The Sun

evidence is not found in works of fiction, simple as that, and a strictly religious upbringing gives me as much insight into the conternt and gist of Bible and Quoran without reading them as I care for, similarly with the Earth Not a Globe book, I know what to expect, and it is nonsense, just like EastEnders or Coronation Street, I don't watch them, but know enough about them to make a valid assessment of them.

So you want us to present you with evidence of our theory, but you're not willing to read anything that claims to contain evidence of our theory. Makes perfect sense!

Quote from: karl on May 03, 2011, 04:54:39 PM

evidence is not found in works of fiction, simple as that, and a strictly religious upbringing gives me as much insight into the conternt and gist of Bible and Quoran without reading them as I care for, similarly with the Earth Not a Globe book, I know what to expect, and it is nonsense, just like EastEnders or Coronation Street, I don't watch them, but know enough about them to make a valid assessment of them.

So you want us to present you with evidence of our theory, but you're not willing to read anything that claims to contain evidence of our theory. Makes perfect sense!

I have no qualms with something going over a horizon as it gets further away, but, i do have a problem with something remaining the same size as it gets further away.  Why doesn't the sun change in size as everything else that increases its distance between itself and the viewer?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 03, 2011, 04:56:00 PM

Quote from: karl on May 03, 2011, 04:54:39 PM

evidence is not found in works of fiction, simple as that, and a strictly religious upbringing gives me as much insight into the conternt and gist of Bible and Quoran without reading them as I care for, similarly with the Earth Not a Globe book, I know what to expect, and it is nonsense, just like EastEnders or Coronation Street, I don't watch them, but know enough about them to make a valid assessment of them.

So you want us to present you with evidence of our theory, but you're not willing to read anything that claims to contain evidence of our theory. Makes perfect sense!

I have no qualms with something going over a horizon as it gets further away, but, i do have a problem with something remaining the same size as it gets further away.  Why doesn't the sun change in size as everything else that increases its distance between itself and the viewer?

There's a section on this in Earth Not a Globe, and in the Flat Earth Wiki:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset

Thank you, Tom. Therefore we must conclude that the sun is neither a spotlight nor a floodlight, but a headlight. /reductioadridiculum

you are right, it is neither a spot light (like the FAQ states) OR a floodlight,

but it does  act light a floodlight, which i have stated. The FAQ adamantly supports the sun "IS A Spotlight"
and even most us on who believe Earth is a giant disc, deny this.

The FAQ must be changed, or deleted all together.

you are right, it is neither a spot light (like the FAQ states) OR a floodlight,

but it does  act light a floodlight, which i have stated. The FAQ adamantly supports the sun "IS A Spotlight"
and even most us on who believe Earth is a giant disc, deny this.

The FAQ must be changed, or deleted all together.

Why is it that almost every single one of your posts (that I see, anyway) is a protest against the FAQ's assertion that the sun "is a spotlight"? Don't you have anything else to talk about? Granted, in this thread it's actually relevant, but you seem a bit obsessed with the matter.

I have no qualms with something going over a horizon as it gets further away, but, i do have a problem with something remaining the same size as it gets further away.  Why doesn't the sun change in size as everything else that increases its distance between itself and the viewer?

It does, but way too little to be seen by the human eye. The distance that the sun is moving away from the eye is tiny compared to the overall distance. Since what matters are the ratios (apparent size when far/ apparent size when near = distance when far/ distance when near) if far is very large (8 light minutes or so) and near is only a tiny bit less than that (with a difference much less than a light second), the ratio of the differences will be very tiny. Taken together with the fact that the sun is very hard to see due to its brightness, this explains things very well. Note that this is something that doesn't work in most FE model's (such as that in the FAQ) where the sun's distance is really changing drastically by a large factor. Similar remarks apply to the moon in the FE model.

This actually connects with some interesting history- one of the problems with the Ptolemaic models was that the Moon needed to be on an epicycle that was large enough such that one should expect more apparent change in the size of the moon then one has. Copernicus's model still didn't completely adequately explain this, and it wasn't until one had Kepler's model with elliptical orbits and no epicycles that this was resolved.  

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 03, 2011, 05:05:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 03, 2011, 04:56:00 PM

Quote from: karl on May 03, 2011, 04:54:39 PM

evidence is not found in works of fiction, simple as that, and a strictly religious upbringing gives me as much insight into the conternt and gist of Bible and Quoran without reading them as I care for, similarly with the Earth Not a Globe book, I know what to expect, and it is nonsense, just like EastEnders or Coronation Street, I don't watch them, but know enough about them to make a valid assessment of them.

So you want us to present you with evidence of our theory, but you're not willing to read anything that claims to contain evidence of our theory. Makes perfect sense!

I have no qualms with something going over a horizon as it gets further away, but, i do have a problem with something remaining the same size as it gets further away.  Why doesn't the sun change in size as everything else that increases its distance between itself and the viewer?

There's a section on this in Earth Not a Globe, and in the Flat Earth Wiki:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magnification+of+the+Sun+at+Sunset

Then why can I not use a telescope to extend my field of vision enough to see the sun as it passes over the horizon?  Is this more atmospheric tricks, why not just take the simplest explanation, that it is in fact falling behind the horizon?  And what keeps the sun in its path around the earth?

evidence is not found in works of fiction, simple as that, and a strictly religious upbringing gives me as much insight into the conternt and gist of Bible and Quoran without reading them as I care for, similarly with the Earth Not a Globe book, I know what to expect, and it is nonsense, just like EastEnders or Coronation Street, I don't watch them, but know enough about them to make a valid assessment of them.

  If you're so smart , what are you doing on this website?
  It sounds like you already know everything.

Why is it that almost every single one of your posts (that I see, anyway) is a protest against the FAQ's assertion that the sun "is a spotlight"? Don't you have anything else to talk about? Granted, in this thread it's actually relevant, but you seem a bit obsessed with the matter.


I have many posts that have nothing to do with this topic, but yes, i am passionate about this. As a believer that Earth is a Giant Disc,
and having someone write the FAQ stating the "Sun is a spotlight" seems very demeaning to the discearththeory.

One must believe the author of this FAQ is just trying to mock us.

I am working to write a new FAQ, with discearththeory believers, and over 50% complete.

Then this whole "spotlight sun" theory will cease.
 

Why is it that almost every single one of your posts (that I see, anyway) is a protest against the FAQ's assertion that the sun "is a spotlight"? Don't you have anything else to talk about? Granted, in this thread it's actually relevant, but you seem a bit obsessed with the matter.


I have many posts that have nothing to do with this topic, but yes, i am passionate about this. As a believer that Earth is a Giant Disc,
and having someone write the FAQ stating the "Sun is a spotlight" seems very demeaning to the discearththeory.

One must believe the author of this FAQ is just trying to mock us.

I am working to write a new FAQ, with discearththeory believers, and over 50% complete.

Then this whole "spotlight sun" theory will cease.
 

I think you should seriously consider taking it a step further and starting a discearththeory forum to discuss discearththeory, and start posting there.

Quote from: markjo on May 03, 2011, 02:14:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 03, 2011, 01:27:19 PM

Quote from: markjo

That isn't perspective, it's simple trigonometry.  Are you suggesting that Rowbotham proved that all our maths are wrong?

That trigonometry is based on art school perspective. The underlying assumptions art schools have about perspective are wrong. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Art school perspective is based on trigonometry, not the other way around.  Are you suggesting that the ancient Greeks were wrong about trigonometry too?

What art schools say about perspective is wrong. Art school perspective and the diagram assumes that the Vanishing Point is an infinite distance away, and that overhead bodies will approach but never reach the horizon, no matter how far they get from the observer, that they will always be some distance above the horizon despite distance.

This is false. Bodies merge with the horizon a relatively close distance to the observer. Just look at a perspective picture of train tracks stretching into the distance. Where the rails merge is not an infinite distance away from the observer.

If you calculate out the geometry of how far the rails should be apart, you would find that the rails will always be some distance apart with pure geometric examples. But geometric examples do not match reality. The ideas about how bodies behave at long distances are fundamentally wrong. Please read Earth Not a Globe.

Tom,

I once again I repeat, this is not art school perspective.  It is simple geometry and trigonometry.  The maths tells us that the midnight sun will be 12^o above the horizon at midnight.

Forget the art lessons.  Draw a scale diagram.  The angles don't change with scale.

This is false. Bodies merge with the horizon a relatively close distance to the observer. Just look at a perspective picture of train tracks stretching into the distance. Where the rails merge is not an infinite distance away from the observer.

It works perfectly with the wakes of ships

http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf

I believe that credit for that find is in Zork's sig.
Train tracks are just to close together - a ships wake is nice and wide.

Berny
No art school involved

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 03, 2011, 03:19:19 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 03, 2011, 02:14:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 03, 2011, 01:27:19 PM

Quote from: markjo

That isn't perspective, it's simple trigonometry.  Are you suggesting that Rowbotham proved that all our maths are wrong?

That trigonometry is based on art school perspective. The underlying assumptions art schools have about perspective are wrong. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Art school perspective is based on trigonometry, not the other way around.  Are you suggesting that the ancient Greeks were wrong about trigonometry too?

What art schools say about perspective is wrong. Art school perspective and the diagram assumes that the Vanishing Point is an infinite distance away, and that overhead bodies will approach but never reach the horizon, no matter how far they get from the observer, that they will always be some distance above the horizon despite distance.

This is false. Bodies merge with the horizon a relatively close distance to the observer. Just look at a perspective picture of train tracks stretching into the distance. Where the rails merge is not an infinite distance away from the observer.

If you calculate out the geometry of how far the rails should be apart, you would find that the rails will always be some distance apart with pure geometric examples. But geometric examples do not match reality. The ideas about how bodies behave at long distances are fundamentally wrong. Please read Earth Not a Globe.

Tom,

I once again I repeat, this is not art school perspective.  It is simple geometry and trigonometry.  The maths tells us that the midnight sun will be 12^o above the horizon at midnight.

Forget the art lessons.  Draw a scale diagram.  The angles don't change with scale.

http://www.digifail.com/images/misc/fail.png

No. The geometric representation is fundamentally wrong. Things don't work that way. The typical geometric portrayal assumes than an overhead receding body flying off into the distance will approach, but never reach, the horizon line. The Vanishing Point is assumed to be an infinite distance away.

Please read Earth Not a Globe. The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. When a flock of birds passing overhead meets the horizon line they are not an infinite distance away from the observer. When the rails of a long stretch of train tracks meet in the distance, they are not an infinite distance away. The Vanishing Point is a finite distance away. What is seen in reality contradicts the underling assumptions taught in art schools and geometry classes.

Traditional perspective may be easier to teach, but it is not correct.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 03, 2011, 03:19:19 PM

This is false. Bodies merge with the horizon a relatively close distance to the observer. Just look at a perspective picture of train tracks stretching into the distance. Where the rails merge is not an infinite distance away from the observer.

It works perfectly with the wakes of ships

http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf

I believe that credit for that find is in Zork's sig.
Train tracks are just to close together - a ships wake is nice and wide.

Berny
No art school involved

Not everything meets to a point horizontally before the limitations of human eyesight are reached. How far the observer can see is dependent on viewing conditions on that particular day. It depends on how wide the body is, and whether the observer can see far enough for it to reach a point in the distance.

The left and right extremities of a valley stretching off into the distance might also not reach to a point before all sight is lost. I didn't say that everything would.

The argument is that when looking at the things which do meet in the distance (i.e. a flock of birds or a plane flying off into the distance and meeting the horizon) we can say that that point where they meet is not an "infinite distance away." Traditional perspective assumes that bodies will approach, but never meet, the horizon line. This is clearly not correct, since they do.

No. The geometric representation is fundamentally wrong. Things don't work that way. The typical geometric portrayal assumes than an overhead receding body flying off into the distance will approach, but never reach, the horizon line. The Vanishing Point is assumed to be an infinite distance away.

Please read Earth Not a Globe. The Vanishing Point is not an infinite distance away. When a flock of birds passing overhead meets the horizon line they are not an infinite distance away from the observer. When the rails of a long stretch of train tracks meet in the distance, they are not an infinite distance away. The Vanishing Point is a finite distance away. What is seen in reality contradicts the underling assumptions taught in art schools and geometry classes.

Traditional perspective may be easier to teach, but it is not correct.

OK Tom, back to our diagram:


Consider the photons leaving the sun:  What is stopping them from reaching the observer on the left?

if the sun is 31 miles across, and the earth is 28,000 miles across, how can the sun, when it is at it's furthest, still the same size? and why can't it be seen with a telescope when it's 'far away'? I know it's because the earth has rotated away from it, but I'd love to know the FE theory without having to read your bible

if the sun is 31 miles across, and the earth is 28,000 miles across, how can the sun, when it is at it's furthest, still the same size? and why can't it be seen with a telescope when it's 'far away'? I know it's because the earth has rotated away from it, but I'd love to know the FE theory without having to read your bible

the sun is 31 miles across??? where are you getting that from, the sun is a star!!!! and certaibnly not 31 miles across, it looks that way because it is so far away!!!! but is in fact 1.6 million kms wide!!!

What generates the suns path around the earth?  I can believe that Dark energy keeps it above the earth, but what keeps it moving along its path?

I'd have to ask, why can you believe in dark energy when there is no scientific evidence for it's existence? THere is spurious proof of dark matter from 2006 but no-one has shown the existence of dark energy. Until that point, it remains as much a theory as the FE though, unlike FE, it doesn't contradict an already proven concept.

I'd have to ask, why can you believe in dark energy when there is no scientific evidence for it's existence? THere is spurious proof of dark matter from 2006 but no-one has shown the existence of dark energy. Until that point, it remains as much a theory as the FE though, unlike FE, it doesn't contradict an already proven concept.

Dark energy does not actually contradict an existing concept, it does only in the way that they use it.  I honestly do not know much more than what Wikipedia says on the topic, but it claims that DE is a reasonable and relatively widely accepted hypothesis for why the universe is expanding.  FE changes this to accelerating upwards, which contradicts what the rest of us believe, but not because of the DE, but because of how its used.

But my question remains unanswered - what moves the sun in its motion around the earth?

You won't get an answer. When they're beaten, they scurry off and hide.

Well if the top three threads everyday are simole questions to answer in RE but are unanswered in FE that will not look great for the FE forums. 

The question still stands,  what forces drive the motion of the sun and also direct it's path through the sky?

It seems that FEer's are quite responsive to answering questions when they can and that the REer's will project any weakness of their own theory onto the FEer's and expect the FEer's to completely answer for things they can't express themselves. 

In other words, there are concepts REer's can not explain because the research is not completed and they expect FEer's to have the answers now, when research is still ongoing just like they are experiencing.

In other words, there are concepts REer's can not explain because the research is not completed and they expect FEer's to have the answers now, when research is still ongoing just like they are experiencing.

Huh? These are very basic things that he's been discussing which RE can explain. Nothing here remotely resembles anything that RE is having trouble with. Moreover, if one hypothesis doesn't explain things as well as another, that is a valid reason not to consider it as good a hypothesis as the one that does explain things. If FE can't explain very basic astronomy and physics then one is justified in rejecting it until it does do as good a job.

Quote from: gotham on May 06, 2011, 01:09:22 PM

In other words, there are concepts REer's can not explain because the research is not completed and they expect FEer's to have the answers now, when research is still ongoing just like they are experiencing.

Huh? These are very basic things that he's been discussing which RE can explain. Nothing here remotely resembles anything that RE is having trouble with. Moreover, if one hypothesis doesn't explain things as well as another, that is a valid reason not to consider it as good a hypothesis as the one that does explain things. If FE can't explain very basic astronomy and physics then one is justified in rejecting it until it does do as good a job.

FET does have answers to many, many questions.  Both FET and RET do have unknowns, as well.  When you say RE can explain things it does not make it a correct statement to say that what you are explaining is also a truth.

FET does have answers to many, many questions.  

Does FET have an accurate and consistent method for determining how high the sun is above the flat earth?

Quote from: gotham on May 06, 2011, 03:50:02 PM

FET does have answers to many, many questions.  

Does FET have an accurate and consistent method for determining how high the sun is above the flat earth?

I believe so.  I will have to check some sources and get back with you on that.  

Edit: For starters, my search led me back to this thread.  Look for some of Tom's links.  They are helpful.  Feel free to join the search for more info. 

Quote from: gotham on May 06, 2011, 03:50:02 PM

FET does have answers to many, many questions.  

Does FET have an accurate and consistent method for determining how high the sun is above the flat earth?

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator while simultaneously appearing 45 degrees above the horizon at the 45th Parallel. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at the 45th Parallel, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at the 45th Parallel must also be 45 degrees. The result is a right angled triangle with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the 45th Parallel is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2011, 04:15:02 PM

Quote from: gotham on May 06, 2011, 03:50:02 PM

FET does have answers to many, many questions.  

Does FET have an accurate and consistent method for determining how high the sun is above the flat earth?

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator while simultaneously appearing 45 degrees above the horizon at the 45th Parallel. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at the 45th Parallel, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at the 45th Parallel must also be 45 degrees. The result is a right angled triangle with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the 45th Parallel is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

What are the results when you perform the observations from 30 degrees latitude?  What about 60 degrees latitude?