The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Silicon on December 02, 2016, 12:14:04 PM
-
I'm curious where you think the sun is in this photo. Last time I checked Stellarium puts it halfway under the horizon. I took this picture when beginning FE research years ago, because it seemed impossible for the 'full' moon and the sun to both be so high above the horizon at the same time.
This picture was taken at 8/8/2014 8:03PM at 30.0799° N, 95.4172° W
(https://s11.postimg.org/c98t9n4wj/sunphoto.jpg)
-
In the sky, like always
-
In the sky, like always
Another victory for Sky Sun Theory!!!
-
...just another proof globe calculations do not always match reality.
-
I'm curious where you think the sun is in this photo. Last time I checked Stellarium puts it halfway under the horizon. I took this picture when beginning FE research years ago, because it seemed impossible for the 'full' moon and the sun to both be so high above the horizon at the same time.
This picture was taken at 8/8/2014 8:03PM at 30.0799° N, 95.4172° W
(https://s11.postimg.org/c98t9n4wj/sunphoto.jpg)
I can't see the sun in that picture.
It could be behind those clouds.
Or it could be below them and the light you see coming from it is merely being reflected off them.
According to suncalc.org, it should be roughly 0.67 degrees above the horizon.
-
I'm curious where you think the sun is in this photo. Last time I checked Stellarium puts it halfway under the horizon.
This picture was taken at 8/8/2014 8:03PM at 30.0799° N, 95.4172° W
(https://s11.postimg.org/c98t9n4wj/sunphoto.jpg)
It's not possible to tell from the photo because of the clouds, trees, and cars in the way. Where do you think it is, and why?
Stellarium says the sun appeared a little less than 1° above the horizon at that time and location. Its apparent center is 0° 52' (see apparent Az/Alt in the screenshot below), but that would vary slightly with refraction. Without refraction it would be just below 0.5° above the horizon (geometric Az/Alt).
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/StellariumSunset20140808NofHouston_zpso11wxool.png)
I took this picture when beginning FE research years ago, because it seemed impossible for the 'full' moon and the sun to both be so high above the horizon at the same time.
The moon was almost two days from full at that time. The US Naval Observatory (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/rstt/onedaytable?ID=AA&year=2014&month=8&day=8&state=TX&place=houston) shows that it rose on that date at 6:19 CDT - almost two hours earlier - and wouldn't be full until 1:09 PM CDT on Aug 10. It was 93% illuminated on the 8th.
USNO also gives sunset time for Houston as 8:09 PM CDT on that date, about six minutes later. Their location for Houston is a little south and east of the given coordinates, so sunset at the specified location would be slightly later, but likely within the same minute.
...just another proof globe calculations do not always match reality.
They don't match the OPs perception of reality, but appear quite consistent with his observations as described.
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
(https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg)
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
(https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg)
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
Correct. It means Stellarium must be off in its position of the sun, I would estimate by 5 degrees or more in this case. That would be a big blow to the globe earth, and its infallible calculations imho. Also, if it is incorrect this time, how many other times is it incorrect and by how much and why. Maybe the earth is not a globe? :-\
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
Correct. It means Stellarium must be off in its position of the sun, I would estimate by 5 degrees or more in this case. That would be a big blow to the globe earth, and its infallible calculations imho. Also, if it is incorrect this time, how many other times is it incorrect and by how much and why. Maybe the earth is not a globe? :-\
i'm from louisiana, my family and i go hunting all the time and sometimes we'll go to larger reserves that are almost always public. sometimes the officials will ask you when sundown is, because shooting after sundown is very illegal and very dangerous. so before we go to a reserve my dad looks up when sundown is that day. never once has he been wrong and i'm assuming that if such a well used sight were ever wrong people would definitely call them out on it.
it is much more likely that you are wrong about the time of that picture than it is that the whole world is wrong about the shape of the earth.
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
Correct. It means Stellarium must be off in its position of the sun, I would estimate by 5 degrees or more in this case. That would be a big blow to the globe earth, and its infallible calculations imho. Also, if it is incorrect this time, how many other times is it incorrect and by how much and why. Maybe the earth is not a globe? :-\
i'm from louisiana, my family and i go hunting all the time and sometimes we'll go to larger reserves that are almost always public. sometimes the officials will ask you when sundown is, because shooting after sundown is very illegal and very dangerous. so before we go to a reserve my dad looks up when sundown is that day. never once has he been wrong and i'm assuming that if such a well used sight were ever wrong people would definitely call them out on it.
it is much more likely that you are wrong about the time of that picture than it is that the whole world is wrong about the shape of the earth.
Do you go hunting 365 days a year? I'm not saying it happens all the time however it does happen. The time of these photographs cannot be wrong, but you and everyone else reading this are free to believe whatever you want.
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
Correct. It means Stellarium must be off in its position of the sun, I would estimate by 5 degrees or more in this case. That would be a big blow to the globe earth, and its infallible calculations imho. Also, if it is incorrect this time, how many other times is it incorrect and by how much and why. Maybe the earth is not a globe? :-\
i'm from louisiana, my family and i go hunting all the time and sometimes we'll go to larger reserves that are almost always public. sometimes the officials will ask you when sundown is, because shooting after sundown is very illegal and very dangerous. so before we go to a reserve my dad looks up when sundown is that day. never once has he been wrong and i'm assuming that if such a well used sight were ever wrong people would definitely call them out on it.
it is much more likely that you are wrong about the time of that picture than it is that the whole world is wrong about the shape of the earth.
Do you go hunting 365 days a year? I'm not saying it happens all the time however it does happen. The time of these photographs cannot be wrong, but you and everyone else reading this are free to believe whatever you want.
no, it's not legal to go hunting 365 days a year.
no you are suggesting that it happens, cosmic events are extremely predictable. we have had the sun down for a while. i can tell you what time the sun will set anywhere on the earth down to the minute as far into the future as you want and we can have this debate again then when i'm right.
the time of your photos can for sure be wrong, your'e a flat earth conspiracist with a clear bias. you want to prove that the earth is flat and there are no real repercussions for falsifying evidence here, especially when there is no way to prove that you are falsifying said evidence. again i say that it is more likely that you are wrong about the time of the photo than it is that everyone on earth is wrong about it's shape.
and that is the single worst debate strategy ever made; "believe it or don't, i don't care". the verbal equivalent of backing away with your hands up after picking a fight. for the record i choose not to believe it.
-
and that is the single worst debate strategy ever made; "believe it or don't, i don't care". the verbal equivalent of backing away with your hands up after picking a fight. for the record i choose not to believe it.
What is it you suggest I do exactly.
-
and that is the single worst debate strategy ever made; "believe it or don't, i don't care". the verbal equivalent of backing away with your hands up after picking a fight. for the record i choose not to believe it.
What is it you suggest I do exactly.
if you make a claim you should stand by it, if you can't defend it you should change your opinion. i'm happy to admit i'm wrong and change my world view. however this requires facts and evidence.
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
(https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg)
That is a picture of the moon. Notice how there is no flaring and if you zoom in it's not a perfect circle?
Moon rise was 6:19pm that day.
Any other questions?
-
The 2 pictures have significantly different lighting.
As such, I have pretty much no reason to assume they are at the same time.
You are coming here claiming this is proof that calculations based upon a globe don't match reality.
As such, the burden of proof is entirely upon you.
We aren't telling you to just trust us. We are saying we don't trust you enough to take it as proof.
Especially as the Flat Earth model suffers from a much bigger problem with the sun, such as why it sets at all.
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
(https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg)
That is a picture of the moon. Notice how there is no flaring and if you zoom in it's not a perfect circle?
Moon rise was 6:19pm that day.
Any other questions?
We're not talking about the moon ???
-
Then why did you post a picture of the moon?
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Then why did you show the picture? It doesn't show the sun, but the colors suggest it's low on the horizon behind the two darker clouds and trees, exactly where it would be expected in the stated circumstances.
That was almost 2 1/2 years ago; maybe you're remembering incorrectly.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg (https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg)
Whatever the white dot is, it isn't the sun. Maybe, as suggested, it's the nearly-full moon, or maybe the sun is behind that little cloud and is responsible for the bright spot, and the white dot is a lens flare. Given that the foreground is correctly exposed, if that white dot was the unobscured sun, it would be completely blown out.
It certainly wasn't taken looking in the same direction from the same general location two minutes later than the other picture. If nothing else, where did all the clouds in the previous picture go in those two minutes?
I presume the dates and times you're telling us are from the images' time stamps. How accurately was the camera's clock set? Were they geocoded and that's how you know the location?
-
I presume the dates and times you're telling us are from the images' time stamps. How accurately was the camera's clock set? Were they geocoded and that's how you know the location?
Unfortunately all that lovely metadata is missing.
-
Then why did you post a picture of the moon?
This is a picture of the moon, but the reflection of the sun in the cloud is pretty obvious is it not?
-
Another victory for us. :)
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Then why did you show the picture? It doesn't show the sun, but the colors suggest it's low on the horizon behind the two darker clouds and trees, exactly where it would be expected in the stated circumstances.
That was almost 2 1/2 years ago; maybe you're remembering incorrectly.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg (https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg)
It certainly wasn't taken looking in the same direction from the same general location two minutes later than the other picture. If nothing else, where did all the clouds in the previous picture go in those two minutes?
I presume the dates and times you're telling us are from the images' time stamps. How accurately was the camera's clock set? Were they geocoded and that's how you know the location?
Correct. The second picture was taken in the direction of the moon.
Yes, the dates and times are taken from the image's time stamps. I erased them when uploading. The camera is an is an Iphone so I have to assume the times are correct.
Say I were to prove the dates/ times to the degree of which is explained, would it make a difference? Can you say without any doubt the images do indeed show there is a problem with the sun's location in Stellarium?
-
Sunsets exist. As does cloud illumination after the sun has set behind the horizon.
-
I forget, are you the bendy light expert?
-
No. It's simple geometry.
-
So the light of the sun is bending around the sphere earth and forming a reflection onto a cloud. ::) Sokarul geometry is very fascinating. Tell me more
-
Yes some of that. Also higher objects will still have a line of sight to the sun. How do you not know this?
-
Get back to me when you figure out how shadows work.
-
So the light of the sun is bending around the sphere earth and forming a reflection onto a cloud. ::) Sokarul geometry is very fascinating. Tell me more
No. As the cloud is higher than you, the tangent to the Earth that it would be on would have the sun visible after sunset.
-
Get back to me when you figure out how shadows work.
i feel like you know that clouds are high up and thus the sun sets for them later, you don't strike me as a dumb guy.
-
Another victory for USA! :)
-
Get back to me when you figure out how shadows work.
i feel like you know that clouds are high up and thus the sun sets for them later, you don't strike me as a dumb guy.
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
-
Get back to me when you figure out how shadows work.
i feel like you know that clouds are high up and thus the sun sets for them later, you don't strike me as a dumb guy.
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
yeah, i stand by that. just because you're surrounded by trees and can't see the sun doesn't mean it's below the clouds.
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
Correct. It means Stellarium must be off in its position of the sun, I would estimate by 5 degrees or more in this case. That would be a big blow to the globe earth, and its infallible calculations imho. Also, if it is incorrect this time, how many other times is it incorrect and by how much and why. Maybe the earth is not a globe? :-\
I'm a bit late to this thread, but I found the inconsistency.
Stellarium does not know if you are using daylight savings time. On 2014/8/8, Houston was using daylight savings time, which means you were using UTC-4. If you plugged this into Stellarium in December, you were probably NOT using daylight savings time, thus were using UTC-5. Subtract an hour to get the correct UTC-5 time.
If you put in 7:05 pm (UTC-5) into Stellarium, it gives the sun's position as 12 degrees above the horizon, as expected.
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
Correct. It means Stellarium must be off in its position of the sun, I would estimate by 5 degrees or more in this case. That would be a big blow to the globe earth, and its infallible calculations imho. Also, if it is incorrect this time, how many other times is it incorrect and by how much and why. Maybe the earth is not a globe? :-\
I'm a bit late to this thread, but I found the inconsistency.
Stellarium does not know if you are using daylight savings time. On 2014/8/8, Houston was using daylight savings time, which means you were using UTC-4. If you plugged this into Stellarium in December, you were probably NOT using daylight savings time, thus were using UTC-5. Subtract an hour to get the correct UTC-5 time.
If you put in 7:05 pm (UTC-5) into Stellarium, it gives the sun's position as 12 degrees above the horizon, as expected.
Nice try but no.
Again this picture was taken at 8:05 PM according to the Iphone meta data. Stellarium shows at 8:05PM UTC-5 the sun should be below the horizon. Also, if you were to push back the clock an hour, then the height of the moon in another picture of mine (taken within minutes of the two shown) could not be possible according to Stallarium
https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
Correct. It means Stellarium must be off in its position of the sun, I would estimate by 5 degrees or more in this case. That would be a big blow to the globe earth, and its infallible calculations imho. Also, if it is incorrect this time, how many other times is it incorrect and by how much and why. Maybe the earth is not a globe? :-\
I'm a bit late to this thread, but I found the inconsistency.
Stellarium does not know if you are using daylight savings time. On 2014/8/8, Houston was using daylight savings time, which means you were using UTC-4. If you plugged this into Stellarium in December, you were probably NOT using daylight savings time, thus were using UTC-5. Subtract an hour to get the correct UTC-5 time.
If you put in 7:05 pm (UTC-5) into Stellarium, it gives the sun's position as 12 degrees above the horizon, as expected.
Nice try but no.
Again this picture was taken at 8:05 PM according to the Iphone meta data. Stellarium shows at 8:05PM UTC-5 the sun should be below the horizon. Also, if you were to push back the clock an hour, then the height of the moon in another picture of mine (taken within minutes of the two shown) could not be possible according to Stallarium
https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg
Yes, it was 8:05 pm according to the iPhone metadata. That's my point. iPhones automatically adjust for daylight savings time. Which means the picture was taken at 8:05 pm UTC-4.
As for the moon picture... I'm not sure I understand. At 8:05 pm UTC-4, Stellarium reports the moon to be 8 degrees above tho horizon. Why is that a problem?
~
Edit: Oops, my bad. I got the timezones backwards. Houston operates at UTC-6 normally, and UTC-5 during daylight savings time. That places the sun on the horizon and the moon at 19 degrees above the horizon. But then what is the problem? Those placements agree with your picture. The sun isn't visible in either picture, but it looks to be around dusk based on the lighting. The moon is well above the horizon. The clouds are lit from the side. Everything checks out.
-
Where do you think it is, and why?
I remember the sun being very high above the horizon.
Maybe you could explain this picture taken at 8/8/2014 8:05PM at the same location. Notice the shadows underneath the cloud where the sun is reflected...
so what the sun is above the clouds the shadow is below me, this strikes me as rather logical so i must be missing something
Correct. It means Stellarium must be off in its position of the sun, I would estimate by 5 degrees or more in this case. That would be a big blow to the globe earth, and its infallible calculations imho. Also, if it is incorrect this time, how many other times is it incorrect and by how much and why. Maybe the earth is not a globe? :-\
I'm a bit late to this thread, but I found the inconsistency.
Stellarium does not know if you are using daylight savings time. On 2014/8/8, Houston was using daylight savings time, which means you were using UTC-4. If you plugged this into Stellarium in December, you were probably NOT using daylight savings time, thus were using UTC-5. Subtract an hour to get the correct UTC-5 time.
If you put in 7:05 pm (UTC-5) into Stellarium, it gives the sun's position as 12 degrees above the horizon, as expected.
Nice try but no.
Again this picture was taken at 8:05 PM according to the Iphone meta data. Stellarium shows at 8:05PM UTC-5 the sun should be below the horizon. Also, if you were to push back the clock an hour, then the height of the moon in another picture of mine (taken within minutes of the two shown) could not be possible according to Stallarium
https://s11.postimg.org/udxbzk6jn/8_8_2014_20_05.jpg
Yes, it was 8:05 pm according to the iPhone metadata. That's my point. iPhones automatically adjust for daylight savings time. Which means the picture was taken at 8:05 pm UTC-4.
As for the moon picture... I'm not sure I understand. At 8:05 pm UTC-4, Stellarium reports the moon to be 8 degrees above tho horizon. Why is that a problem?
~
Edit: Oops, my bad. I got the timezones backwards. Houston operates at UTC-6 normally, and UTC-5 during daylight savings time. That places the sun on the horizon and the moon at 19 degrees above the horizon. But then what is the problem? Those placements agree with your picture. The sun isn't visible in either picture, but it looks to be around dusk based on the lighting. The moon is well above the horizon. The clouds are lit from the side. Everything checks out.
... gives the sun's position as 12 degrees above the horizon, as expected.
You guys crack me up, but then what do I expect? "Yes Silicon, Stellarium is not right in this instance and this is a big problem for our calculations" :P
-
You are still yet to give us a reason to trust those times.
-
...
Edit: Oops, my bad. I got the timezones backwards. Houston operates at UTC-6 normally, and UTC-5 during daylight savings time. That places the sun on the horizon and the moon at 19 degrees above the horizon. But then what is the problem? Those placements agree with your picture. The sun isn't visible in either picture, but it looks to be around dusk based on the lighting. The moon is well above the horizon. The clouds are lit from the side. Everything checks out.
... gives the sun's position as 12 degrees above the horizon, as expected.
You guys crack me up, but then what do I expect? "Yes Silicon, Stellarium is not right in this instance and this is a big problem for our calculations" :P
I honestly have no idea what you expected. You provided a picture of the sun behind some clouds, and then asked "where is the sun"? How on earth does that show that Stellarium is "not right"?
When I said "as expected", I was referring to the fact that the sun is low in the sky, as expected. Because that's all we can tell based on your image. If you want more precision, I recommend taking a picture of the sun when it is actually visible.
You are still yet to give us a reason to trust those times.
Is there reason to distrust the times? Everything seems to be consistent...
-
I think this feeble thread typifies flat earth thought. Post a random image then make up stuff to support some twisted held belief.
What was the original poster trying to prove in the first instance?
Answers on a postcard please.
-
I think this feeble thread typifies flat earth thought. Post a random image then make up stuff to support some twisted help belief.
What was the original poster trying to prove in the first instance?
Answers on a postcard please.
You are on the wrong forum.
Hey Totes I still owe you a carton ;D
We had a vote but turns out that Aisantaros is a fraud, who would've thought it.
-
I think this feeble thread typifies flat earth thought. Post a random image then make up stuff to support some twisted help belief.
What was the original poster trying to prove in the first instance?
Answers on a postcard please.
You are on the wrong forum.
Hey Totes I still owe you a carton ;D
We had a vote but turns out that Aisantaros is a fraud, who would've thought it.
Still at a temporary residence, unfortunately. Also, considering how often this site seems to get hacked, I am somewhat loath to give out personal info, no matter how indirect.
I like to try new things. Tell you what... if you give me a recommendation of your favorite drink and/or drink combo, I'll try to find it locally, and I'll hold your oath fulfilled (http://). Deal? :)
Edit: Just read the rest of the thread with Aisantaros. Poor guy is hopeless. At least it was worth a good chuckle!
(Sorry for off-topic comment. Please continue on about the sun, etc, etc.)
-
I can PM you my email address if you would prefer?
No pressure if you are uncomfortable with it. I want to say Emu Export to be an asshole ;D but I like imported Becks.
James Boag is my favourite Australian beer.
Also sorry for the off topic comment, however it looks like a simple case of forgetting daylight savings.
I do it all the time used to be late for work when we tried it here. Considering the sun sets at nearly 8pm anyway in summer, it seems stupid. I can see why they do it in colder climates but not here.
-
...
Edit: Oops, my bad. I got the timezones backwards. Houston operates at UTC-6 normally, and UTC-5 during daylight savings time. That places the sun on the horizon and the moon at 19 degrees above the horizon. But then what is the problem? Those placements agree with your picture. The sun isn't visible in either picture, but it looks to be around dusk based on the lighting. The moon is well above the horizon. The clouds are lit from the side. Everything checks out.
... gives the sun's position as 12 degrees above the horizon, as expected.
You guys crack me up, but then what do I expect? "Yes Silicon, Stellarium is not right in this instance and this is a big problem for our calculations" :P
I honestly have no idea what you expected. You provided a picture of the sun behind some clouds, and then asked "where is the sun"? How on earth does that show that Stellarium is "not right"?
When I said "as expected", I was referring to the fact that the sun is low in the sky, as expected. Because that's all we can tell based on your image. If you want more precision, I recommend taking a picture of the sun when it is actually visible.
Um, ya kinda gave a specific number as in 12 degrees above the horizon, when you were thinking the time was an hour ahead. You can adjust the levels in the photos and do all kinds of things to show approximately where the sun is behind the clouds, and so if it's behind clouds then how can it be below the horizon which is where Stellarium thinks it should be
-
I can PM you my email address if you would prefer?
No pressure if you are uncomfortable with it. I want to say Emu Export to be an asshole ;D but I like imported Becks.
James Boag is my favourite Australian beer.
Better safe than sorry. I appreciate the offer though. James Boag it is! A quick search turned up a bar near me that serves it.
Also sorry for the off topic comment, however it looks like a simple case of forgetting daylight savings.
Nah, the daylight savings was my mistake. I got the timezones all muddled up. I just don't understand what the problem is to begin with. 8:05 UTC-5 in Stellarium shows a perfectly reasonable position for the sun/moon based on his picture.
Um, ya kinda gave a specific number as in 12 degrees above the horizon, when you were thinking the time was an hour ahead. You can adjust the levels in the photos and do all kinds of things to show approximately where the sun is behind the clouds, and so if it's behind clouds then how can it be below the horizon which is where Stellarium thinks it should be
Stellarium gives an altitude of 0.05 degrees for the sun at 8:05 UTC-5. In other words, the center of the sun is almost exactly on the horizon. How is that inconsistent with your picture? Based on your picture, the sun could be anywhere near the horizon.
The 12 degrees is for 8:05 UTC-4. Like I said, I got the wrong timezone. My bad. But once again, 12 degrees is still close to the horizon, and still possible based on your picture, which is why I said "as expected".
-
the OP asks how is it possible for the sun and the full moon to both be in the sky at the same time
firstly, it's not possible unless both are on opposite sides of the horizon, which is caused by refraction
secondly, the photo in question shows neither the sun OR the moon, pretty pointless photo
lastly, if you're still 'on the fence', stop trying to find tiny things that don't seem to fit and use ACTUAL evidence.. there's plenty solid, testable, visual, irrefutable evidence that supports the globe, and absolutely zero that supports the flat earth
this particular explanation has been made far more complicated than it needs to be.. the flat earth theory states the sun is ALWAYS ABOVE the clouds, yet we sometimes have sun showing on the underneath of clouds, that's called 'disproving a point' (with ease)
facts are facts, the earth has been proven with evidence to NOT be flat, but instead, A GLOBE!!
- ignoring evidence doesn't make it disappear
- not understanding what your eyes see doesn't make the facts any less factual
-
Stellarium gives an altitude of 0.05 degrees for the sun at 8:05 UTC-5. In other words, the center of the sun is almost exactly on the horizon.
Ok.
How is that inconsistent with your picture?
My picture(s) clearly indicate the sun is significantly above the horizon
Based on your picture, the sun could be anywhere near the horizon.
Clearly above the Horizon.
But once again, 12 degrees is still close to the horizon, and still possible based on your picture, which is why I said "as expected".
12 degrees is not .05 degrees is it? So what I gather from you is that it could be in normal operation for Stallarium to have a margin of error of 11.95 degrees? Maybe what you're saying is Stallarium doesn't reflect reality all that well?
??? ??? ???
-
Based on your picture, the sun could be anywhere near the horizon.
Clearly above the Horizon.
Those of us without psychic powers have to rely on our vision. Since our vision is obstructed by the clouds, it isn't clear at all where the sun is in your picture.
But once again, 12 degrees is still close to the horizon, and still possible based on your picture, which is why I said "as expected".
12 degrees is not .05 degrees is it?
Well spotted.
So what I gather from you is that it could be in normal operation for Stallarium to have a margin of error of 11.95 degrees?
No. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? 11.95 degrees is the change in altitude of the sun between 7:05 pm and 8:05 pm UTC-5, according to Stellarium. I got the wrong answer (12 degrees) because I plugged the wrong time into Stellarium (7:05 UTC-5 instead of 8:05 UTC-5).
-
how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?
I guarantee 100% that you'll fail
-
How is that inconsistent with your picture?
My picture(s) clearly indicate the sun is significantly above the horizon
Based on your picture, the sun could be anywhere near the horizon.
Clearly above the Horizon.
No. It isn't.
Your pictures do not indicate the sun is significantly above the horizon.
The location of the sun in those pictures is quite ambiguous.
-
Instead of showing dumb ambiguous pictures taken at ambiguous times, why don't you show some proper picture where the sun is visible?
-
Instead of showing dumb ambiguous pictures taken at ambiguous times, why don't you show some proper picture where the sun is visible?
Timestamp or gtfo.
-
I can surely prove times, dates, however its meaningless if people here believe the sun can be at a 0 degrees altitude in the provided pictures.
-
I can surely prove times, dates, however its meaningless if people here believe the sun can be at a 0 degrees altitude in the provided pictures.
Show us a clear picture of the suns elevation and a time stamp which goes against orthodox orbital mechanics and we will listen I promise.
-
I can surely prove times, dates, however its meaningless if people here believe the sun can be at a 0 degrees altitude in the provided pictures.
Show us a clear picture of the suns elevation and a time stamp which goes against orthodox orbital mechanics and we will listen I promise.
Who is the "we"? Are you the leader of the shill brigade? Do you speak for all of the globullshit liars here? Your signature quote seems to hint that your sole purpose here is trolling...
-
I can surely prove times, dates, however its meaningless if people here believe the sun can be at a 0 degrees altitude in the provided pictures.
Show us a clear picture of the suns elevation and a time stamp which goes against orthodox orbital mechanics and we will listen I promise.
Who is the "we"? Are you the leader of the shill brigade? Do you speak for all of the globullshit liars here?
Sure, why not.
Your signature quote seems to hint that your sole purpose here is trolling...
Astute.
-
I can surely prove times, dates, however its meaningless if people here believe the sun can be at a 0 degrees altitude in the provided pictures.
Show us a clear picture of the suns elevation and a time stamp which goes against orthodox orbital mechanics and we will listen I promise.
Who is the "we"? Are you the leader of the shill brigade? Do you speak for all of the globullshit liars here?
Sure, why not.
Your signature quote seems to hint that your sole purpose here is trolling...
Astute.
And here we have a troll trolling about trolling. He even says my assumption about his quote is quite astute! Fancy that Sherlock! But is he banned? Nope! :P
-
And here we have a troll trolling about trolling. He even says my assumption about his quote is quite astute! Fancy that Sherlock! But is he banned? Nope! :P
Maybe cause this, noob.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1460082
-
You guys crack me up, but then what do I expect? "Yes Silicon, Stellarium is not right in this instance and this is a big problem for our calculations"
It never fails to amaze me how easily they soothe themselves and explain away all contrary evidence to their misplaced faith.
-
You guys crack me up, but then what do I expect? "Yes Silicon, Stellarium is not right in this instance and this is a big problem for our calculations"
It never fails to amaze me how easily they soothe themselves and explain away all contrary evidence to their misplaced faith.
Who are you even quoting? You read the thread and that is what you came up with? We can't know what the exact position of the sun is because it's hidden behind a cloud. Why aren't you questioning why the OP would submit something so unclear and claim it is evidence against a GE?
-
I like Ski, maybe he read up to mine and "arealbadtrolls" shitposts, I wouldn't blame him tbh.
I can surely prove times, dates, however its meaningless if people here believe the sun can be at a 0 degrees altitude in the provided pictures.
Show us a clear picture of the suns elevation and a time stamp which goes against orthodox orbital mechanics and we will listen I promise.
To be fair we are willing to listen to facts and logic.
-
I can surely prove times, dates, however its meaningless if people here believe the sun can be at a 0 degrees altitude in the provided pictures.
And how do you plan on doing that? Especially considering it requires proving the phone was set correctly and the images haven't been tampered with.
Also, what is wrong with the sun being that low?
-
how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?
I guarantee 100% that you'll fail
OP. I believe you may have missed this.
I would also like to know where and how you would calculate the sun to be in the photo, using the FE sun model. Otherwise, what are you really arguing for or against? If Stellarium isn't reliable, let's see your own personal FE calculations. You have been shown the RE version, now let's see yours shall we??
-
how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?
I guarantee 100% that you'll fail
Read the FAQ
-
how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?
I guarantee 100% that you'll fail
Read the FAQ
The FAQ does not address it.
No where does it say how the sun is magically below the horizon while above a FE.
The FE model predicts the sun should be significantly above the horizon at all times. Reality shows it isn't.
-
Nope. As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away.
-
Nope. As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away.
Care to explain that?
How does "colliding with low angle light" cause the sun to appear below the horizon?
The acceleration of Earth, even under the delusions of UA, is insignificant compared to the speed of light with a 5000 km distant sun, and would have no significant effect on the angle of light.
Regardless, in other threads, UA has shown to be pure garbage, completely unable to match reality due to the variations in g across the globe which under UA would tear Earth apart.
-
Care to explain that?
See my sig for links to things I've already explained.
-
Care to explain that?
See my sig for links to things I've already explained.
You mean for links to you spouting crap, which has already been refuted?
-
which has already been refuted?
Now you're just speaking nonsense.
-
which has already been refuted?
Now you're just speaking nonsense.
You are somewhat right, not everything has been refuted.
Some is just a bigoted tirade where you tell people what to do or questions, or otherwise not any actual claims and thus can't really be refuted.
Some also are links to posts which are missing or in hidden sections of the forum, or otherwise dead links. Some are links to external sites
Others are links to the Q&A and liars only section where they can't be refuted.
(By the way, why are you posting crap in Q&A rather than allowing others to post questions and then you provide the FE answers?, you seem to be treating it like a debate forum.)
Then there are some statements that have little to do with FE, some of which are strawman similar to but slightly different to actual facts which you pretend you refute.
For example 0.9 recurring = 1. Instead of doing that, you focus on 0.99999 (a finite number of 9s).
But as for claims regarding FE vs RE which are made in sections where people can debate, you have a total of 5 threads, none of which address the issue raised here.
The first is a compilation of you making pathetic strawmen out of RE.
Other thread exist which point out problems with the FE claims, and it was even refuted in that thread.
The next is your BS on oceans, which again, is refuted elsewhere. But for the actual OP, it merely states that water in water is neutrally buoyant, as you would expect.
However, water, not in water (e.g. if the oceans were to go above Earth/into the air for some reason) it would no longer be neutrally buoyant and thus fall down.
The next is a "trinity of proof", with all three refuted in that thread.
The next is skit and has no place in the debate section.
Then the final one is a discussion on shoe size where you ignore the fact that shoes are flexible and may be made to fit your feet instead of Earth. Even if they were to fit Earth, the curve over the size of a shoe would be undetectable.
So anything which comes close to an argument allegedly for FE has been refuted if it is in a place where it can be refuted.
More importantly, NONE OF IT ADDRESSES THE QUESTION!!!
Now can you address the question?
-
More importantly, NONE OF IT ADDRESSES THE QUESTION!!!
Now can you address the question?
I'm sorry, you've been on a tangent so long I didn't realize you had a question.
-
I'm sorry, you've been on a tangent so long I didn't realize you had a question.
I would hardly call a few posts "long". Also remember that you were the one who put us on this tangent. I assume that was your plan all along?
Now then, ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!
How does the sun appear below the horizon when it needs to be above Earth (assuming Earth is flat)?
-
Also remember that you were the one who put us on this tangent.
Anyone can read the thread and see this isn't true.
-
Also remember that you were the one who put us on this tangent.
Anyone can read the thread and see this isn't true.
And here you are trying to do ti again.
ANSWER THE QUESTION:
How does the sun appear to be below the horizon when it needs to be above Earth (assuming Earth is flat)?
-
Also remember that you were the one who put us on this tangent.
Anyone can read the thread and see this isn't true.
And here you are trying to do ti again.
You're going nowhere with this line of reasoning
-
ANSWER THE QUESTION:
How does the sun appear to be below the horizon when it needs to be above Earth (assuming Earth is flat)?
-
I already did
As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away.
-
I already did
As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away.
And I already pointed out that doesn't work.
UA is garbage and is disproven by the variations of g across the surface and the acceleration of Earth would not result in the sun appearing that low.
If you wish to claim it does you need to explain far more than that one line non-answer.
-
UA is garbage and is disproven by the variations of g across the surface
UA turbulence causes this measurement variation. Obviously you didn't consider that.
-
UA is garbage and is disproven by the variations of g across the surface
UA turbulence causes this measurement variation. Obviously you didn't consider that.
Nope, doesn't work.
The variation remains fairly constant for each location, with this variation being more than enough to tear Earth apart.
Turbulence could hypothetically explain the variations, but they would still tear Earth apart.
-
Turbulence could hypothetically explain the variations, but they would still tear Earth apart.
Absurd
-
Another explanation if one holds UA is that mass does cause gravitation, but the earth is still accelerating upwards.
-
Why would you need UA if mass causes gravitation? Just more mud in the water trying to shoehorn a failure of a notion. That is the only reason to even consider UA. Even many Flat Earthers have discarded UA due to how many inconsistencies it has.
Also: why the hell did someone resurrect a dead thread? But I guess it's ok since the site admin is also joining the conversation without mentioning it.
-
Turbulence could hypothetically explain the variations, but they would still tear Earth apart.
Absurd
Yes, UA is absurd.
As the variations remain, i.e. some places consistently have a higher value of "g" than others, their speed and location would grow further and further apart.
One accelerates at a1, the other at a2, and lets assume the both start in the same position (0 as all position is relative) at the same velocity (0, as all velocity is relative).
da=a2-a1.
v=at, v1=a1*t, v2=at*t.
dv=v2-v1=a2*t-a1*t=(a2-a1)*t=da*t.
z=0.5*a*t^2, z1=0.5*a1*t^2, z2=0.5*a2*t^2.
dz=z2-z1=0.5*a2*t^2-0.5*a1*t^2=0.5*(a2-a1)*t^2=0.5*da*t^2.
So any difference in acceleration results in a change in position.
Even a tiny change of 0.001 m/s^2 results in a difference of 7000 km over the course of a day.
Over the course of a year that tiny difference results in a difference of roughly 1 billion km.
Yet differences are observed far greater than that, an order of magnitude greater in fact.
So UA replacing gravity tears Earth apart.
Regardless, this is yet again, going off on a tangent.
You sure do seem to be completely unable to stay on topic and address the issue raised.
Even if Earth was accelerating upwards, why would that make the sun appear to be below the horizon?
-
how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?
I guarantee 100% that you'll fail
Read the FAQ
Hey necrobury! Thanks for the tip!
-
Is there a problem here?
-
Nope. As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away.
Garbage!
Your silly explanations are just more guesswork piled on top of unproven fairy-tales.
So your sun circles sedately around "up there", unaffected by your UA, yet light gets deflected by somewhere around 20°.
I must have missed this in my cursory readings of narcberry's fairy-tales or did it come from a more recent hallucinatory experience?
-
Is there a problem here?
Have a look at narcberry's fantasies and see what you think?
-
how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?
I guarantee 100% that you'll fail
Read the FAQ
Hey necrobury! Thanks for the tip!
Glad I could help!
-
Is there a problem here?
Have a look at narcberry's fantasies and see what you think?
I'm glad narcberry is back and enjoy watching him make you and your crew look foolish :)
-
I'm glad narcberry is back and enjoy watching him make you and your crew look foolish :)
You might want to learn what foolish means. He is only making himself and the FE community look foolish.
-
I'm glad narcberry is back and enjoy watching him make you and your crew look foolish.
And he's having as little success as you have.
By the way, fudged any new equations yet?
It is so easy to find some "equation" that will give the desired answer when you know the desired answer beforehand.
Maybe try your hand at explaining why the sun rose here in Brisbane, Australia at 117o (that is 27o SOUTH of east) yesterday morning, the summer solstice.
On your "Ice-Wall map" the sun should have been at about -23.500oS 102.878oW when it appeared to be rising here. That is a location well north of here!
If you bother to check it out the sun rises here south of east every day from 23rd Sep to 20th Mar the next year.
Yet on the "Ice-Wall map", with the sun circling overhead, the sun is always north of here!
Got any more magic Silicon Fudges to paper over this massive hole in FET?
-
The UA can accelerate light as well, since it has virtual mass. Since the sunlight must travel much further to Austrailia, the distortion is greater.
-
I'm glad narcberry is back and enjoy watching him make you and your crew look foolish :)
You might want to learn what foolish means. He is only making himself and the FE community look foolish.
(http://i.imgur.com/lAzw3M0.jpg)
-
The UA can accelerate light as well, since it has virtual mass. Since the sunlight must travel much further to Austrailia, the distortion is greater.
The time required for the light to reach us would cause no significant change in apparent angle.
-
The UA can accelerate light as well, since it has virtual mass. Since the sunlight must travel much further to Austrailia, the distortion is greater.
The time required for the light to reach us would cause no significant change in apparent angle.
It has been demonstrated that it takes light 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the sun to the earth. If the sun is only 8,000 km away that means light speed is 16 km/sec. At the fantastic rate the flat plane of the earth is accelerating upwards, it should be easy to demonstrate that the light leaving the sun the would appear to be lower than it actually is because of the time it took the light to travel from the sun to the earth. 16 km/sec is really not that fast.
Discuss.
-
It has been demonstrated that it takes light 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the sun to the earth. If the sun is only 8,000 km away that means light speed is 16 km/sec. At the fantastic rate the flat plane of the earth is accelerating upwards, it should be easy to demonstrate that the light leaving the sun the would appear to be lower than it actually is because of the time it took the light to travel from the sun to the earth. 16 km/sec is really not that fast.
Discuss.
The primary reason we know it takes light that long to travel to Earth from the sun is the distance to the sun.
The FEers reject that model, and typically reject everything to do with space. We have no direct measurements of time taken.
However there are plenty of lab experiments which show the speed of light is roughly 300 000 km/s.
With a sun/Polaris that is roughly 5000 km above us, and sets when it is above a point 10 000 km away, this gives us an actual distance to the setting sun of roughly 11200 km. Now this doesn't take into consideration Earth's movement. Earth's alleged upwards acceleration would result in this distance being slightly less.
But light will traverse these 11200 km in less than 0.04 seconds. So I doubt it would do anything significant.
If it did, shouldn't Earth accelerating upwards make the sun appear higher? But then again, it would depend upon how light behaves in general.
-
It has been demonstrated that it takes light 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the sun to the earth. If the sun is only 8,000 km away that means light speed is 16 km/sec. At the fantastic rate the flat plane of the earth is accelerating upwards, it should be easy to demonstrate that the light leaving the sun the would appear to be lower than it actually is because of the time it took the light to travel from the sun to the earth. 16 km/sec is really not that fast.
Discuss.
The primary reason we know it takes light that long to travel to Earth from the sun is the distance to the sun.
The FEers reject that model, and typically reject everything to do with space. We have no direct measurements of time taken.
However there are plenty of lab experiments which show the speed of light is roughly 300 000 km/s.
With a sun/Polaris that is roughly 5000 km above us, and sets when it is above a point 10 000 km away, this gives us an actual distance to the setting sun of roughly 11200 km. Now this doesn't take into consideration Earth's movement. Earth's alleged upwards acceleration would result in this distance being slightly less.
But light will traverse these 11200 km in less than 0.04 seconds. So I doubt it would do anything significant.
If it did, shouldn't Earth accelerating upwards make the sun appear higher? But then again, it would depend upon how light behaves in general.
You're also forgetting that the speed of light is for light in a vacuum - which is not the scenario we're dealing with.
-
You're also forgetting that the speed of light is for light in a vacuum - which is not the scenario we're dealing with.
No I'm not.
The speed of light does not change by a large enough amount to cause any significant issue.
Now how about instead of just spouting crap you try to actually justify your claim?
Explain how the sun manages to appear so low.
-
You're also forgetting that the speed of light is for light in a vacuum - which is not the scenario we're dealing with.
No I'm not.
The speed of light does not change by a large enough amount to cause any significant issue.
Now how about instead of just spouting crap you try to actually justify your claim?
Explain how the sun manages to appear so low.
The earth is accelerating upwards, occluding low angle light.
The light is slowed down in the atmosphere, as expected, increasing the amount of occluded light.
Light is bent within UA turbulence, increasing time to target as expected in FET.
All these, and other factors, cause this optical illusion
-
The earth is accelerating upwards, occluding low angle light.
The light is slowed down in the atmosphere, as expected, increasing the amount of occluded light.
Light is bent within UA turbulence, increasing time to target as expected in FET.
All these, and other factors, cause this optical illusion
This is not an explanation.
This is just baselessly asserting crap.
As I have already explained, the time taken is so small it would have no significant effect.
Provide a quantitative explanation. How much should the light bend?
-
I think you missed SavagePilot's post
-
I think you missed SavagePilot's post
No, I responded directly to it.
Perhaps you can try addressing the issue at hand for once?
-
I think you missed SavagePilot's post
No, I responded directly to it.
Perhaps you can try addressing the issue at hand for once?
All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.
-
I think you missed SavagePilot's post
No, I responded directly to it.
Perhaps you can try addressing the issue at hand for once?
All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.
Another victory for reality
Sorry about not including a full stop, mine is not working, but a victory none the less
-
Perhaps you can try addressing the issue at hand for once?
All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.
The useful and relevant parts of your posts in this thread:In the sky, like always << useless trivial information>>
Read the FAQ << useless trivial information >>
Nope. As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away. << useless unproven hypothesis >>
See my sig for links to things I've already explained. << useless link to totally unproven hypotheses (ie fairy-tales) >>
Now you're just speaking nonsense. << incorrect useless trivial information>>
I'm sorry, you've been on a tangent so long I didn't realize you had a question. << more delaying tactics to cover your own ignorance. >>
Anyone can read the thread and see this isn't true. << continued delaying tactics to cover your own ignorance. >>
You're going nowhere with this line of reasoning << continued delaying tactics to cover your own ignorance. >>
UA turbulence causes this measurement variation. Obviously you didn't consider that. << totally unproven hypotheses (ie fairy-tales) >>
I'll skip the numerous cases of the Nark weaving and dodging to cover up for his total ignorance and finish with:All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.
<< Translation: "All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you asking for answers and me dodging and weaving to avoid any actual answers". >>
-
All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.
Pointing out your bullshit and pathetic deflections is not whining.
What I have seen in this thread is you repeatedly being asked simple questions and you repeatedly deflecting, refusing to provide answers.
No, you haven't answered my questions. You repeatedly deflect them.
Can you substantiate your claim that your UA BS (which doesn't work at all as it would result in Earth tearing itself apart; but ignoring that and assuming UA does magically work), can magically make the light from the sun bend in such a way as to produce an apparent negative angle of elevation?
Note: This requires a justification of the magnitude of the effect.
-
Can you substantiate your claim that your UA...can magically make the light from the sun bend in such a way as to produce an apparent negative angle of elevation? Note: This requires a justification of the magnitude of the effect.
Don’t forget the left/right bending effect as well. To illustrate what I mean by that, I calculated the actual position of FE’s “nearby sun above the flat earth” from the viewpoint of an observer located at 45° North latitude on the day of the September Solstice. I did this using simple trigonometry, as illustrated below, calculating the distance and compass direction to the sub-solar point on the earth's surface, and then the elevation angle up to the sun knowing the distance and height. I did this ignoring any atmospheric or perspective effects, which matches how Rowbotham and other FE calculate the sun's height. (Notice in the wiki, for example, that during the section on calculating the height of the sun (http://wiki.google.com/Distance_to_the_Sun), no allowance is made for the sun appearing to be at 45° elevation angle while actually being somewhere else. No, it is assumed to actually be where it appears to be, at 45° elevation) I did ten minute increments all night and day, midnight to midnight.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/oBUGAYGtNxYhs7oX7uxAdJwgUXWE5WQjbAEfo-eC_6kT449LXcUJh0w0H3jiSHuSHsN5oyrWzfoSEP6ULNEcb4jMa0_LcEbUhDjtEbPDFwDwf-gNotDOWOOLfgIVI-Fi7twpPuU2ioTtwtksWUXmEoIvNcRouCuok1NH1VJifB_SPAgSBMZ1XoC7zyLKXP_hBIx0frHb4_yFJTTuqE4A9JLDeCp5tSfzo7IhXAlubRtBXHY5veQtNRc_Ud4lvaNQVLZS8aAMrnfb9o1_cJLk2y8TzGntqN5M_jaxCJn63oOkz2tgMemwMwmZSp6MaTTBv9zoxZLCwv6QvwmgrQmJ2XSbyLgjD_mGLuo_XS48cZ81K0-dh3nn294gSkEuNynvrpFM87jRSYHtehKebcb-tKil2kOiDAfsTxbZN7tISZNAINCAfsXC6pVvYNPH3oY_7BbvrFpfaj-Bs6dPB2edT63BkP1UJi9jrEGZORWcnfhBHy6SfyjRdKa76otfiC-l0GKe6lHE1aBeVIo0Wk4M-WE2DU2cHii79f5T6dNXqTt8ax-0GPpiAQQZbtizGmJUT-EMlmZm_7Jg-DRQnA5dgG3yV72HFIlLK3jZSmMYSxybRT6J=w960-h720-no)
I then pulled information from the US Naval Observatory (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php) web site listing the projected direction and elevation angles for the same geographic location and also in ten minute increments. I then calculated the difference between the USNO numbers and my calculation, and graphed the result. This number is the magnitude of the FE proposed perspective and atmospheric effects. It is how much the sun’s apparent position deviates from the FE sun’s supposed actual position. The X axis on the graph is the difference between the compass direction the sun is observed to be, and the direction it is supposed to be at that time of day. The Y axis the difference in how high above the horizon the sun should be, absent the proposed perspective and atmospheric effects. This curve is slightly asymmetrical due to my local apparent solar noon not lining up exactly with clock noon, so the USNO numbers are coming in slightly ahead of my calculated numbers.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZbX6csfvxSLOVyqXxWIoJ0qdWKZFCmBGVzsDoRXrDTagjL3TJThbwk8T6Cu2DiSdzzrO5QSWfDJ3ZNvSbFy98QWnmzDu_cQWOIWTY37uMPkNxZ0EyfIUlAR6Rq0xkayRa-qwub5gnyFtR44oliz7uBPzFMh6kiMhFF5tC39N0G2JkOUoz6LHLAwH7xAQ4EUkfjGSvvXPAx_YX3rT_Ebg4OsxnaA9Xw_joajlKSP8gdP3pGYyB-pwHY20sdYoqj3_BZ-HaJUKzzlv1z3_dnwHsfuarfyNEOvs0rIhNvn9ug_o66k0B77S7M-S4pN-jHobudsiCiGyNsW6DmxeUt6IAS7MaoKf1uEMgfuakGplrCw8idjso8PLWW6iQm4-KEW_pjsb-x2wEReu-bxD84LQ6yJTkV5tCaO5FJ0RBpO5bIZCt3C6OH32Rr7Mnx5k1GDIk6Sl-SMDb_1aTJQSUXSv1FwmYk9r3hvuoo7c4kDcnS5S7-QgfgpfcPrlQrCoGxFLlkAn-hQ0hpGtz4gCOnN7TmCWI9DH7-MlJAC0lojyt_APNUI2XI8UOSbPfOUADwoAzsXmbZbIqCDDE2JenxdAU-lHUua0aEZZ6jmx3oRh28BCIusY=w960-h720-no)