It is my understanding on the globeif you want some insight into the (total lack of) expertise of the patron saint of flat earthers, Samuel Birley Rowbotham have a look at:
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
The points of certainty are the following:--
1st.--Wherever the experiment is made the stars in the zenith do not rise, culminate, and set in the same straight line, or plane of latitude, as they would if the earth is a globe.
2nd.--The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.
3rd.--The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.
4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations;
all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.
I have read some of Rowb's rantings.
But find them wqanting.
I have asked the following several times
And received no response from the FE side.
Can someone in Australia see Polaris?
Can someone in Alaska see the Southern Cross?
We have to start somewhere.
Globe says you can't see Polaris from Australia.
Globe says you can't see Southern Cross from Alaska.
What does FE say?
I must say it's encouraging to see the RE becoming more Zetetic. When you finally decide to become more like FE, you too will understand why we can claim the Earth is flat.
I must say it's encouraging to see the RE becoming more Zetetic. When you finally decide to become more like FE, you too will understand why we can claim the Earth is flat.Not likely when I see how many errors your patron saint makes with his so-called Zeteticism.
Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously;This is completely incorrect as the constellations "the constellations Ursa Major and Ursa Minor" cannot be seen "from every meridian simultaneously" when too close to the equator.
Lotsa crickets.....
It is my understanding on the globeGenerally they just say it's a matter of distance; it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here), assuming the stars shine like spotlights as the Sun is said to. When they get far away, the light from them doesn't reach you and shines down elsewhere.
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
It is my understanding on the globeGenerally they just say it's a matter of distance; it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here), assuming the stars shine like spotlights as the Sun is said to. When they get far away, the light from them doesn't reach you and shines down elsewhere.
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
It is my understanding on the globeGenerally they just say it's a matter of distance; it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here), assuming the stars shine like spotlights as the Sun is said to. When they get far away, the light from them doesn't reach you and shines down elsewhere.
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
OK, let me make sure I've got this right.Distance and angle; if you're viewing a spotlight from sideways-on, no amount of telescopes will let you see the light.
Since it's strictly a function of distance that obstructs the view
Shouldn't a telescope bring it back into view?
Isn't that what telescopes do?
I must say it's encouraging to see the RE becoming more Zetetic. When you finally decide to become more like FE, you too will understand why we can claim the Earth is flat.
Distance and angle; if you're viewing a spotlight from sideways-on, no amount of telescopes will let you see the light.How does YOUR "spotlight sun" explain the sun being essentially the same shape near the horizon till finally the bottom is cut off?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/9gx2rtvrzytmrx7/07-Weipa%20Sunset.jpg?dl=1) Sun near setting at Weipa | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/mda31bn2xh10x4w/13-Weipa%20Sunset.jpg?dl=1) Sunset at Weipa |
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ploaatv5gkcuw6/Before%20Surise%20Jujy%2019%2C%202917%2006.30.54%20EAST.JPG?dl=1) Clouds lit on the underside before sunrise | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qiiwluzt007w5ah/P.40%2020170503%2006.15%20Clouds%20at%20Sunrise.jpg?dl=1) Sun's rays shining up on clouds before sunrise | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kwpenbbprwdj83m/Toogoolawah%20at%20Sunset.JPG?dl=1) Clouds lit from underneath near Toogoolawah at Sunset |
OK, let me make sure I've got this right.Distance and angle; if you're viewing a spotlight from sideways-on, no amount of telescopes will let you see the light.
Since it's strictly a function of distance that obstructs the view
Shouldn't a telescope bring it back into view?
Isn't that what telescopes do?
if you want some insight into the (total lack of) expertise of the patron saint of flat earthers, Samuel Birley Rowbotham have a look at:
MOTION OF STARS NORTH AND SOUTH, Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm).
You might find it quite " ;) entertaining ;)".
I was going to quote some totally incorrect claims made by Rowbotham, but gave up because it demonstrates such an ignorance of astronomy, even in the Northern Hemisphere, that I'd have to quote the whole thing.
But here is his summary:QuoteThe points of certainty are the following:--
...
4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations;
all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.
Greetings and happy new year from sunny and warm New Zealand!if you want some insight into the (total lack of) expertise of the patron saint of flat earthers, Samuel Birley Rowbotham have a look at:
MOTION OF STARS NORTH AND SOUTH, Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm).
You might find it quite " ;) entertaining ;)".
I was going to quote some totally incorrect claims made by Rowbotham, but gave up because it demonstrates such an ignorance of astronomy, even in the Northern Hemisphere, that I'd have to quote the whole thing.
But here is his summary:QuoteThe points of certainty are the following:--
...
4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations;
all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.
The night of Dec 30 I was in Castle Rock, on the southeast coast of the North Island (latitude about 41.5° S). That evening soon after dark the southern cross was low in the south and upside down (Acrux was higher than Gacrux), so it's definitely circumpolar at that latitude. Capella (declination +46°) was not visible in the north, but that part of the horizon was obscured by some low hills; it would have been iffy whether it would have been visible at that time at all, though, since it wouldn't be more than a few degrees above the horizon at its culmination. Aldebaran, about 20° closer to the equator than Capella, was low in the NNE sky.
Not a whiff of Polaris, of course, since it would have been some 50° below the horizon.
Presuming rab's summary is accurate (it fits my recollection), it appears that Mr. Rowbotham's speculation about the lack of circumpolar southern constellations is not supported by actual direct observation.
How does YOUR "spotlight sun"
And I say YOUR spotlight sun because I have seen no flat earther being quite so inventive with hypotheses such as yours!
it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here)Also, not my problem you refuse to read or think about a word anyone else says. A spotlight Sun to explain why night happens should not be something you're only just hearing about when it comes to FET.
Apparently you can't "see the light" either.Depends on the exact shape of the rim of the light, if you want to view it as a literal spotlight. So long as the horizontal distance is large in comparison to the vertical, with the edges of the spotlight's light taken into account, it would pretty much vanish.
To view your spotlight from sideways-on and have it disappear
Wouldn't I have to be at the elevation of said spotlight?
Height, size, distance from earth etc would be wonderful to hear about.
BTW I am familiar with spotlights in the real world.I don't think there's any consensus between models. There are multiple explanations.
Although you may be out of the circle of the spotlight you CAN still see it.
Also, how does it direct it's beam so tightly and privately?
I do not "refuse to read or think about a word anyone else says"!How does YOUR "spotlight sun"
<< You mislaid a bit, here I found it for you! >>
explain the sun being essentially the same shape near the horizon till finally the bottom is cut off?And how does YOUR spotlight sun illuminate the clouds from below at sunrise and sunset?
Sun near setting at Weipa
Sunset at WeipaDo you or your flat earth mates ever venture outside without dark glasses and really see these things?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ploaatv5gkcuw6/Before%20Surise%20Jujy%2019%2C%202917%2006.30.54%20EAST.JPG?dl=1)
Clouds lit on the underside before sunrise(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qiiwluzt007w5ah/P.40%2020170503%2006.15%20Clouds%20at%20Sunrise.jpg?dl=1)
Sun's rays shining up on clouds before sunrise(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kwpenbbprwdj83m/Toogoolawah%20at%20Sunset.JPG?dl=1)
Clouds lit from underneath near Toogoolawah at Sunset
Are you suggesting that YOUR spotlight sun has a hole in the side to illuminate the moon and more holes near the top to illuminate the clouds?
<< >>
And I say YOUR spotlight sun because I have seen no flat earther being quite so inventive with hypotheses such as yours!it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here)Also, not my problem you refuse to read or think about a word anyone else says. A spotlight Sun to explain why night happens should not be something you're only just hearing about when it comes to FET.
I do not "refuse to read or think about a word anyone else says"!
it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here)A spotlight Sun to explain why night happens should not be something you're only just hearing about when it comes to FET.
There is another issue with the Southern Cross and the FE conjecture; the paradoxical location of southern celestial objects. As a point of fact, their locations become more paradoxical the further south you go. For example, Sigma Octanis is very near the celestial south pole, which is a fixed point directly above the pole. Using the notion that Antarctica is a ring-shaped landmass, it no longer has a center to which Sigma Octanis would be above. That center is now a continuous ring meaning two observers standing at different points in the southern hemisphere would simultaneously see Sigma Octanis in two different locations, yet in reality, it is in the same spot. This would be true for not only all constellations near the south pole but for the sun and moon as well.Yep, that's a pretty decent argument. You can get good long exposures of star trails taken at the equator for evidence too, showing stars rotating around two points in the sky.
From what I've seen from the "scientists" in the FES, this paradox cannot be reconciled and has not been logically refuted.
There is another issue with the Southern Cross and the FE conjecture; the paradoxical location of southern celestial objects. As a point of fact, their locations become more paradoxical the further south you go. For example, Sigma Octanis is very near the celestial south pole, which is a fixed point directly above the pole. Using the notion that Antarctica is a ring-shaped landmass, it no longer has a center to which Sigma Octanis would be above. That center is now a continuous ring meaning two observers standing at different points in the southern hemisphere would simultaneously see Sigma Octanis in two different locations, yet in reality, it is in the same spot. This would be true for not only all constellations near the south pole but for the sun and moon as well.So you are claiming that a person standing in Sydney at night and someone else at Johannesburg at night can look and see the exact same constellations at the same time and day each year?
From what I've seen from the "scientists" in the FES, this paradox cannot be reconciled and has not been logically refuted.
There is another issue with the Southern Cross and the FE conjecture; the paradoxical location of southern celestial objects. As a point of fact, their locations become more paradoxical the further south you go. For example, Sigma Octanis is very near the celestial south pole, which is a fixed point directly above the pole. Using the notion that Antarctica is a ring-shaped landmass, it no longer has a center to which Sigma Octanis would be above. That center is now a continuous ring meaning two observers standing at different points in the southern hemisphere would simultaneously see Sigma Octanis in two different locations, yet in reality, it is in the same spot. This would be true for not only all constellations near the south pole but for the sun and moon as well.So you are claiming that a person standing in Sydney at night and someone else at Johannesburg at night can look and see the exact same constellations at the same time and day each year?
From what I've seen from the "scientists" in the FES, this paradox cannot be reconciled and has not been logically refuted.
I think you are wrong.
Not only that, I think they might need to look different directions to match things up to a so called celestial pole...
Depends on the exact shape of the rim of the light, if you want to view it as a literal spotlight. So long as the horizontal distance is large in comparison to the vertical, with the edges of the spotlight's light taken into account, it would pretty much vanish.
That isn't true at all. Light reflects off of ALL objects (otherwise they would be invisible..see: really clean glass). You would still see light if you were outside of the "edge of the spotlight".You still need a line from the light source to the viewer, or from some object reflecting said light. When the Sun's far enough away it looks like it touches the horizon, and you're not getting any direct light from it, that severely limits your options.
It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
2 degrees? Good... That means Flat Earth stuff, related to distance issue. While "shifting 2 degrees southwards", your horizontal view is supposed to get upwards. (?) But no, even you don't have to dip your face to see polaris. the horizon ain't block your sight to see it. Because the earth is not a globe.
It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
2 degrees? Good... That means Flat Earth stuff, related to distance issue. While "shifting 2 degrees southwards", your horizontal view is supposed to get upwards. (?) But no, even you don't have to dip your face to see polaris. the horizon ain't block your sight to see it. Because the earth is not a globe.
I have another problem.
If the earth was flat, would we have a horizon as we see it on the earth* ? (The globe, that is *)
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, how far would it appear to be from the observer as we see it on the earth ? *
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, would the height of the observer affect how far away it appears to be ? *
The horizon is defined as the line where sky and land (or sea) appear to meet because of the curvature of the earth *
Since there is no curvature on a flat earth, explain how this would be if the earth was flat ?
A little explanation of this "spotlight sun" would also be helpful.
Could it be a disc , too ?
If only the bottom was lighted, it would shine only downward , and then only in a circular shape ?
Or is there some kind of a something like a cylindrical lampshade with some kind of a lens to make the sun shine only downward in a
circle ?
In that case, wouldn't you see just the beam of light get smaller and fade away instead of the whole sun ?
Historical note on previous post, thanks to some research by a person on another website.:
The star Aldebaran could have been seen from Titanic on the night of April 12, 1912 .
But not on the night of the sinking.
"Horizon" is only a human language, human with eyes sight scale.What on earth do you mean by that?
From equator a little light showed up for the first time at (before) 5 AM and the sun appears at around 6 AM. At 5 AM the position of the little light is about -45°. And sun appears at around -22.5°. We NEVER see the sun rises from horizon. Sun always appears from Above The Clouds.Well, that is not the case everywhere. The sun often rises from and sets behind a clear sharp horizon as in this sunset.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1) |
So I conclude: The sun's ray refracts or bends. Even at 6 PM we see from left side of the sun: some lines with different angles from sun's light line.Nothing that I see or is evident in those photos would indicate that.
This conforms that the sun we see is only the reflected sun ray. While the real sun gives rays towards other mediums so that we see different ray lines on sky.
The real position of the sun is distorted by some factors.What would distort the "real position of the sun", other than a very small amount of refraction?
Either clouds, ceiling above the sun as well as below the sun.
We cannot assume the sky is vacuum. So complicated reality manifest n researches are on process to crack it.The atmosphere is very thin even at 120,000 ft, than some balloons reach, so it certainly seems logical that up much higher it is very close a vacuum.
Really? What about when the sun not only "looks like it touches the horizon" but looks like is it really going down behind the horizon?That isn't true at all. Light reflects off of ALL objects (otherwise they would be invisible..see: really clean glass). You would still see light if you were outside of the "edge of the spotlight".You still need a line from the light source to the viewer, or from some object reflecting said light. When the Sun's far enough away it looks like it touches the horizon, and you're not getting any direct light from it, that severely limits your options.
Sure, there are some issues with it, but...
Your can still see the sun looking close to circular, but with a lot cut off the bottom. Let the flat earthers fight their own battles!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
We NEVER see the sun rises from horizon. Sun always appears from Above The Clouds.Why do you lie? Maybe YOU never have seen it but millions of people, including myself, have. You are wrong again.
Really? What about when the sun not only "looks like it touches the horizon" but looks like is it really going down behind the horizon?
Explain that with YOUR spotlight etc, etc!
it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here)Also, not my problem you refuse to read or think about a word anyone else says. A spotlight Sun to explain why night happens should not be something you're only just hearing about when it comes to FET.
It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
2 degrees? Good... That means Flat Earth stuff, related to distance issue. While "shifting 2 degrees southwards", your horizontal view is supposed to get upwards. (?) But no, even you don't have to dip your face to see polaris. the horizon ain't block your sight to see it. Because the earth is not a globe.
I have another problem.
If the earth was flat, would we have a horizon as we see it on the earth* ? (The globe, that is *)
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, how far would it appear to be from the observer as we see it on the earth ? *
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, would the height of the observer affect how far away it appears to be ? *
The horizon is defined as the line where sky and land (or sea) appear to meet because of the curvature of the earth *
Since there is no curvature on a flat earth, explain how this would be if the earth was flat ?
A little explanation of this "spotlight sun" would also be helpful.
Could it be a disc , too ?
If only the bottom was lighted, it would shine only downward , and then only in a circular shape ?
Or is there some kind of a something like a cylindrical lampshade with some kind of a lens to make the sun shine only downward in a
circle ?
In that case, wouldn't you see just the beam of light get smaller and fade away instead of the whole sun ?
Historical note on previous post, thanks to some research by a person on another website.:
The star Aldebaran could have been seen from Titanic on the night of April 12, 1912 .
But not on the night of the sinking.
"Horizon" is only a human language, human with eyes sight scale.
From equator a little light showed up for the first time at (before) 5 AM and the sun appears at around 6 AM. At 5 AM the position of the little light is about -45°. And sun appears at around -22.5°. We NEVER see the sun rises from horizon. Sun always appears from Above The Clouds.
So I conclude: The sun's ray refracts or bends. Even at 6 PM we see from left side of the sun: some lines with different angles from sun's light line.
This conforms that the sun we see is only the reflected sun ray. While the real sun gives rays towards other mediums so that we see different ray lines on sky.
The real position of the sun is distorted by some factors.
Either clouds, ceiling above the sun as well as below the sun.
We cannot assume the sky is vacuum. So complicated reality manifest n researches are on process to crack it.
"Horizon" is only a human language, human with eyes sight scale.What on earth do you mean by that?
The horizon is the apparent line between the sky and either the land or the sea, but it is very easy to see even if there are clouds, as in:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kqpj9nk7v0nou0c/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens.jpg?dl=1)Quote from: DanangFrom equator a little light showed up for the first time at (before) 5 AM and the sun appears at around 6 AM. At 5 AM the position of the little light is about -45°. And sun appears at around -22.5°. We NEVER see the sun rises from horizon. Sun always appears from Above The Clouds.Well, that is not the case everywhere. The sun often rises from and sets behind a clear sharp horizon as in this sunset.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1) Quote from: DanangSo I conclude: The sun's ray refracts or bends. Even at 6 PM we see from left side of the sun: some lines with different angles from sun's light line.Nothing that I see or is evident in those photos would indicate that.
This conforms that the sun we see is only the reflected sun ray. While the real sun gives rays towards other mediums so that we see different ray lines on sky.Quote from: DanangThe real position of the sun is distorted by some factors.What would distort the "real position of the sun", other than a very small amount of refraction?
Either clouds, ceiling above the sun as well as below the sun.Quote from: DanangWe cannot assume the sky is vacuum. So complicated reality manifest n researches are on process to crack it.The atmosphere is very thin even at 120,000 ft, than some balloons reach, so it certainly seems logical that up much higher it is very close a vacuum.
Besides numerous sounding rockets have measured the density of the atmosphere at extremely high altitudes.
No I am NOT FOUR!Really? What about when the sun not only "looks like it touches the horizon" but looks like is it really going down behind the horizon?
Explain that with YOUR spotlight etc, etc!it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here)Also, not my problem you refuse to read or think about a word anyone else says. A spotlight Sun to explain why night happens should not be something you're only just hearing about when it comes to FET.
Are you four?
Your can still see the sun looking close to circular, but with a lot cut off the bottom. Let the flat earthers fight their own battles!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
The first written record of sunspots was made by Chinese astronomers around 800 B.C. Court astrologers in ancient China and Korea, who believed sunspots foretold important events, kept records off and on of sunspots for hundreds of years.
I have read some of Rowb's rantings.
But find them wqanting.
I have asked the following several times
And received no response from the FE side.
Can someone in Australia see Polaris?
Can someone in Alaska see the Southern Cross?
We have to start somewhere.
Globe says you can't see Polaris from Australia.
Globe says you can't see Southern Cross from Alaska.
What does FE say?
If there are some FE's in Australia and Alaska, why don't they just get off their P.C.'s, go outside (on the other side of the windows from where they look out) some dark night and just look up at the stars in the dark sky and report back on what they do see ?
RE's could do this, but the question seems to be asked for answers from FE's ?
And I am not debating a spotlight Sun in this thread. I know you have issues, I'm not interested, you don't have to spam the same stock arguments every single person has seen incessantly. You've seen this, pay attention, stop ignoring it and stop acting like a child. I am not talking about this.I am not debating why "A spotlight Sun to explain why night happens".it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here)
It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
2 degrees? Good... That means Flat Earth stuff, related to distance issue. While "shifting 2 degrees southwards", your horizontal view is supposed to get upwards. (?) But no, even you don't have to dip your face to see polaris. the horizon ain't block your sight to see it. Because the earth is not a globe.
I have another problem.
If the earth was flat, would we have a horizon as we see it on the earth* ? (The globe, that is *)
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, how far would it appear to be from the observer as we see it on the earth ? *
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, would the height of the observer affect how far away it appears to be ? *
The horizon is defined as the line where sky and land (or sea) appear to meet because of the curvature of the earth *
Since there is no curvature on a flat earth, explain how this would be if the earth was flat ?
A little explanation of this "spotlight sun" would also be helpful.
Could it be a disc , too ?
If only the bottom was lighted, it would shine only downward , and then only in a circular shape ?
Or is there some kind of a something like a cylindrical lampshade with some kind of a lens to make the sun shine only downward in a
circle ?
In that case, wouldn't you see just the beam of light get smaller and fade away instead of the whole sun ?
Historical note on previous post, thanks to some research by a person on another website.:
The star Aldebaran could have been seen from Titanic on the night of April 12, 1912 .
But not on the night of the sinking.
"Horizon" is only a human language, human with eyes sight scale.
From equator a little light showed up for the first time at (before) 5 AM and the sun appears at around 6 AM. At 5 AM the position of the little light is about -45°. And sun appears at around -22.5°. We NEVER see the sun rises from horizon. Sun always appears from Above The Clouds.
So I conclude: The sun's ray refracts or bends. Even at 6 PM we see from left side of the sun: some lines with different angles from sun's light line.
This conforms that the sun we see is only the reflected sun ray. While the real sun gives rays towards other mediums so that we see different ray lines on sky.
The real position of the sun is distorted by some factors.
Either clouds, ceiling above the sun as well as below the sun.
We cannot assume the sky is vacuum. So complicated reality manifest n researches are on process to crack it.
"Sun always appears from Above The Clouds" ???
What if there are no clouds ?
Where does the "Sun always appears from" on a clear day ?
"We NEVER see the sun rises from horizon." ???
I could start a thread on this, but I'll just keep it informal.:
How many FE's have even ever been to sea, in the middle of the ocean ?
Have YOU- DANANG (personally , yourself) even ever been to sea, in the middle of the ocean ?
I have.
Read my signature .....LOL
And I am not debating a spotlight Sun in this thread. I know you have issues, I'm not interested, you don't have to spam the same stock arguments every single person has seen incessantly. You've seen this, pay attention, stop ignoring it and stop acting like a child. I am not talking about this.I am not debating why "A spotlight Sun to explain why night happens".it's the same basic reason behind why the Sun sets (leaving aside arguments based on that as they're not relevant here)
Yes, there are issues with the Sun, this thread is about stars going out of view. Do you see the difference?
It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
2 degrees? Good... That means Flat Earth stuff, related to distance issue. While "shifting 2 degrees southwards", your horizontal view is supposed to get upwards. (?) But no, even you don't have to dip your face to see polaris. the horizon ain't block your sight to see it. Because the earth is not a globe.
I have another problem.
If the earth was flat, would we have a horizon as we see it on the earth* ? (The globe, that is *)
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, how far would it appear to be from the observer as we see it on the earth ? *
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, would the height of the observer affect how far away it appears to be ? *
The horizon is defined as the line where sky and land (or sea) appear to meet because of the curvature of the earth *
Since there is no curvature on a flat earth, explain how this would be if the earth was flat ?
A little explanation of this "spotlight sun" would also be helpful.
Could it be a disc , too ?
If only the bottom was lighted, it would shine only downward , and then only in a circular shape ?
Or is there some kind of a something like a cylindrical lampshade with some kind of a lens to make the sun shine only downward in a
circle ?
In that case, wouldn't you see just the beam of light get smaller and fade away instead of the whole sun ?
Historical note on previous post, thanks to some research by a person on another website.:
The star Aldebaran could have been seen from Titanic on the night of April 12, 1912 .
But not on the night of the sinking.
"Horizon" is only a human language, human with eyes sight scale.
From equator a little light showed up for the first time at (before) 5 AM and the sun appears at around 6 AM. At 5 AM the position of the little light is about -45°. And sun appears at around -22.5°. We NEVER see the sun rises from horizon. Sun always appears from Above The Clouds.
So I conclude: The sun's ray refracts or bends. Even at 6 PM we see from left side of the sun: some lines with different angles from sun's light line.
This conforms that the sun we see is only the reflected sun ray. While the real sun gives rays towards other mediums so that we see different ray lines on sky.
The real position of the sun is distorted by some factors.
Either clouds, ceiling above the sun as well as below the sun.
We cannot assume the sky is vacuum. So complicated reality manifest n researches are on process to crack it.
"Sun always appears from Above The Clouds" ???
What if there are no clouds ?
Where does the "Sun always appears from" on a clear day ?
"We NEVER see the sun rises from horizon." ???
I could start a thread on this, but I'll just keep it informal.:
How many FE's have even ever been to sea, in the middle of the ocean ?
Have YOU- DANANG (personally , yourself) even ever been to sea, in the middle of the ocean ?
I have.
Read my signature .....LOL
Our equator is an area of dense clouds, whether or not I observe sunrives (sun arrives) and or sunleaves (="sunset"), 6 AM & 6 PM are the boundary of horizon block (according to RET). Coz sun in our place behave regularly: it appears around 12 hours all the time.
The sun always appears "all of sudden" at around 6 AM following its growing bright from 5 AM spotlight.
Conclussion:
1. Sunrives occurs above the clouds.
2. Obsevation on the beach is optional.
3. Let Rabinoz dream. ^_^
It is my understanding on the globe
If you want to see Polaris you have to be no further south than 2 degrees below the equator.
Any more than that (Australia for example) you can't see Polaris.
How does this work on a flat earth?
2 degrees? Good... That means Flat Earth stuff, related to distance issue. While "shifting 2 degrees southwards", your horizontal view is supposed to get upwards. (?) But no, even you don't have to dip your face to see polaris. the horizon ain't block your sight to see it. Because the earth is not a globe.
I have another problem.
If the earth was flat, would we have a horizon as we see it on the earth* ? (The globe, that is *)
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, how far would it appear to be from the observer as we see it on the earth ? *
If there is a horizon on a flat earth, would the height of the observer affect how far away it appears to be ? *
The horizon is defined as the line where sky and land (or sea) appear to meet because of the curvature of the earth *
Since there is no curvature on a flat earth, explain how this would be if the earth was flat ?
A little explanation of this "spotlight sun" would also be helpful.
Could it be a disc , too ?
If only the bottom was lighted, it would shine only downward , and then only in a circular shape ?
Or is there some kind of a something like a cylindrical lampshade with some kind of a lens to make the sun shine only downward in a
circle ?
In that case, wouldn't you see just the beam of light get smaller and fade away instead of the whole sun ?
Historical note on previous post, thanks to some research by a person on another website.:
The star Aldebaran could have been seen from Titanic on the night of April 12, 1912 .
But not on the night of the sinking.
"Horizon" is only a human language, human with eyes sight scale.
From equator a little light showed up for the first time at (before) 5 AM and the sun appears at around 6 AM. At 5 AM the position of the little light is about -45°. And sun appears at around -22.5°. We NEVER see the sun rises from horizon. Sun always appears from Above The Clouds.
So I conclude: The sun's ray refracts or bends. Even at 6 PM we see from left side of the sun: some lines with different angles from sun's light line.
This conforms that the sun we see is only the reflected sun ray. While the real sun gives rays towards other mediums so that we see different ray lines on sky.
The real position of the sun is distorted by some factors.
Either clouds, ceiling above the sun as well as below the sun.
We cannot assume the sky is vacuum. So complicated reality manifest n researches are on process to crack it.
"Sun always appears from Above The Clouds" ???
What if there are no clouds ?
Where does the "Sun always appears from" on a clear day ?
"We NEVER see the sun rises from horizon." ???
I could start a thread on this, but I'll just keep it informal.:
How many FE's have even ever been to sea, in the middle of the ocean ?
Have YOU- DANANG (personally , yourself) even ever been to sea, in the middle of the ocean ?
I have.
Read my signature .....LOL
Our equator is an area of dense clouds, whether or not I observe sunrives (sun arrives) and or sunleaves (="sunset"), 6 AM & 6 PM are the boundary of horizon block (according to RET). Coz sun in our place behave regularly: it appears around 12 hours all the time.
The sun always appears "all of sudden" at around 6 AM following its growing bright from 5 AM spotlight.
Conclussion:
1. Sunrives occurs above the clouds.
2. Obsevation on the beach is optional.
3. Let Rabinoz dream. ^_^
You are either trolling or really don't know what you are talking about.
Do you honestly believe everyone on the earth gets 12 hours day and 12 hours night?
Come see me where I live.
Sun comes up around 10:00 AM
Sun go down around 3:00 PM.
Could you explain this?
Better yet, you should be able to give an estimate to where I am.
Exactly, different places get different sun light.
And I apologize for a mistake I made.
From the info I gave you, I would only be able to tell an approximation of latitude.
So I'll give you that one.
Actually in northern Canada.
One thing you should think about though
I believe Antarctica has 24 hours of daylight right now.
Hard to do that on any FE map I have seen.
Exactly, different places get different sun light.
And I apologize for a mistake I made.
From the info I gave you, I would only be able to tell an approximation of latitude.
So I'll give you that one.
Actually in northern Canada.
One thing you should think about though
I believe Antarctica has 24 hours of daylight right now.
Hard to do that on any FE map I have seen.
That's okay.
For Phew FE map, the center is celestial south pole. No problem with 24 hours daylight at south pole. The diameter of sun's circular path is being in shortest moments.
As to 24 hours daylight summer at northern hemisplane, that is possible too, coz the sun is being at highest altitude at that time (June 21st).
Why at that time on equator there is night n day as usual? Because equator is dense with clouds. Once the sun position is getting high enough, it will shine the northest hemisplane all day all night.
Phew FE map ain't offer details yet. It only offer logic with approximate realities.
Exactly, different places get different sun light.
And I apologize for a mistake I made.
From the info I gave you, I would only be able to tell an approximation of latitude.
So I'll give you that one.
Actually in northern Canada.
One thing you should think about though
I believe Antarctica has 24 hours of daylight right now.
Hard to do that on any FE map I have seen.
That's okay.
For Phew FE map, the center is celestial south pole. No problem with 24 hours daylight at south pole. The diameter of sun's circular path is being in shortest moments.
As to 24 hours daylight summer at northern hemisplane, that is possible too, coz the sun is being at highest altitude at that time (June 21st).
Why at that time on equator there is night n day as usual? Because equator is dense with clouds. Once the sun position is getting high enough, it will shine the northest hemisplane all day all night.
Phew FE map ain't offer details yet. It only offer logic with approximate realities.
You are approaching troll status in my books.
"Because equator dense with clouds" can't explain night and day.
What is the "northest hemisplane"?
Let's test your trollness.
At any one time, half of the earth is in sunlight, half in darkness.
You could test your Phew simply by seeing if it accurately predicts
What is sunny and what is dark.
I am probably repeating myself as I may have said this a few times before, but once more.:You know, I am beginning to think even the RE-tards would start to get sick of seeing your (and your numerous alts) incessant posts about being at sea and how your four years in the Navy give you some kind of special insight...
The best place to observe and prove the rising and setting of the sun, moon and stars ; the horizon and the distance to the horizon and possibly other phenomena is in the middle of the ocean on a clear day or night with no peculiar or unusual atmospherics to interfere with your observations.
There are no obstructions such as hills and valleys, trees, etc. to interfere with your observations as there would be on land.
This is one reason I have often wondered if any FE's ....especially Samuel Birley Rowbotham.....had even ever been to sea ?
Or maybe they are "completely at sea" on a few things ? LOL
I am probably repeating myself as I may have said this a few times before, but once more.:You know, I am beginning to think even the RE-tards would start to get sick of seeing your (and your numerous alts) incessant posts about being at sea and how your four years in the Navy give you some kind of special insight...
The best place to observe and prove the rising and setting of the sun, moon and stars ; the horizon and the distance to the horizon and possibly other phenomena is in the middle of the ocean on a clear day or night with no peculiar or unusual atmospherics to interfere with your observations.
There are no obstructions such as hills and valleys, trees, etc. to interfere with your observations as there would be on land.
This is one reason I have often wondered if any FE's ....especially Samuel Birley Rowbotham.....had even ever been to sea ?
Or maybe they are "completely at sea" on a few things ? LOL
I got news for you...
It doesn't.
Even if viewing conditions were just as clear as a bell at any point within 3 miles of your position, it does not mean they are clear at 3.000001.
Use satellite imagery and see where are the nearest clouds and if they were too far and too low below horizon to get in the way.Okay, but there are atmospheric phenomena interfering with sight.
Use satellite imagery and see where are the nearest clouds and if they were too far and too low below horizon to get in the way.Okay, but there are atmospheric phenomena interfering with sight.