1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Disappear bottom of objects when they get away

« on: March 10, 2023, 06:58:32 AM »

The answer I most frequently see is that light is drawn downwards by the same force we consider to be gravity - so when a ship is on the horizon, the light that reflects off its lower parts will curve into the sea and not reach you, while those parts that are higher will appear closer to the sea.

If light curves downwards you would still be able to see the bottom of a ship, just floating higher than it should be (the light ray would basically be a parabola from the ship's bottom to the observer's eyes). It would have to curve upwards for that to happen.

I've seen both argued for.
Light curving upwards could make sense under a UA model, light accelerating at the same rate as gravity.
Light curving downwards, I may be misremembering but I think I saw someone object to the orientation changing as light curved. So rather than a smooth arc (like part of an O) they viewed it as:
          ___------^---
_------^---
(Okay, you have to reverse the direction, but I think that was the idea - that light travels in a straight line, and the angle of it does not change, but the altitude does)

But yeah, the light models are tricky to dig into as there are so, so many in the forum's history and they all use similar terminology.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why has nobody tried actually proving Flat Earth?

« on: March 08, 2023, 03:12:51 AM »

Would you believe it if they did that successfully?

Was this to me?

More to the OP. They have a really weird standard of evidence.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The shining sun on the world

« on: March 07, 2023, 09:57:13 AM »

You've posted that shit before. But facing a direction to pray is meaningless on a spherical earth. Whichever direction you pray, you face the void of space - NOT Mecca

You're posting that here?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why has nobody tried actually proving Flat Earth?

« on: March 07, 2023, 04:06:22 AM »

Would you believe it if they did that successfully?

5

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 07, 2023, 03:11:02 AM »

0 apple for 0 person is a wrong concept. Zero (0) is not even a single thing. It just represents the start of something or represents nothing in math. it's just a word.

Do you think non-zero numbers exist tangibly?
We can give the label to concepts, but it's just that - applying a label to something else that exists. It's as meaningful to do that with zero as it is with one.

6

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 06, 2023, 03:08:34 AM »

I think what needs to be clarified is if you're talking about a point in reality, or a point in the conceptual mathematical sense?
The former, I'd agree, no point in reality is dimensionsless.
But in the latter case, in the realm of mathematical constructs, we can define whatever the heck we want. It may not inherently be intuitive, but there's nothing that'd stop us.

Isn’t a line the shortest distance b/t two points? If a point is dimensionless then how a line that is made of points has a dimension? Shouldn’t a line be dimensionless as well?   

Also to clarify this - a line contains an infinite number of dimensionless points. The length of the line is infinity times zero, which is not defined - it could literally be anything. If you want a non-rigorous illustration:
X/0 = infinity for all finite x
x = 0 times infinity for all finite x
ergo, you could get any answer. (Admittedly I am abusing terminology here, but I hope it helps explain the point)

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The shining sun on the world

« on: March 04, 2023, 12:51:58 PM »

Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

Where does it mention Muhammad? I can't find any mention of him in the bible. Not a one.

See, this is where we need a Mormon on the forum to point out that the Book of Mormon was capable of predicting Jesus by name. No other holy book's managed that.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

« on: March 04, 2023, 11:11:45 AM »

Lots of different complex subjects, all bundled together under the term “woke”.  It’s used to discredit arguments from people they label “woke”, with the clear message “these people are not like us”.

It’s called othering.

This.
It's such a meaningless term precisely because it gets used like this. 'Woke' is being for and against a dozen separate issues simultaneously depending on what you feel like condemning today. Any nuance, discussion, legitimate objection, all done away with just so long as you can namecall.
It's basically the same as how the US right-wing treats the word socialism. There are things that are legitimately socialist, and can be discussed, but when people use it as shorthand for 'things I don't like,' it's diluted to the point of meaninglessness because someone can describe something as socialist, and be describing anything from hardline communism to centre-right policy.

Ditto, being 'woke' covers everything from basic social awareness and don't-be-a-dickness, to every self-righteous dumb teenager with twitter looking for a fight.
Insisting that woke means one particular thing is never going to end well.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is behind Flat Earth?

« on: March 03, 2023, 04:44:28 PM »

I've already argued against "probably rocks".  I've also been clear that I wasn't referring to what is attached to the underside. 

You haven't argued against it. You asked questions seeking out details that could not be found even if the Earth was actually flat. Those aren't the same thing.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is behind Flat Earth?

« on: March 03, 2023, 02:09:48 PM »

Okay, fine.
The real answer is dwarves.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The shining sun on the world

« on: March 03, 2023, 10:18:10 AM »

Frank Allen, Professor of Biophysics at the University of Manitoba

To clarify, his field was nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution, is normally just credited as a professor of Physics, sans 'bio.' His work seems to mostly be in the behaviour of elements like helium at low temperatures, and is credited with advances in fields like superfluidity, and is not an expert in matters of biology.

A British scientist, J.D. Bernal,

The only guy I can find is an atheist who stands by a naturalistic model of abiogenesis, so far as I can tell. He was a catholic in his youth, and became an atheist as he grew up, so maybe you're quoting him before he deconverted?
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-642-11274-4_158

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 03, 2023, 06:04:23 AM »

Time zones was never my argument.

No. They were the response to your argument. They completely discredit the implications you try to make, and rather than address that you go off on tangents, and avoid every question. Seriously, why is every time I attempt to have a conversation with you, you make the tiniest of interactions as hard as humanly possible?

Has nothing to do with what I actually posted in context.

You’re the one that can’t figure out who posted what.

Again. I happily conceded I misunderstood your post. I'm only human. I asked you to clarify, but apparently that's beneath you. I keep asking you to clarify, and you would rather go off on these childish tirades than answer a damn question. Grow up.

In short:
Rowbotham knew that the Sun was always visible from somewhere on the Earth. Ancient people did not. Rowbotham needed to try to explain this when modelling the world. Ancient people did not.
The end. For some reason you have a problem with this, but it's bloody impossible to make you actually explain yourself, so I'm just going to assume this is done and dusted.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 03, 2023, 04:15:10 AM »

what part of Rowbotham‘s justification for flat earth

And just to clarify, again.
When you say 'justification for flat Earth,' do you mean 'Justification for why he thought the Earth was flat,' or 'justification for part of the model that he proposes?'
This was the ambiguity before, hence I need to ask. Please don't just ignore this again. Just need a sentence.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 03, 2023, 03:14:48 AM »

Then I posted that time zones not a big help if any to flat earth.


Then I made the statement.  “You were making excuses for Rowbotham.” And asked you what part of Rowbotham‘s justification for flat earth was based on time zones.  As in can you quote Rowbotham‘s work and where he based what of his conclusions concerning time zones.

You got caught trying to attribute something to me that wasn’t my argument in anyway. Other than other people bringing up time times, then I get around citing something that points out time zones not s big help to flat earth.


You have a serious problem being blatantly intellectually dishonest.  And you have a serious problem attributing arguments to the wrong person.

No, you have a problem with being able to make or address arguments.
Yeah, time zones are not a help to flat earth. That's not new information. Repeating things that we have all already agreed upon is not a substantive reply. This is not intellectual dishonesty, this is you yet again avoiding straightforward questions.
I misunderstood one of your posts - I admitted to this, your problem is that you would rather go on tirades and assume everyone is out to get you, than actually engage in discussion. So, if you are quite finished repeating things that we've already agreed to, would you mind getting to the topic which was why time zones were actually brought up?
Or, again to repeat a question, are you claiming Rowbotham was unaware of time zones? They seem to have been common knowledge, especially by Rowbotham's time where a decade before Zetetic Astronomy was first published (in the pamphlet form, well before the version you're quoting) when if you so much as took a train, they'd have a clock informing you of GMT. It is significantly more unreasonable to propose that he would not be aware that the Sun was always visible somewhere. So unless that is seriously your claim, in which case you could at least be up-front about it rather than this perpetual avoidance of clarifying the issue, we are left with:

Why would it be better for Rowbotham/FEers to struggle to address time zones, as opposed to struggle to address sunsets?
Especially when the latter objectively requires less to explain.

Avoiding questions to repeat things that I have already explicitly agreed to is just dumb, dude.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 02, 2023, 12:18:51 PM »

Dude. I literally quoted your post.

I did make a post on time zones.

Cool. You know what time zones are. We're agreed trying to make things like that work on a FE is nigh-on impossible.
That has absolutely no bloody relevance to anything. When you have to make the conscious effort to omit the questions I ask you from the quotes, I really wonder why the heck you're even here.

Okay, let's try to get back to basics. Which of the following statements do you object to?

A) Flat Earth with the Sun over the plane cannot explain why the sun sets in the way we observe/why the radiation from the Sun is completely blocked off
B) A Flat Earth where the Sun goes below the Earth's surface would fail to explain time zones right from the get-go
C) Flat Earth Theory has a myriad of problems and arguments that can be raised against it, though FEers claim to have responses even if we might object
D) Rowbotham knew that time zones existed
E) People wandering around thousands of years ago did not know time zones existed

The you make the excuse for Rowbotham that the sun is always visible somewhere on earth.  Can you quote Rowbotham that was even part of his specific argument because it was somehow impossible for spherical earth? 




The you make the excuse for Rowbotham that the sun is always visible somewhere on earth. 

In the context that is your argument.

Can you quote Rowbotham that was even part of his specific argument because it was somehow impossible for spherical earth? 

See the question mark.  As in “can you” quote Rowbotham any part of what you claim about the sun as part of that individual’s argument.

Seriously.  Stop doing hard drugs.

Dude. Repeating a question that I have already stated my interpretation of is something you have already had pointed out to you is completely pointless. You are making that sentence sound more and more like gibberish. I asked you to rephrase. That might actually be helpful. No one wants you to repeat yourself.
Eg, if I were to rephrase how I read that sentence, it comes off as "Where Rowbotham make the argument that the sun was always visible on Earth, and why did he somehow think it was impossible on a round Earth?"
I do not understand what you were trying to say here. I have fessed up to that. You do not need to be so mindlessly aggressive. You do not need to repeat the sentence that, again, I do not understand. You just need to clarify. Dude.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 02, 2023, 12:03:32 PM »

Dude. I literally quoted your post.

The actual post in its full context.

The fact that I think it is a bad point i

Exactly what is a “bad point”.

There is a long history concerning civilizations and thinkers could gauge for themselves the sun does relatively go below the earth from a specific and fixed viewing point?

Then Rowbotham casts that aside.  Something any person can just go see for themselves?

The you make the excuse for Rowbotham that the sun is always visible somewhere on earth.  Can you quote Rowbotham that was even part of his specific argument because it was somehow impossible for spherical earth? 

So.  You post lots of words that are meaningless in the context of the opening post for something you can’t quote Rowbotham specifically bases his beliefs off of? 

If you can quote Rowbotham otherwise.  Please let me know.

You seriously need to put down the bong…

Yes. I read the post. None of that has any effect on what I said. You come off as saying that you think Rowbotham was arguing that the Sun being visible everywhere was impossible on a spherical Earth. No one claimed that. If that was not what you meant, then taking the time to actually clarify would be helpful.

Again, clearly I did not understand that post you made. Rather than repeat it, could you please possibly rephrase or clarify?
And better yet, answer any other single solitary question I ever ask?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 02, 2023, 11:45:07 AM »

...Wait what. Do you think Rowbotham thought the Earth was flat because of time zones?

Quote or cite where I posted such a thing.

Seriously dude.  Lay off the acid….

Dude. I literally quoted your post. Consider that with how consistently I have to ask you what the heck you mean, that your posts are not as clear as you want them to be.

Can you quote Rowbotham that was even part of his specific argument because it was somehow impossible for spherical earth? 

The implication here very much seems to be that Rowbotham somehow wanted to or needed to claim that a spherical Earth could not explain the observation in question - time zones. Hence, me being confused as heck because, again, you have made posts before that indicate that you think this discussion was used as evidence that took people to FET, and not models that were developed after people became convinced of FET.
If it is a mistype, or I'm misunderstanding, fair enough, but 'imposssible for spherical earth' seems to imply you expect Rowbotham to be making an argument against RET here. Hence, my confusion.

But sure, zero in on this, ignore every other bloody question you are ever asked. I really do try to have conversations with you, every time, and it always just devolves into this. Am assuming, anyway, that you agree that Rowbotham had access to more information than people thousands of years ago seeing as you never object to that statement, so unless you're going to clarify, I'll consider that part of this discussion done.

Now to repeat myself, yet again, because I have been trying to understand your point for so damn long by now.

Why would it be better for Rowbotham/FEers to struggle to address time zones, as opposed to struggle to address sunsets?
Especially when the latter objectively requires less to explain.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 02, 2023, 07:40:04 AM »

Can you quote Rowbotham that was even part of his specific argument because it was somehow impossible for spherical earth? 

...Wait what. Do you think Rowbotham thought the Earth was flat because of time zones? What? He wouldn't even conceptually need to show impossibility.
Whether or not you think they work, FEers do provide other arguments - the one associated with Rowbotham is the Bedford Level experiment. All of your sun stuff came about afterwards, in an effort to explain observations because he already concluded that the Earth was flat. You are getting the order of events completely wrong here.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 02, 2023, 07:35:36 AM »

Then Rowbotham casts that aside.  Something any person can just go see for themselves?

The you make the excuse for Rowbotham that the sun is always visible somewhere on earth.  Can you quote Rowbotham that was even part of his specific argument because it was somehow impossible for spherical earth? 

So.  You post lots of words that are meaningless in the context of the opening post for something you can’t quote Rowbotham specifically bases his beliefs off of? 

If you can quote Rowbotham otherwise.  Please let me know.

He 'cast it aside' because he had more information than people thousands of years ago did.
Are you claiming Rowbotham was unaware of time zones??

Again. You are not addressing my point.

there is a problem either way they do this... Either way, FEers will:
-Fail to explain why the Sun is always visible from some point on the Earth's surface
Or:
-Fail to explain why the Sun is out of sight

These are both problems. Why should they prefer one problem to the other? Tradition? Please actually respond this time.

Why would it be better for Rowbotham/FEers to struggle to address time zones, as opposed to struggle to address sunsets?
Especially when the latter objectively requires less to explain.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 02, 2023, 06:19:38 AM »

I can’t help if you think there is any credibility and actual mechanics behind the FE’s junk science of their explanation(s) why the sun sets.   Especially when they present a model where the sun supposedly stays a certain height above the earth in a flat plane that would make sunsets and sunrises impossible to what actually is witnessed and occurs.

There isn't. There also wouldn't be any credibility behind an attempt to have the Sun below the Earth and simultaneously visible over the Earth.
Like, if I'm not addressing your argument, that's fine, I'd love to face up to that, but you have yet to even acknowledge the fact that there is more than one observation FEers have to explain. Everything you do is contingent on repeating this one thing again and again, which I have already conceded, and acting as though that is enough and that FEers don't have a whole world of observations to explain.
I know what you are saying. The fact that I think it is a bad point is because I understand what you are saying. Your refusal to ever respond sure isn't helping matters.

Please, answer my question.
Do you believe it is possible for the Sun to travel below a flat Earth, and also be visible at a point on its surface?

Or better yet: there is a problem either way they do this. Again, you have never even acknowledged this point. Rather than accuse me of not paying attention to your argument, how about actually replying to my posts? Either way, FEers will:
-Fail to explain why the Sun is always visible from some point on the Earth's surface
Or:
-Fail to explain why the Sun is out of sight

These are both problems. Why should they prefer one problem to the other? Tradition? Please actually respond this time. Getting really bored of you constantly repeating the same stuff I have already conceded.

Like, is your argument just a stock "FEers can't explain sunsets?" Because as ever you bloody refused to clarify when given chance after chance. Because, like, that is all any of this points to and, again, yet another reminder, we are agreed. The problem is that this does not lead to where you are claiming, hence me pointing out that FEers need to explain other stuff as well - other stuff that is just as impossible.

What model before Samuel Rowbotham widely accepted by major civilizations and thinkers totally ignored the sun does lower and rise relative to one’s viewing point, and the sun radiance does not become physically blocked by the earth.

That's more an issue with historical record than anything. We don't have any detailed accounts that I'm aware of from FEers after the ease of global travel, and before Rowbotham.

21

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Question About The Universal Law of Gravitation?

« on: March 01, 2023, 06:03:26 AM »

Quote from: E E K on February 28, 2023, 03:42:35 AM
Quote
no net gravitational acceleration anywhere within the hollow sphere
Does this mean the universal gravitational constant “G” also = 0 inside the hollow sphere (if g=GM/d^2=0)? It means there is no universe or part of the universe within a hollow sphere

No. G is the same everywhere, it is a fundamental constant. It just means that the gravitational forces from all particles of the sphere on a particle within the sphere cancel out and there is no net force.

Let A represents the planet earth while B represents the imaginary earth. Now

Put A on B or vice versa.

F1 = weight of A on B
F2 = weight of B on A

F1 = F2

Both are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction therefore F1 and F2 will each other  - Right?

BTW gravitational forces are attractive, not repulsive! Nuff said by the scientists of established science

You can have two identical forces in opposite directions, like F1 and F2, but motion will only cancel out if those forces interact. That is, if A and B are in contact - if they aren't, F1 is not opposed by F2, F2 is not opposed by F1.
If A and B are in contact, that's when you run into questions of structural integrity. It's worth mentioning that a lot of physics functions by simplification: modelling objects subject to forces as particles, with no worry about them deforming or breaking. In reality, that isn't always the case.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 01, 2023, 04:06:00 AM »

Since you don’t understand the actual opening post and are hung up on being literal over a title that was trying to be short and informative.

Changed the title of this thread to the spirit of the actual openings post.  The title is now needlessly longer.

Bet you still find something to bitch about.

I understand your opening post. Instead of assuming that what I'm saying is irrelevant, try to actually engage with it. You do not need to make conversation this bloody difficult.

Again.  That is only half the argument.

The mechanics, optics, and line of sight of a sun that stays a specific
height in a flat plane orbit above a supposedly flat earth is very different than a rotating earth orbiting the sun causing the sun to change relatively in height to a person viewing the sun where the line of sight becomes physically blocked by the earth.

I can post Polaris the North Star is always above the earth.  But the earth being spherical is why the North Star becomes physically blocked from view when sufficiently far enough south of the equator.  Where on a supposedly flat earth the North Star would be visible from all the known world.  Especially in the sense as you head south to approach the equator the star doesn’t change in magnitude of brightness.  Killing the flat earth notion of perspective.

You don't get to accuse me of only addressing half the argument when you have not even acknowledged what I'm saying. I have agreed with you on all of that, several times over. You have not acknowledged that. You have just kept repeating all of that as though it is new information. It is not. I am incoporating it in what I am saying.
The reason I am harping on about the Sun always being visible from somewhere on the Earth, is that these days that is as evident as the Sun setting. Both of these observations need to be explained. Both. Not just one. This includes the issues you are raising, as I keep saying, but it also includes this. You do not just get to ignore one.

So if you want to know why FEers think the Sun is always above while they did not thousands of years ago, this is the answer. New information.
And if you're asking why they would choose a model which struggles more to explain sunset, as opposed to a model that struggles to explain the fact it's always day somewhere - which, again, both of these are problems, both need to be dealt with - the answer is simply that either way you need to justify light curving, and it'd have to curve a heck of a lot less to simulate a sunset than it would to go all the way around the damn world and still be visible somewhere.
Or if this has just turned into a generic "FEers cannot explain sunsets," post, great, but that has bugger all to do with Hebrew astronomy.

So, nice and simply. Stop mindlessly repeating the same damn post again and again without ever actually responding. What is your precise problem with this?

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: March 01, 2023, 02:47:40 AM »

Would you rather they not even try?

Using a model that actually fits/works with what is evident.

Is it evident that the Sun is always visible from somewhere on the Earth's surface?

And is it evident the sun radiation is physically blocked from the viewer and the ionosphere in the dead of night.

And is it evident the sun does lower and rise relative to a persons view point at sunset and sunrise.  Effects not explained by perspective where a sun in a flat plane above a flat earth would always be in the line of sight.

Agreed.
Do you agree that the Sun always being visible from somewhere on the Earth's surface precludes it ever going below a flat Earth?

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: February 28, 2023, 06:23:48 AM »

Would you rather they not even try?

Using a model that actually fits/works with what is evident.

Is it evident that the Sun is always visible from somewhere on the Earth's surface?

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: February 28, 2023, 03:33:52 AM »

It’s not really explaining anything when FE would have to work on an entirely different form of solar system mechanics than what is the current form of solar system mechanics.

Yeah, the explanation's not hugely functional. What's your point? Would you rather they not even try? Because I feel like if FEers insisted there were times the Sun was not visible from anywhere on Earth, you would object just as much - if not more so - to that proposition.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: February 28, 2023, 02:27:15 AM »

In short.  You say the sun is always an above the earth someplace.  You’re ignoring the sun being blocked on the spherical earth during the night causes very real effects which wouldn’t be present in the flat earth model where the sun never rises or lowers relative to an observer.

I'm not ignoring it. Both would need to be explained. You're the one insisting that they should only care about one observation.

27

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Question About The Universal Law of Gravitation?

« on: February 27, 2023, 01:53:15 PM »

If we take a 2-D cross section of the rings, for a simplified examplination, it'd look something like:

|  |         |  |

The outer ring, then the inner. I'll refer to these as red, blue, green and yellow.

Red is drawn right by blue, green and yellow.
Yellow is drawn left by blue, green, and red. They are travelling in opposite directions. So long as the outer ring maintains structural integrity, the forces cancel out. (Slight simplification for the purposes of modelling, but yes).
That's the way I see it anyway. Ditto, the inner ring - blue is drawn left by red, and right by green and yellow. Green is drawn left by blue and red, and right by yellow.
If blue and green are fixed so that one cannot move without the other, it'd be balanced.

If the rings are identical, each force ought be identical. Ergo, cancels out so long as the ring is a solid object. (There are differences brought in by distance etc obviously, but they cancel too assuming the rings are uniform, which was in the question)

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: February 27, 2023, 11:35:13 AM »

And on a flat Earth where the Sun goes beneath the Earth, there would be times where the Sun is not visible from anywhere on the Earth's surface.
There are two observations that need to be explained here, not just one. Are you denying the existence of time zones, or do you acknowledge that a FE model would need to explain them as well?

Which has what to do with the cause and effect of the detectability of the sun and all forms of energy it radiates and the effects it would have on background stars between flat earth perspective and spherical earth shielding the sun.

You wanted to know where the idea that the Sun is always above the Earth came from.
This is where.
Those observations have to be explained as well, of course, but again - which do you think is easier? Having the Sun below the Earth but needing to explain some effect on light that arcs it all the way around the Earth to appear in the sky, or having the Sun above the Earth and needing to explain some effect of light that simply curves it a comparatively slight amount so that it can vanish from view?

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: February 27, 2023, 10:44:39 AM »

'The Sun is always visible somewhere, and here is a testable claim about light' is not ad hoc, that's a perfectly legitimate modification/refinement.

On a flat earth where the sun stays in a flat plane above the earth on the world of our dimensions.


The sun would always be in the line of sight.

And on a flat Earth where the Sun goes beneath the Earth, there would be times where the Sun is not visible from anywhere on the Earth's surface.
There are two observations that need to be explained here, not just one. Are you denying the existence of time zones, or do you acknowledge that a FE model would need to explain them as well?

2) It slips into the waters that the disk is floating on (seemingly a common theme back then) and pops up on the other side at sunrise

That's actually an interesting one - my understanding is that a lot of ancient cultures wouldn't have accepted a flat earth as we think of it. Generally, they'd have no idea that there was an Earth. They were on a landmass, and as far as the eye could see, all around them was water and sometimes people would go out sailing and not return and there'd be no way to ever find out what the heck had happened to those people. Hence water as that common motif of chaos, or something primordial. Rather than any thought as to the shape of the world, it was "We see that we are on land. We see that all around us is water. Water must be all there is."
The cosmology was more a lone island on an endless ocean. Then, as more people travelled and started to sail, the idea started to change.
(At least in some corners of the world. Greece, I think, had it figured out by 500BC, although that was more dumb luck - Pythagoras and his number-worshipping gang posited that the Earth was a sphere and I think that was as much out of seeing the sphere as a somehow spiritually significant shape, but the idea turned out to be pretty handy for explaining some things, enter Eratosphenes, and there you go)

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where did the idea come from the sun is always above the earth?

« on: February 27, 2023, 09:54:03 AM »

Like you only have half an argument.  By completely ignoring the sun does physical rise and lower from a stationary viewing point.

Is your concern that only one observation is explained? Or that just one observation can be explained?
Because that doesn't have any clear relationship to the situations you're describing. Either way you end up with 'FE model explains sunsets but not it always being day somewhere,' 'FE model explains daylight somewhere but not sunsets.' Why would an inability to explain the fact that it's always day somewhere be preferred?
It is significantly easier to at least try to justify the illusion of a sunset over a flat disc than it is to deny the existence of time zones. If you're asking where the idea came from, that's where, I do not understand what your problem with this is. If you're asking how it works, that's just a whole separate rabbithole that doesn't seem to connect to the points you've raised.

Is your contention that FEers don't try to explain sunsets, and it's an either/or situation? It is not clear what you're trying to say.

Can you show where another person published or where it was document the sun supposedly stayed in a flat plane above the earth before Rowbotham.

I believe he is the first person to publish the sun stays constantly a certain height in a fixed plane above the earth. His “proof” the earth is flat is based in a myth wrapped up in junk science.  He uses no data concerning the actual position of the sun, his assurance is because the earth is flat, and uses perspective that would not block the sun in anyway to hide the sun from view or instruments.  And the sun should block stars from view as it crossed in front of them when viewed from a flat earth night.  It’s ad hoc.


It’s quite simple.  Who took seriously the sun stayed in a fixed plane above the earth before Rowbotham.  And his explanation of perspective.

That isn't what ad hoc means.
Ad hoc would be 'The Sun goes below the disc, but is replaced with SunTwo which is identical in all respects and provides daylight elsewhere, and both are never visible at the same time.'
'The Sun is always visible somewhere, and here is a testable claim about light' is not ad hoc, that's a perfectly legitimate modification/refinement. My issue, and I hope yours, is with the conclusion, not the method.

The first person to say the Sun is always above a flat earth is the first flat earther to know that the Sun is always visible somewhere. Rowbotham is the best-known oldest FEer hence him getting mentioned. It is not 'junk science' to acknowledge that the Sun is always visible somewhere. I do not understand why you are ignoring this point. Would you prefer FEers deny that fact?
Yes, Rowbotham was coming at this from the perspective of the Earth already being flat, but you're confusing cause and effect. He did not conclude that the Earth was flat because the Sun was aways above it, he reached his conclusion because of his interpretation of some experiments and thought experiments (the Bedford Level Experiment is the most famous) and attempted to explain observations in light of that. Thus, he uses the fact that the Sun is always visible somewhere in the world.