph, you can either form a 13, or a capitalised B, depending on the context.
Therefore, brain sometimes get into conflict with senses, and because of that, senses are not entirely trustful.
-
You're making certain assumptions about the size of the sun's spotlight, the size of the sun's orbit around the northern hub, and the size and layout of the map.
Quite amusing. I have never laughed so hard in my life.
Please show us all an accurate FE map.
Show on that map where the spot light shines in both hemispheres for summer and winter, time zones and such like.
Don't forget that map, so that we don't have to assume its layout.
Sorry what was that, no map!
Ha ha ha :)
-
Please explain how those images prove that the senses are inaccurate.
You can read a sentence in the first image, where there's actually no letters written, our brain interprets the blank spaces our eyes see like if there were letters.
In the second image, with the same graph, you can either form a 13, or a capitalised B, depending on the context.
Therefore, brain sometimes get into conflict with senses, and because of that, senses are not entirely trustful.
Okay what does the top sentence say? I can't get anything out of it.
The B and 13 I get but not the top one.
Berny
Stared till his eyes watered
-
Please explain how those images prove that the senses are inaccurate.
You can read a sentence in the first image, where there's actually no letters written, our brain interprets the blank spaces our eyes see like if there were letters.
In the second image, with the same graph, you can either form a 13, or a capitalised B, depending on the context.
Therefore, brain sometimes get into conflict with senses, and because of that, senses are not entirely trustful.
The black spaces are shapes. The blank spaces are shapes. Letters are just shapes we recognise as certain symbols. You can make that argument about any piece of writing. For example, there are no letters in this post, just black gaps. Ta da! This proves nothing about the reliability of our senses.
I am confused here. How do you conclusively detect that the Sun is the one that moves? It is like the situation where you are in some sort of vehicle which moves and you stand still and the other things appear to move. In the case of the Sun and the Earth you don't have absolutely any visual or any other evidence that the Sun is the one that moves actually and not the Earth.
Yes, but to my senses it appears as though the Sun is moving. Sensory evidence is all we're accepting, remember?
I wanted to know how can you say that the earth is flat when it actually can be round or whatever other shape. It is quite clear and can be showed with simple models
I stopped reading here. The rule is simple: direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen. When you introduce anything else in an attempt to disprove my argument, you lose.
-
The black spaces are shapes. The blank spaces are shapes. Letters are just shapes we recognise as certain symbols. You can make that argument about any piece of writing. For example, there are no letters in this post, just black gaps. Ta da! This proves nothing about the reliability of our senses.
You don't seem to know very well what a gap is, but here I am to enlighten you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gap
I can also teach you what a "letter" is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/letter
So you see, by definition and logic, a letter can never be a gap. We can make up letters from gaps, as in my example, but in a real writen text, the spaces between letters are gaps. Get your concepts straight before argumenting.
@Berny_74, I can't say if you are smartly joking, or if you are serious. I really hope it's the first one, haha.
-
The rule is simple: direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen.
Go to the Gower Peninsula, Wales.
Look towards Ireland.
Can you see Ireland?
No.
Direct sensorial evidence is telling you Ireland is not visible.
If Ireland merely lay across a big flat expanse of sea, it should be visibly sticking up in the distance. If Ireland lay across a curve, you would not see it.
Therefore, your sensorial evidence tells you the earth DOESNT look flat. It looks like a big curved surface.
-
@Berny_74, I can't say if you are smartly joking, or if you are serious. I really hope it's the first one, haha.
No seriously - the first one I cannot make heads or tails. The 12/13/14/a/b/c was easy - but the one above it I see nothing. If I trace manually I think the first line is NO SEX. Its not like anything pops out at me.
Berny
Wonders if Kira is pulling my tail
-
Yes, but to my senses it appears as though the Sun is moving. Sensory evidence is all we're accepting, remember?
So when you walk, the Earth appears as though it's moving and not you, right? You make astounding conclusion based on your senses.
-
Berny, it says "NO SEX CAUSES BAD EYES".
-
Berny, it says "NO SEX CAUSES BAD EYES".
Okay haven't had any for a year.
Maybe that's why.
But really - it does not jump out at me. After you said it I can trace it out.
Berny
Anyone want to help me out?
-
Berny, it says "NO SEX CAUSES BAD EYES".
Okay haven't had any for a year.
Maybe that's why.
But really - it does not jump out at me. After you said it I can trace it out.
Berny
Anyone want to help me out?
It's not supposed to jump out at you. That's the whole point. ;)
-
I am confused here. How do you conclusively detect that the Sun is the one that moves? It is like the situation where you are in some sort of vehicle which moves and you stand still and the other things appear to move. In the case of the Sun and the Earth you don't have absolutely any visual or any other evidence that the Sun is the one that moves actually and not the Earth.
Yes, but to my senses it appears as though the Sun is moving. Sensory evidence is all we're accepting, remember?
But there is no sensory evidence that the Sun is the one moving. And that kind of situation is easily reproducible with you and moving vehicles.
I wanted to know how can you say that the earth is flat when it actually can be round or whatever other shape. It is quite clear and can be showed with simple models
I stopped reading here. The rule is simple: direct sensorial evidence or it didn't happen. When you introduce anything else in an attempt to disprove my argument, you lose.
I see. Then the Sun really goes below the Earth. And it really is where you see it to be. It is direct sensorial evidence. If you don't accept that then you have no right to ask direct sensorial evidence from anyone. So, how it is. Does the Sun go below the Earth or not?
-
The Earth appears to be generally flat no matter where I go. Yet the apparent movements of the Sun and the distrabution of light are in conflict with this. One of the bodies thus cannot be as it appears to be. The greater proximity of the Earth and the greater sensorial evidence associated with it lead me to conclude that it is more likely that the Sun's movements are not as they appear to be. This is especially likely given the abundence of optical anomalies associeted with light (atmospheric refraction etc.)
Very good, but can you come up with a coherent and testable theory which explains how the sun moves and appears to move, and which explains why there is a difference between the two (and similarly for the moon and the stars)?
Because we RE-ers CAN explain which shape the Earth has, and why it appears to be flat. Our explanations fit all observations of the Earth and the celestial objects perfectly. Therefore, as long as you FE-ers cannot come up with a better theory, we should accept that the Earth is round.
-
From the afformentioned first principles? The Earth appears to be generally flat no matter where I go. Yet the apparent movements of the Sun and the distrabutiondistribution of light are in conflict with this. One of the bodies thus cannot be as it appears to be. The greater proximity of the Earth and the greater sensorial evidence associated with it lead me to conclude that it is more likely that the Sun's movements are not as they appear to be. This is especially likely given the abundenceabundance of optical anomalies associetedassociated with light (atmospheric refraction etc.)
So despite first principles, you make conclusions. Why would you ignore first principles in this case and conclude something for which you have no direct sensorial evidence?
-
You don't seem to know very well what a gap is, but here I am to enlighten you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gap
I can also teach you what a "letter" is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/letter
So you see, by definition and logic, a letter can never be a gap. We can make up letters from gaps, as in my example, but in a real writen text, the spaces between letters are gaps. Get your concepts straight before argumenting.
Perhaps you should get your concepts straight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol
A symbol is something such as an object, picture, written word, sound, or particular mark that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention . . . All language consists of symbols.
And what did I say?
The black spaces are shapes. The blank spaces are shapes. Letters are just shapes we recognise as certain symbols.
Please tell me how you differentiate between the gaps and the characters in the image you posted. I eagerly await your explanation.
If Ireland merely lay across a big flat expanse of sea, it should be visibly sticking up in the distance.
No:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28visual%29
So when you walk, the Earth appears as though it's moving and not you, right? You make [an] astounding conclusion based on your senses.
My senses don't tell me that the Earth is moving. It feels like I'm moving, therefore I am.
-
So when you walk, the Earth appears as though it's moving and not you, right? You make [an] astounding conclusion based on your senses.
My senses don't tell me that the Earth is moving. It feels like I'm moving, therefore I am.
Please tell me how it feels like you're moving and not the Earth. That sounds like another conclusion based on logical and not first principles.
-
Please tell me how it feels like you're moving and not the Earth. That sounds like another conclusion based on logical and not first principles.
It just feels like it. I feel like I'm moving, the Earth doesn't. It's sensorial evidence, so I can't really go beyond that in explaining it.
-
Please tell me how it feels like you're moving and not the Earth. That sounds like another conclusion based on logical and not first principles.
It just feels like it. I feel like I'm moving, the Earth doesn't. It's sensorial evidence, so I can't really go beyond that in explaining it.
So you're going with a 'feeling' rather than evidence. Noted.
-
Perhaps you should get your concepts straight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol
A symbol is something such as an object, picture, written word, sound, or particular mark that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention . . . All language consists of symbols.
And what did I say?
Well, you said: "For example, there are no letters in this post, just black gaps."
And I was explaining how that sentence is a nonsense. I don't know where you took all that symbol stuff from. I agree with all that.
Please tell me how you differentiate between the gaps and the characters in the image you posted. I eagerly await your explanation.
Well if I could do that, I wouldn't use the image as an example of the trickery of our senses, right? That was the key.
-
But really - it does not jump out at me. After you said it I can trace it out.
Berny
Anyone want to help me out?
You must adjust your eyes to look so that you can read the text. It's like stereogram picture, for example http://www.smart-kit.com/s280/stereograms-overide-normal-brain-and-eye-function/
-
Well, you said: "For example, there are no letters in this post, just black gaps."
And I was explaining how that sentence is a nonsense. I don't know where you took all that symbol stuff from. I agree with all that.
Please tell me how you differentiate between the gaps and the characters in the image you posted. I eagerly await your explanation.
Well if I could do that, I wouldn't use the image as an example of the trickery of our senses, right? That was the key.
If you cannot tell me how you differentiate between gaps and letters in that image, then you cannot tell me that the statement "there are no letters in this post, just black gaps" is nonsense. On what basis do you conclude that it is nonsense if you cannot explain how you differentiate between the letters and gaps in this or any other post?
The point is that there is no difference. Our senses accurately report that image to us. The problem is that the image is constructed in such a way as to make decoding the message difficult. Our senses are not at fault, but our brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the symbols present. This post is easier to decode because the symbols match our mind's expectations, not because it contains letters and the image doesn't.
-
The point is that there is no difference. Our senses accurately report that image to us. The problem is that the image is constructed in such a way as to make decoding the message difficult. Our senses are not at fault, but our brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the symbols present. This post is easier to decode because the symbols match our mind's expectations, not because it contains letters and the image doesn't.
So you agree then that everything you see isn't always exactly like it seems to be?
-
So you're going with a 'feeling' rather than evidence. Noted.
Uh, by 'feeling' I obviously mean sensation. It feels like I am moving, hence this is direct sensorial evidence.
So you agree then that everything you see isn't always exactly like it seems to be?
I have never disputed this.
-
So you're going with a 'feeling' rather than evidence. Noted.
Uh, by 'feeling' I obviously mean sensation. It feels like I am moving, hence this is direct sensorial evidence.
So, tell us how you feel that you're moving in an elevator once it's no longer accelerating? Are you under then misconception that your senses can tell you when you're moving, vice accelerating?
-
Movement in an elevator has nothing to do with the Sun's movements. Please stay on topic, as we're already having this discussion in three separate threads across the forum.
-
So you agree then that everything you see isn't always exactly like it seems to be?
I have never disputed this.
Then there is only thing do deduce. That you may very well to have belief in things that aren't true.
EDIT:
Including the shape of the Earth. But yes, I know what you say. If no other evidence is presented. But there is and you just deny that.
-
You can say that about anyone!
-
Except for the people who have been into space.
-
Movement in an elevator has nothing to do with the Sun's movements. Please stay on topic, as we're already having this discussion in three separate threads across the forum.
Yes, movement in an elevator is directly analogous to the Earth's movements. The point is that you cannot sense constant motion. Galileo knew this. Now it's time for you to catch up.
-
You can say that about anyone!
Sure, but the context is direct sensorial evidence and the shape of the Earth.
-
If you cannot tell me how you differentiate between gaps and letters in that image, then you cannot tell me that the statement "there are no letters in this post, just black gaps" is nonsense. On what basis do you conclude that it is nonsense if you cannot explain how you differentiate between the letters and gaps in this or any other post?
That image =/= A normal post
We cannot apply the same rules to both. So that I can see letters where there is none in a image based on gaps and certain forms, has nothing to do with admitting the existence of letters as black gaps, thing that I've proven impossible.
If we start doing random comparisions, the topic will become a useless mess.
The point is that there is no difference. Our senses accurately report that image to us. The problem is that the image is constructed in such a way as to make decoding the message difficult. Our senses are not at fault, but our brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the symbols present. This post is easier to decode because the symbols match our mind's expectations, not because it contains letters and the image doesn't.
Great, nothing to disagree with, now use that with your reasoning about the sensorial perception of the Earth.
-
The point is that there is no difference. Our senses accurately report that image to us. The problem is that the image is constructed in such a way as to make decoding the message difficult. Our senses are not at fault, but our brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the symbols present. This post is easier to decode because the symbols match our mind's expectations, not because it contains letters and the image doesn't.
Great, nothing to disagree with, now use that with your reasoning about the sensorial perception of the Earth.
You know, if you put it that way then the image demonstrates exactly the Wilmore's case and it is nicely cleared up.
His senses accurately report the direct sensory data about local flatness to him. The problem is that the whole picture is constructed in such a way as to make decoding of the whole picture difficult. His senses are not at fault but his brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the data presented about the whole picture. The local flatness is easier to decode because the idea matches his mind's expectations.
-
Scientists call that confirmation bias, when you draw conclusion
s from insufficient evidence based on what you want to be true. From his description (locally flat in many different areas) the earth could be in the shape of a buckyball among other shapes and still meet the requirements, yet Wilmore has prematurely concluded that It is a flat plane.
Edit: typing on my phone is difficult.
-
It feels like I am moving, hence this is direct sensorial evidence.
Actually, you can't sense uniform motion. What you sense is variations in motion.
-
The point is that there is no difference. Our senses accurately report that image to us. The problem is that the image is constructed in such a way as to make decoding the message difficult. Our senses are not at fault, but our brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the symbols present. This post is easier to decode because the symbols match our mind's expectations, not because it contains letters and the image doesn't.
Great, nothing to disagree with, now use that with your reasoning about the sensorial perception of the Earth.
You know, if you put it that way then the image demonstrates exactly the Wilmore's case and it is nicely cleared up.
His senses accurately report the direct sensory data about local flatness to him. The problem is that the whole picture is constructed in such a way as to make decoding of the whole picture difficult. His senses are not at fault but his brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the data presented about the whole picture. The local flatness is easier to decode because the idea matches his mind's expectations.
The flatness is the white gaps.
The roudness is the black shapes.
He believes he's seeing a flat surface, but what he's really seeing is a curved one. His senses are misleading him.
-
That image =/= A normal post
We cannot apply the same rules to both. So that I can see letters where there is none in a image based on gaps and certain forms, has nothing to do with admitting the existence of letters as black gaps, thing that I've proven impossible.
If we start doing random comparisions, the topic will become a useless mess.
They're not random comparisons at all. Please explain the difference, or acknowledge that there is no difference. By the way, I know what I'm talking about here. The only distinctions are arbitrary distinctions which we make up. That image contains letters in any meaningful sense of the term.
Great, nothing to disagree with, now use that with your reasoning about the sensorial perception of the Earth.
I've done all the reasoning I need to. Even if your point made sense (which it doesn't), it fails to challenge either of my original premises. Please acquaint yourself with my argument if you're going to challenge it.
-
well, lord wilmore, there are technically no letter on the 1st picture, as all the white space is linked, but it is your brain trying to make sense of it that forms the letters, which is also technically called drawing conclusions.
the 2nd picture shows that your brain analytical (i think i spelled it right) abilities is limited and is affected by the conditions around it
and becuase sensorial evidence has to go into your brain for interpretation before you can type it in, it can be unreliable
doesnt this show that at time sensorial evidence is not reliable (especially in this case)
-
well, lord wilmore, there are technically no letter on the 1st picture, as all the white space is linked, but it is your brain trying to make sense of it that forms the letters, which is also technically called drawing conclusions.
the 2nd picture shows that your brain analytical (i think i spelled it right) abilities is limited and is affected by the conditions around it
and becuase sensorial evidence has to go into your brain for interpretation before you can type it in, it can be unreliable
doesnt this show that at time sensorial evidence is not reliable (especially in this case)
Uh, there are letters in the image, as I have demonstrated.
-
where? too lazy to lurk
and there are not letters, if you just looked at the white as a whole, you would not see letters, you would see a shape, but if you use your brain to interpret the white shape and split it into letters, then you see the letters
-
where? too lazy to lurk
and there are not letters, if you just looked at the white as a whole, you would not see letters, you would see a shape, but if you use your brain to interpret the white shape and split it into letters, then you see the letters
None of these posts contain letters, just black gaps. When you think you see letters, it's actually just your brain interpreting the gaps as letters. Prove me wrong.
You need to realise that just because that image is an optical illusion, does not mean that there are no letters in it. I can post the letter 'f' in a thousand fonts, yet we will all agree that it is the one letter. In the same way, you and I both know that there is a written message within that image, and if there is a written message then there must be letters. The distinction you are making is arbitrary and unsustainable.
In any even, none of this has anything to do with the senses, nor does it cause any problems for my original premises.
-
however, if you took that white space, you would not recognize it as a whole as letters, wheras the black gaps can be completely distiguished as letters, however, you are right in saying your brain is interpreting them as letters. there are letters in it, but the shape itself is not a letter, just like a shaded circle can have letters in it, but it as a whole is not a letter. also, how is SEEING stuff on a screen have nothing to do with letters? please show me how seeing stuff and its interpretation have nothing to do with letters. also, some people find it hard to discern the "letters" in the white space, it takes me some time to do it.
also, interpretation has a lot to do with senses, seeing is just electrical signals, your brain has to interpret those signals as an image. same with pretty much all senses.
and i will give you one example of senses can be fooled
have you been to those circular raft rides. if you stood on the spinning ring around it, you would see the middle spin, while you stay still, but if you were to stand on the still center, you would correctly see the spinning disk. i myself have seen this happen, and also this can be applied to the sun's movement. the sun could be spinning, or the earth can, while the sun moves back and forth. if you were on the sun, you would probably see the earth move, and if you were on the earth, you will see the sun move
also, i dont remeber you original premises, sorry, again, too lazy to lurk
-
however, if you took that white space, you would not recognize it as a whole as letters, wheras the black gaps can be completely distiguished as letters, however, you are right in saying your brain is interpreting them as letters. there are letters in it, but the shape itself is not a letter, just like a shaded circle can have letters in it, but it as a whole is not a letter.
When does the letter it end and the rest of it begin? Like I said, these distinctions are totally arbitrary. Any good semiotician or symbologist will tell you there are letters in that image.
also, how is SEEING stuff on a screen have nothing to do with letters? please show me how seeing stuff and its interpretation have nothing to do with letters.
I never said it had "nothing to do with letters". However I'm not sure that "seeing stuff on a screen" necessarily has anything to do with letters. It would depend what was on the screen.
also, some people find it hard to discern the "letters" in the white space, it takes me some time to do it.
There are lots of people who have trouble figuring out letters in general, and there are many medical conditions associated with such difficulties. Yet the rest of us agree that the letters are there.
also, interpretation has a lot to do with senses, seeing is just electrical signals, your brain has to interpret those signals as an image. same with pretty much all senses.
I don't disagree with this, indeed I have said as much already.
and i will give you one example of senses can be fooled
have you been to those circular raft rides. if you stood on the spinning ring around it, you would see the middle spin, while you stay still, but if you were to stand on the still center, you would correctly see the spinning disk. i myself have seen this happen, and also this can be applied to the sun's movement. the sun could be spinning, or the earth can, while the sun moves back and forth. if you were on the sun, you would probably see the earth move, and if you were on the earth, you will see the sun move
This is all well and good, but I don't think a thought experiment is a particularly good example of how the senses can be fooled. In any event, I have never claimed that the senses are infallible.
also, i dont remeber you original premises, sorry, again, too lazy to lurk
You are too lazy to lurk, and I am too lazy to link.
-
sorry i meant senses, typed the wront thing
and we normally use different colors to distiguish between letters, if you dont, i cannot say how you discern letters from this page
also, if i gave you an image of a w, would you say it is actually two v's? the w has 2 v's, and you can say an 8 has two o's, but we say an 8 is an 8, and a w is a w, not a w is 2 v's, and an 8 is two o's
that isnt a thought experiment, ive done it before on amusement parks. (at least the first part) the second part is an analogy
aww man, now i have to lurk T,T
***edit***
i found you original premises (at least i think) that you dont come to conclusions, but you only use sensorial eviedence
now however, if you took that white space, you would not recognize it as a whole as letters, wheras the black gaps can be completely distiguished as letters, however, you are right in saying your brain is interpreting them as letters. there are letters in it, but the shape itself is not a letter, just like a shaded circle can have letters in it, but it as a whole is not a letter.
When does the letter it end and the rest of it begin? Like I said, these distinctions are totally arbitrary. Any good semiotician or symbologist will tell you there are letters in that image.
also, how is SEEING stuff on a screen have nothing to do with letters? please show me how seeing stuff and its interpretation have nothing to do with letters.
I never said it had "nothing to do with letters". However I'm not sure that "seeing stuff on a screen" necessarily has anything to do with letters. It would depend what was on the screen.
also, some people find it hard to discern the "letters" in the white space, it takes me some time to do it.
There are lots of people who have trouble figuring out letters in general, and there are many medical conditions associated with such difficulties. Yet the rest of us agree that the letters are there.
also, interpretation has a lot to do with senses, seeing is just electrical signals, your brain has to interpret those signals as an image. same with pretty much all senses.
I don't disagree with this, indeed I have said as much already.
and i will give you one example of senses can be fooled
have you been to those circular raft rides. if you stood on the spinning ring around it, you would see the middle spin, while you stay still, but if you were to stand on the still center, you would correctly see the spinning disk. i myself have seen this happen, and also this can be applied to the sun's movement. the sun could be spinning, or the earth can, while the sun moves back and forth. if you were on the sun, you would probably see the earth move, and if you were on the earth, you will see the sun move
This is all well and good, but I don't think a thought experiment is a particularly good example of how the senses can be fooled. In any event, I have never claimed that the senses are infallible.
also, i dont remeber you original premises, sorry, again, too lazy to lurk
You are too lazy to lurk, and I am too lazy to link.
you agreed that interpretation is used to use sensorial evidence, and interpretation is just drawing conclusions from what you see to make the information understanable
-
The point is that we distinctions we make to decide what is or isn't a letter are totally arbitrary and don't hold up to any scrutiny. The people who created that image formed shapes that would communicate a message to us. The message communicates that meaning, and we all see the letters. They may not be letters in the conventional sense, but they are still letters.
The point you and Kira-SY have raised is interesting, but the problem is you're looking at it the wrong way. You've simply accepted these conventons as having some kind of inherent value. What the image shows us is that the concept of a letter can be stretched pretty far. Their shape, colour etc. does not matter- all that matters is the meaning conveyed.
And incidentally, why do you think 'w' is pronounced 'double u'?
-
V and U used to be the same letter, thus W is a double V and W is a double U. Get over it.
Also, West and East are circles, not lines. OP is majorly flawed. Get over it.
-
Also, West and East are circles, not lines. OP is majorly flawed. Get over it.
The OP is not "majorly flawed". I never claimed that east and west weren't circles. Even in RET they are circles. What I am claiming however is that for the observer situated where they are in the diagram, the apparent direction of east and west that they see are the tangents to the east-west circle at this point. So unless you're claiming that light now bends in circular arcs around the north pole, the argument stands. The sunrise may be technically due east of the observer, in that it is at the same latitude, but the point remains that in FET, an observer would see the sun appear to rise in the north east and set in the north west. This is not observed.
-
The point is that we distinctions we make to decide what is or isn't a letter are totally arbitrary and don't hold up to any scrutiny. The people who created that image formed shapes that would communicate a message to us. The message communicates that meaning, and we all see the letters. They may not be letters in the conventional sense, but they are still letters.
The point you and Kira-SY have raised is interesting, but the problem is you're looking at it the wrong way. You've simply accepted these conventons as having some kind of inherent value. What the image shows us is that the concept of a letter can be stretched pretty far. Their shape, colour etc. does not matter- all that matters is the meaning conveyed.
And incidentally, why do you think 'w' is pronounced 'double u'?
ok, thx we're on the same paga again
also i know why w is pronounced that way, just used it as an example to show that w is not 2 v's , but a w
-
How does the sun rise and fall in FET?
-
How does the sun rise and fall in FET?
Please read the FAQ.
Oh, and you spelled "offworlder" wrong.
-
I know, but hey I can't change it now, so, what the heck, I made up my own wrod, Doh!
-
I did not find the FAQ helpful in answering this question.
Any further explanation?
-
I did not find the FAQ helpful
Welcome to TFES.
-
Why do cities in the north experience 24 hours of sunlight in summer and 24 hours of night in winter?
I guess the sun moves in and out, right?
How come it doesn't get bigger and smaller?
-
Why do cities in the north experience 24 hours of sunlight in summer and 24 hours of night in winter?
I guess the sun moves in and out, right?
How come it doesn't get bigger and smaller?
This will serve you well.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm)
-
Why do cities in the north experience 24 hours of sunlight in summer and 24 hours of night in winter?
I guess the sun moves in and out, right?
How come it doesn't get bigger and smaller?
This will serve you well.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm)
two things wrong.
1. the sun suddenly disappears. However, it's explanation, saying that light gradually diminishes, is wrong, as the sun is visible and a minute later, it has sunk below the horizon.
2. The earth is not symmetrical, and that page just assumes that it's the sun that causes this. This assumption is wrong.
-
two things wrong.
1. the sun suddenly disappears. However, it's explanation, saying that light gradually diminishes, is wrong, as the sun is visible and a minute later, it has sunk below the horizon.
2. The earth is not symmetrical, and that page just assumes that it's the sun that causes this. This assumption is wrong.
1. You can see daylight dimming as the day approaches sunset, the and twilight remains for some time afterward. It is not a sudden disappearance.
2. In either both RET and FET, the earth is more or less symmetrical in shape, ignoring comparatively small local anomalies such as mountains etc. A disk shaped earth is symmetrical about any plane which passes through the center and runs perpendicular to the ground, and a spherical earth is symmetrical about any plane which passes through the center.
-
I was looking at the example linked (Thanks Gotham.)
It would appear that sunlight only covers a quarter of the disk at any time.
Therefore the equinoxes would be non-existent. At the equator during what would be commonly known as the equinox, when the sun's path corresponds to the equatorial circle, those at the equator would experience 8 hours of Sunlight and 16 of darkness, (assuming that the sun still goes round in 24 hours at a relatively steady angular velocity), as the disk of sunlight extends only across 120 degrees of the equator at that time.
Indeed only those latitudes within the arctic circle would experience an equinox and each latitude on different days throughout the year, and everywhere else, never!
-
I was looking at the example linked (Thanks Gotham.)
It would appear that sunlight only covers a quarter of the disk at any time.
Therefore the solstices would be non-existent. At the equator during what would be commonly known as the solstice, when the sun's path corresponds to the equatorial circle, those at the equator would experience 8 hours of Sunlight and 16 of darkness, (assuming that the sun still goes round in 24 hours at a relatively steady angular velocity), as the disk of sunlight extends only across 120 degrees of the equator at that time.
Indeed only those latitudes within the arctic circle would experience a solstice and each latitude on different days throughout the year, and everywhere else, never!
In that model, the Sun actually only covers 1/3 the area of the FE (think of pi). Anyway, the model is used is false not only because of what you posted, but because it would heat the Earth differently than what is observed.
-
two things wrong.
1. the sun suddenly disappears. However, it's explanation, saying that light gradually diminishes, is wrong, as the sun is visible and a minute later, it has sunk below the horizon.
2. The earth is not symmetrical, and that page just assumes that it's the sun that causes this. This assumption is wrong.
1. You can see daylight dimming as the day approaches sunset, the and twilight remains for some time afterward. It is not a sudden disappearance.
2. In either both RET and FET, the earth is more or less symmetrical in shape, ignoring comparatively small local anomalies such as mountains etc. A disk shaped earth is symmetrical about any plane which passes through the center and runs perpendicular to the ground, and a spherical earth is symmetrical about any plane which passes through the center.
1. according to the article, light gradually diminishes. However, the sun itself does suddenly disappear. The surroundings might slowly fade, but the sun itself disappears
2. The local anomalies are exactly what causes the temperature differences that EnaG says is impossible on round earth.
-
In that model, the Sun actually only covers 1/3 the area of the FE (think of pi). Anyway, the model is used is false not only because of what you posted, but because it would heat the Earth differently than what is observed.
The disk of sunlight shown in the model has a diameter of about half that of the FE (maybe even smaller), and therefore it's radius too. Pi*r^2 gives the area of a circle, if the FE has radius R and the sunlight ½R, then the FE will have a radius of Pi*R^2
and the sunlight will have an area of Pi*(½R^2) = ¼Pi*R^2 = ¼(FE area). Since 0.5 squared is 0.25.
To cover a third of the FE the disk of sunlight radius would have to be 0.577 of the FE radius (The square root of one third). This would still cause insurmountable problems to anyone attempting to explain the equinox.
I obviously believe the model to be false, but I am fascinated why others believe it to be true. If there are different or more accurate FE models of the sunlight please provide them.
-
Correction: - I wrote 'solstice' instead of 'equinox' in the last post. I have since rectified the error, but any quotes still contain the error. Apologies.
Thank you.
-
You're right, my bad. If the area of a circle with diameter x is y, then the area of a circle with diameter x/2 is about y/5.
Anyway, the Sunlight model is terribly faulty because at the equinoxes (and possibly other times, though I didn't check) 1/2 of the (flat) Earth would have to be lit up at once. Sunrise/sunset times support this, yet the FE model uses a spot/floodlight Sun. And unless that Sun has magical filters that change the area it lights up, FE'ers better think of a more accurate Sun model.
-
You're right, my bad. If the area of a circle with diameter x is y, then the area of a circle with diameter x/2 is about y/5.
Anyway, the Sunlight model is terribly faulty because at the equinoxes (and possibly other times, though I didn't check) 1/2 of the (flat) Earth would have to be lit up at once. Sunrise/sunset times support this, yet the FE model uses a spot/floodlight Sun. And unless that Sun has magical filters that change the area it lights up, FE'ers better think of a more accurate Sun model.
No such "magical filter" is required, the atmosphere will do perfectly well here. Tom Bishop has explained these phenomena very well:
1. The Sun is a sphere. It is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun
2. The sun's path travels roughly over the equator, circling the earth once every 24 hours. As the sun moves in its circular path it also moves Northward and Southward throughout the year, at its northern annulus during the northern summer and at its southern annulus during the southern summer.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Seasons
3. The sun does not "dip below the edge". Its disappearance at sunset caused by natural laws of perspective.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun
4. The sun's light acts as a spotlight upon the earth, creating a circular illuminated area. But it does not follow that the sun is flat. The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions around it. Its light is diluted and bounded in its extent as it travels across the surface of the earth by the simple fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Viewing+Distance
An interesting point this raises is the shape of the sun's spotlight effect. Because it is effectively bounded by the earth's atmosphere, the shape of the spotlight depends heavily on the shape and density of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere of the flat earth were a dome shape, as I have often seen it represented, then the sun's light would be less restricted the further south one goes. This is due to the fact that the sun's light would have to pass through more atmosphere in the north and therefore is therefore diluted more rapidly, while in the south it would pass through less atmosphere and would travel further in the south due to a lower restriction. This would result in a skewed shape of the "spotlight", with the illuminated area being considerably larger in the south and smaller in the north.
-
so a sphere with a light in all directions can still make a spotlight?
and also, if the sun looks like it dissappears under the horizon, how does athmospheric conditions solve it
-
You're right, my bad. If the area of a circle with diameter x is y, then the area of a circle with diameter x/2 is about y/5.
Anyway, the Sunlight model is terribly faulty because at the equinoxes (and possibly other times, though I didn't check) 1/2 of the (flat) Earth would have to be lit up at once. Sunrise/sunset times support this, yet the FE model uses a spot/floodlight Sun. And unless that Sun has magical filters that change the area it lights up, FE'ers better think of a more accurate Sun model.
No such "magical filter" is required, the atmosphere will do perfectly well here. Tom Bishop has explained these phenomena very well:
1. The Sun is a sphere. It is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun
2. The sun's path travels roughly over the equator, circling the earth once every 24 hours. As the sun moves in its circular path it also moves Northward and Southward throughout the year, at its northern annulus during the northern summer and at its southern annulus during the southern summer.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Seasons
3. The sun does not "dip below the edge". Its disappearance at sunset caused by natural laws of perspective.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun
4. The sun's light acts as a spotlight upon the earth, creating a circular illuminated area. But it does not follow that the sun is flat. The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions around it. Its light is diluted and bounded in its extent as it travels across the surface of the earth by the simple fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Viewing+Distance
An interesting point this raises is the shape of the sun's spotlight effect. Because it is effectively bounded by the earth's atmosphere, the shape of the spotlight depends heavily on the shape and density of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere of the flat earth were a dome shape, as I have often seen it represented, then the sun's light would be less restricted the further south one goes. This is due to the fact that the sun's light would have to pass through more atmosphere in the north and therefore is therefore diluted more rapidly, while in the south it would pass through less atmosphere and would travel further in the south due to a lower restriction. This would result in a skewed shape of the "spotlight", with the illuminated area being considerably larger in the south and smaller in the north.
However, none of this explains why observers on or near the equator experience very nearly 12 hours of daylight every day of the year. Even Tom couldn't come up with an explanation when directly confronted with this trivial detail.
-
Markjo just pointed out a pretty big hole, I couldn't find an answer for why areas near the equator get 12 hours of sunlight in any of that text.
-
In response to Terra Plana:
(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h442/RyanHessy/UnequalHeating.jpg)
http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h442/RyanHessy/UnequalHeating.jpg
That model represents what the flat Earth should look like at the equinoxes. And, just for kicks, here's some more stuff (based on the FAQ's map) which I may very well just put in another thread:
------------------------------
Further Inspection of the Heating of the Earth as Pertaining to the Sun's Orbit
Debunk of the FAQ's map (and likely any others)
(sunrises and sunsets taken on September 21)
Buenos Aires, Argentina
34.61S, 58.37W (2388 mi South of equator) sunlight is 51 degrees angle when over longitudinal line
High/Low Temperatures: 59F/66F
Sunrise: 6:36:02 am
Sunset: 6:50:48 pm
-- About 12 hours day/night --
Beijing, China
39.93N, 116.4E (2755 mi North of equator) sunlight is 47 degrees angle when over longitudinal line
High/Low Temperatures: 55F/64F
Sunrise: 6:02:06 am
Sunset: 6:15:43 pm
-- About 12 hours day/night --
Now, taking into account time differences, this shows that (approximately) the sun set in one city as it rose in another city, and vice versa. This means that, on the FAQ's map, approximately 1/2 of the map would have to be lit up at one time to coordinate properly with the sunrise and sunset times taken above. (observe the diagram)
Note the drastic change in the angle of the Sun with the cities.
-
In response to Terra Plana:
(http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h442/RyanHessy/UnequalHeating.jpg)
http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h442/RyanHessy/UnequalHeating.jpg
That model represents what the flat Earth should look like at the equinoxes. And, just for kicks, here's some more stuff (based on the FAQ's map) which I may very well just put in another thread:
------------------------------
Further Inspection of the Heating of the Earth as Pertaining to the Sun's Orbit
Debunk of the FAQ's map (and likely any others)
(sunrises and sunsets taken on September 21)
Buenos Aires, Argentina
34.61S, 58.37W (2388 mi South of equator) sunlight is 51 degrees angle when over longitudinal line
High/Low Temperatures: 59F/66F
Sunrise: 6:36:02 am
Sunset: 6:50:48 pm
-- About 12 hours day/night --
Beijing, China
39.93N, 116.4E (2755 mi North of equator) sunlight is 47 degrees angle when over longitudinal line
High/Low Temperatures: 55F/64F
Sunrise: 6:02:06 am
Sunset: 6:15:43 pm
-- About 12 hours day/night --
Now, taking into account time differences, this shows that (approximately) the sun set in one city as it rose in another city, and vice versa. This means that, on the FAQ's map, approximately 1/2 of the map would have to be lit up at one time to coordinate properly with the sunrise and sunset times taken above. (observe the diagram)
Note the drastic change in the angle of the Sun with the cities.
so, now light that is from a sphere that hits all directions, stops at a straight line?
why?
-
so, now light that is from a sphere that hits all directions, stops at a straight line?
why?
Great question. ::)
Edit: Just so you know, I think technically (most) FE'ers believe the Sun is a flat disc that acts as a spotlight/floodlight. Not a sphere. Yet your question still stands.
-
from FAQ
Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"
A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.
----
SO, the sun and moon are spotlights, but it doesn't really say if they are spheres or not, unless they are classed as celestial bodies. But we know from our experience that it does not matter what time of day we observe the sun, it always appears as a disk. If only we knew of a particular shape that appears disk-like from any angle. (Apologies for the sarcasm, you'd think it should be beneath me. BUt... no)
Therefore how can the light be a spotlight, when it faces us directly until it sets, and presumably those who are seeing at midday at that time too? And of course, again, how can there be a flat line terminator across the disk from a spotlight, or sphere? You cannot argue diffusion of light for its propagation over the daylight area and then expect it to have different properties when it hits a magical shadow wall at 180 degrees.
Off
<Cold easing up here: phew! Hope the rest of you are all keeping warm!>
-
...hence my point.
-
1. The Sun is a sphere. It is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun
2. The sun's path travels roughly over the equator, circling the earth once every 24 hours. As the sun moves in its circular path it also moves Northward and Southward throughout the year, at its northern annulus during the northern summer and at its southern annulus during the southern summer.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Seasons
3. The sun does not "dip below the edge". Its disappearance at sunset caused by natural laws of perspective.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun
4. The sun's light acts as a spotlight upon the earth, creating a circular illuminated area. But it does not follow that the sun is flat. The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions around it. Its light is diluted and bounded in its extent as it travels across the surface of the earth by the simple fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Viewing+Distance
this is from some other thread. tom bishop states that the sun is a sphere
-
We can assume that the sun is closest to the hottest locations on Earth (equator). Take the FE map and trace around the equator locations. That should be the sun's path of travel. If the path is narrow enough to appear as east and west moments it's likely true.
-
You say there is a problem with the flat earth model, yet you fail to show the exact model you are looking at. Without knowing what model you are looking at, it's pointless to discuss. There are several FE models out there...if you knew this, you should have REALLY specified which one you are talking about. If you did not know this, maybe you don't have the info needed to hold a conversation on this subject.
" Unless you can provide an accurate, detailed, coherent model, then we have nothing but assumptions to go on"
EXACTLY. Globers have NOTHING but ASSUMPTIONS to go on.
It's like someone telling you a car can be powered by water, but they don't tell you how its done, so you don't believe it can be done. so you just create a pile of assumptions and come up with every reason in the world why a car running on water just wont work. To claim the water car model is impossible, without seeing the blueprints and tech behind the build, is FLAT out STUPID.
-
You say there is a problem with the flat earth model, yet you fail to show the exact model you are looking at. Without knowing what model you are looking at, it's pointless to discuss. There are several FE models out there...if you knew this, you should have REALLY specified which one you are talking about. If you did not know this, maybe you don't have the info needed to hold a conversation on this subject.
Yes, there are several models, wish just push the problem around.
No FE model can address it.
" Unless you can provide an accurate, detailed, coherent model, then we have nothing but assumptions to go on"
EXACTLY. Globers have NOTHING but ASSUMPTIONS to go on.
No, that would be the FEers with nothing but assumptions.
REers have an accurate, detailed, coherent model which is capable of predicting and explaining phenomena.
It's like someone telling you a car can be powered by water, but they don't tell you how its done, so you don't believe it can be done. so you just create a pile of assumptions and come up with every reason in the world why a car running on water just wont work. To claim the water car model is impossible, without seeing the blueprints and tech behind the build, is FLAT out STUPID.
No it isn't.
People saying you can use electrolysis to split water and use that hydrogen and oxygen for combustion to fuel the car, powering the car by water are full of shit.
It doesn't matter what specific set up they use, it wont work, and all the evidence in the world shows that.
It takes more energy to split the water than you get out of it by combustion.
Best case scenario you don't lose any energy to the environment and just break even, but that means the car isn't being fuelled by water.
Just like it doesn't matter what speific model you want to make for a FE, it won't work.
It cannot explain the apparent position of the sun and other stars.
The simple fact that we have 2 celestial poles always 180 degrees apart, solidly disproves all FE models except those where Earth is limited to a tiny section of it, where then instead of the sun and stars being the problem, the rest of the Earth not existing is.
-
Yes, there are several models, wish just push the problem around.
No FE model can address it.
you avoid answering the question.
WHICH MODEL are you talking about specifically, AND WHY are you using THAT model?
I'm waiting...
"NO FE model can address the suns movement"
so, You ASSUME, that you have closely examined EVERY FE model out there?
You ASSUME , your info on the suns movement , size, positioning, orbit, etc is correct..( without any verification whatsoever ) and trying to line up your thoughts about the sun with a fe model is not working out for you right? When your mind is made up already, it's easy to understand why.
I have SEEN models that DO address the suns movement, the eclipses, etc...put in the time..
"Unless you can provide an accurate, detailed, coherent model, then we have nothing but assumptions to go on"
There are flaws in the globe model as well, and you need to ASSUME a lot to believe a globe earth.
to ignore that fact is silly. If it was such a great model..there would be no room for anything else.
being oblivious to flaws in your own model really shows your inability to think for yourself.
"REers have an accurate, detailed, coherent model.."
according to who? RE'ers? lol wow ..no surprise there.
I think you should reevaluate what you believe to be evidence for a globe.
if it was so detailed and accurate, then why do most sites use the wrong math for finding "curvature"? LMAO
engineers, scientists, geomappers, etc..you name it..there are sites galore using MATH, that prove the curvature having a drop or 8" first mile..ETC... yadda yadda... but that's Not correct is it...lol
if there formulas were correct, we would not see cities across lakes, they would be completely "over and under your imaginary horizon line... you should have a meeting with RE' folks and get that situated before pretending you understand the shape if the earth with such certainty.
so all these people have been using the wrong math formulas, etc..all these years?
are they THAT STUPID?...and all of this comes about only after flat earth hits the scene again ten years ago...
weird...
" People saying you can use electrolysis to split water and use that hydrogen and oxygen for combustion to fuel the car, powering the car by water are full of shit.
...you have horribly selective hearing/reading skills...
I CLEARLY say... THEY DON'T TELL YOU HOW ITS DONE....
so you can't ASSUME you understand...but as an RE'er..that's EXACTLY what you are doing. smh..
it was an analogy that went over your head...
the point is.. you look unintelligent to claim something is impossible, when in reality, you have no idea what the possibilities truly are.
if we talked about ufo's and how they can zip around the air , folks like you would claim " flying and turning at such great speeds is impossible !! no matter what setup they use!!!! "LMAO
get it?
you'd go into talking about engines and BS never imagining that maybe the tech is FAR beyond your minute ability to comprehend it!
you go on to say...
It doesn't matter what specific set up they use, it wont work, and all the evidence in the world shows that.
says who, you ? lol
have YOU tried EVERY SETUP????
seen all the evidence in the world have you ? haha... just stop already kid..
do you understand how such blanket statements destroy any credibility you think you might have?
do you understand that certain laws of physics that have to do with energy can be are are broken in certain situations, even though typical academia will shout THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE!
"Just like it doesn't matter what speific model you want to make for a FE, it won't work"
wow. So, before studying the models, or seeing future models, you automatically shut it down as if it's not possible and to you, it will always be wrong!? That is proof in itself, that your brain has been officially brainwashed to the point where evidence presented to someone like you won't make much of a difference will it..
= Discussion with a closed mind that was made up long before Fe came around is pointless.
as good as you are at pretending, I'm surprised you don't pretend to be at least a little more open minded...
no need to let your brain fall out...
Thank you for the laughs.
-
Yes, there are several models, wish just push the problem around.
No FE model can address it.
you avoid answering the question.
No, it isn't avoiding it.
It is pointing out it applies to all models.
The OP specifically appears to be referring to the NP AEP FE model.
But as I said, it applies to ALL FE models (which have the entire Earth).
One fact mentioned in the OP is the direction of sunrise and sunset.
On the equinox, the sun is observed to rise from due east along a line of longitude.
Just focusing on that, and going from the north pole to the south pole (20 000 km) allowing an error of 1 degree, would mean the sun needs to be at least 500 000 km away, putting it well off any FE model making it impossible for the sun to be above any point on Earth, while it is directly above a point on Earth.
No FE model can explain this.
The only way out (keeping Earth flat) is to shrink Earth to just a tiny portion of Earth.
It does not address a specific model, it addresses all models.
If you think a FE model doesn't have this issue, then provide it.
so, You ASSUME, that you have closely examined EVERY FE model out there?
No, as I don't need to.
It is a general disproof.
Just like if I want to say the observed curvature or distances is incompatible with Earth being flat I don't need to specifically address a particular FE model.
If the argument needs to focus on a particular one it is a rather weak argument which only disproves that specific not all models and does nothing to prove the opposite.
You ASSUME , your info on the suns movement , size, positioning, orbit, etc is correct..( without any verification whatsoever )
No, I learn about the sun's movement and verify it.
I have SEEN models that DO address the suns movement, the eclipses, etc...put in the time..
Then provide them.
There are flaws in the globe model as well, and you need to ASSUME a lot to believe a globe earth.
Care to provide an example, either of the flaw or the assumption?
If it was such a great model..there would be no room for anything else.
There is no room in rational thought for anything else, other than fine tuning it, such as getting the radius more accurate or the eccentricity and so on.
There is no room for Earth to be flat in any rational thought.
"REers have an accurate, detailed, coherent model.."
according to who? RE'ers? lol wow ..no surprise there.
According to every sane person on the planet that has bothered looking into it.
if it was so detailed and accurate, then why do most sites use the wrong math for finding "curvature"? LMAO
Because they are FEers that are dishonestly presenting it to pretend the curvature is missing.
Or, because they are providing the correct math and FEers just lie about the math by misapplying it.
engineers, scientists, geomappers, etc..you name it..there are sites galore using MATH, that prove the curvature having a drop or 8" first mile..ETC... yadda yadda... but that's Not correct is it...lol
They show it is an approximation.
if there formulas were correct, we would not see cities across lakes
There you go completely ignoring what the math is showing.
Put your eyes at sea level and see if you can still see them.
You also need to understand refraction and how that bends light, and that the curvature of Earth isn't all there is to it.
you should have a meeting with RE' folks and get that situated before pretending you understand the shape if the earth with such certainty.
No, it seems to be you that needs that meeting so you actually understanding what you are discussing.
so all these people have been using the wrong math formulas, etc..all these years?
are they THAT STUPID?...and all of this comes about only after flat earth hits the scene again ten years ago...
No, it wasn't ten years ago.
The FEers have been around misusing those formulas for much longer.
And I'm not sure if they are that stupid or just that dishonest that they will happily lie to people.
Which are you?
Flat Earth was the original idea behind the shape of Earth, based upon people just assuming it.
It was only when there was evidence showing that to be wrong that people discarded their false belief in a flat Earth.
...you have horribly selective hearing/reading skills...
I CLEARLY say... THEY DON'T TELL YOU HOW ITS DONE....
So?
I made no mention of how the electrolysis was achieved, nor how the gasses are delivered to the engine, or what kind of engine and so on.
I only kept it as splitting water to burn the products which just produces more water.
Something which a fair amount of con men pretend you can do.
You can't use it directly as chemical fuel to burn either.
This is like saying FE is wrong, rather than a particular model.
What you are saying now is akin to suggesting we are saying all models of Earth are wrong.
so you can't ASSUME you understand
I don't assume. I know.
you look unintelligent to claim something is impossible, when in reality, you have no idea what the possibilities truly are.
Good thing I do know the possibilities.
if we talked about ufo's and how they can zip around the air , folks like you would claim
There you go assuming crap about me.
Good job showing that all these negativity you are spouting about me actually applies to you.
do you understand how such blanket statements destroy any credibility you think you might have?
Do you understand how such blanket statements can be actually be correct and based upon actual knowledge, and that you don't need to address every single possible option specifically?
do you understand that certain laws of physics that have to do with energy can be are are broken in certain situations, even though typical academia will shout THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE!
Yes, typically dealling with quantum mechanics, where conservation of energy can be violated for a short time, but only at the quantum level, not at the macroscopic level.
So, before studying the models, or seeing future models, you automatically shut it down as if it's not possible
Nope, even after seeing the models and the pathetic excuses they have made, I still accept the mountains of evidence for a round Earth complete with numerous issues the FEers cannot rationally and honestly address.
That is proof in itself, that your brain has been officially brainwashed to the point where evidence presented to someone like you won't make much of a difference will it..
No it isn't.
It is proof that I am rational human being that has seen and understood the evidence and wont be thrown into massive doubt because some moron comes up with crap.
I base my position on the evidence that shows Earth to be round, not flaws with specific FE models.
If people say you aren't a human, do you need to consider every possibility for what you might otherwise be, including species we haven't encountered yet, or can you conclude you are a human?
Does that mean you are brainwashed?
= Discussion with a closed mind that was made up long before Fe came around is pointless.
That would be impossible unless you think I am several thousand years old.
as good as you are at pretending, I'm surprised you don't pretend to be at least a little more open minded...
no need to let your brain fall out...
But you seem to want me to let my brain fall out.
If you can provide evidence of a FE model which actually works which addresses the multitude of problems which the FE models currently face, which works better than the RE model, I will accept it.
Until you do, I'm not going to pretend that the FE is viable just to be "open minded". That would require ignoring the mountains of evidence showing Earth is round.
That isn't being open minded, that is being stupid.
-
Yes, there are several models, wish just push the problem around.
No FE model can address it.
you avoid answering the question.
WHICH MODEL are you talking about specifically, AND WHY are you using THAT model?
I'm waiting...
"NO FE model can address the suns movement"
so, You ASSUME, that you have closely examined EVERY FE model out there?
Your very implication that there are many FE models out there is very good evidence to me that the earth is not flat.
Were the earth really flat, it would be simply a matter of making observations and measurements and building the one true model up from there.
As is is the observations and measurements made on the real earth all seem to fit a spherical earth.
They can only be shoe-horned to fit a flat earth by claiming that most of the actual measurements are deceptive and made by deceivers - so no go.
You ASSUME , your info on the suns movement , size, positioning, orbit, etc is correct..( without any verification whatsoever ) and trying to line up your thoughts about the sun with a fe model is not working out for you right? When your mind is made up already, it's easy to understand why.
I have SEEN models that DO address the suns movement, the eclipses, etc...put in the time..
No, you made the claim that, you "have SEEN models that DO address the suns movement, the eclipses".
Put your money where your mouth is and present all those models.