« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

I'm back and almost converted to FE

  • 14 Replies
  • 2862 Views
?

Cunnah

  • 28
  • +0/-0
I'm back and almost converted to FE
« on: February 27, 2007, 10:19:56 AM »
I can take almost every arguement on this forum and not disprove them as I myself can not argue against them. I haven't been to Australia, I haven't seen the Southern Crux, I haven't been to space and I haven't seen a round earth. HOWEVER I am curious as to what causes the phenomenom of summer and winter. The sun appears higher in the sky in summer than it does in winter. I understand this can be caused by a woble in the earth or perhaps the sun oscilates so it is higher or lower but how can that co-inside with the temperature going up and down as the sun would be further away during the summer? It is obvious that the sun is the main source of heat so how does it become warmer in the summer and not the winter when the sun is at it's closest?   
Logged
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2007, 02:43:07 PM »
Just to make this clear:  In RE, the distance from the Earth to the sun has no significant effect on the seasons.  Infact, Earth actually makes it's closest approach to the sun in the middle of winter, and it's farthest approach in summer.

And remember, the seasons are exactly opposite in the southern hemisphere, so the sun's distance can't be the dominating factor in FE as well.
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student
*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • +1/-0
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2007, 03:38:27 PM »
The FE explanation is that the radius of the suns circle changes throughout the year, and it circles closer to the north pole when it is summer in the northern disc, and circles closer to the ice wall when it is summer in the southern annulus.
Logged
-David
E pur si muove!
?

Cunnah

  • 28
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2007, 03:38:54 PM »
actually I always thought that the seasons are due to the tilt of the planet as it wobbles on its axis so that the northern hemisphere tilts towards the sun and visa versa

http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/seasons/seasons.html

« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 03:43:03 PM by Cunnah »
Logged
?

Cunnah

  • 28
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2007, 03:40:14 PM »
hmm good explanaision I guess, no way you could prove one way or another from the perspective of looking out of your back yard.
Logged
*

avaholik

  • 115
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2007, 03:45:44 PM »
Quote from: Cunnah on February 27, 2007, 03:38:54 PM
actually I always thought that the seasons are due to the tilt of the planet as it wobbles on its axis so that the northern hemisphere tilts towards the sun and visa versa

http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/seasons/seasons.html



I am almost certain you are right.

Logged
?

MooBs

  • 574
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2007, 03:46:56 PM »
Quote from: avaholik on February 27, 2007, 03:45:44 PM
Quote from: Cunnah on February 27, 2007, 03:38:54 PM
actually I always thought that the seasons are due to the tilt of the planet as it wobbles on its axis so that the northern hemisphere tilts towards the sun and visa versa

http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/seasons/seasons.html



I am almost certain you are right.





Hes not cus the Earth is flat!! :I
Logged
Quote
In FE Literature there are three celestial bodies that inhabit the sky. The Sun. The Moon. And the Shadow Object.
Quote
You have performed an illegal operation. Tom Bishop will now shut down, you will lose all unsaved arguments.
*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2007, 04:05:34 PM »
Quote from: Cunnah on February 27, 2007, 03:38:54 PM
actually I always thought that the seasons are due to the tilt of the planet as it wobbles on its axis so that the northern hemisphere tilts towards the sun and visa versa

http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/seasons/seasons.html



As that site says, it has nothing to do with the distance of Earth or any parts of Earth from the Sun. The seasons are caused by the change in angle of the atmosphere relative to the Sun's rays. When the Northern hemisphere is in winter, it is tilted away from the sun, and the angle causes solar radiation to slice through more atmosphere before reaching the ground. Thus, less of the radiation reaches the ground, and the Northern hemisphere gets colder. The same thing happens when the Southern hemisphere is in winter. Maybe you should have read that site before linking to it, as it gives the same answer I am giving.
Logged
the cake is a lie
?

Cunnah

  • 28
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2007, 04:15:32 PM »
yes I realised my mistake, my point being was that in a flat earth model it would make a difference its got a greater amount of air to go through as a percentage than if the sun was as far away as it is in the RE model. But if the sun moves then it would produce a similar effect.
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6863
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2007, 04:19:04 PM »
The FE model of the seasons is actually pretty good. The sun's radius of circuit grows and shrinks so in our summer it makes a smaller circle around the northern hemisphere and in our winter it makes a bigger circle and hence covers more of the southern hemisphere.

Shame, then, about all the other indiscrepencies such as the Sun not getting smaller as it "sets" and bigger as it "rises". Not to mention the fact it always appears round no matter what time of day it is even though it's a disk..

Also there is no explanation as to how it magically changes the radius of it's circut.

You see, there is nothing that disproves a round Earth. There is nothing strange that occurs that makes you question it. You will never in your life hear someone say "Well why does X happen if the Earth is supposed to be round?" or "Why can't Y happen if the Earth is round?". When you examine FE theory, however, it's a different story altogether as we all know.
Logged
?

Cunnah

  • 28
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2007, 04:31:21 PM »
the problem is that you argue a point, but truth be told we do rely on other information to make our assumptions on. don't get me wrong I believe the earth is round I'm mearly realising that you can't argue with them unless you stuff em in a space ship and blast them off into space to see for themselves, there argument is that a round earth argument is based on assumptions that our information is correct. The overwhelming mass of data that supports a round earth is by the by for most people on this forum its all second hand information. Your point about the shape of the sun is a good one however as they use perspective to explain disapearing ships (take that anyway you like) but ignore it for the sun.
Logged
?

Tom Bishop

Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2007, 04:31:49 PM »
Quote
Shame, then, about all the other indiscrepencies such as the Sun not getting smaller as it "sets" and bigger as it "rises".

The Sun and Moon actually appears bigger while they are near the horizon. It is a well known optical effect. See: http://facstaff.uww.edu/mccreadd/

In specific, the apparent rising and setting of the sun on the Fat Earth is explained in Chapter 9 of "Earth Not a Globe."  See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm

Quote
Not to mention the fact it always appears round no matter what time of day it is even though it's a disk..

The sun is a sphere in the Flat Earth model.

Quote
You see, there is nothing that disproves a round Earth.

Actually, there is.

Quote
There is nothing strange that occurs that makes you question it.

Please explain the mechanism for gravity on a Round Earth.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 04:34:41 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

RUnubi?

  • 15
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2007, 04:35:08 PM »
and what oh great one disproves that the earth is round? just one guy from 1886 or wtv i think million of people that can see earth is round > 1 nutjob
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6863
  • +0/-0
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2007, 04:46:47 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 27, 2007, 04:31:49 PM
Quote
Shame, then, about all the other indiscrepencies such as the Sun not getting smaller as it "sets" and bigger as it "rises".

The Sun and Moon actually appears bigger while they are near the horizon. It is a well known optical effect. See: http://facstaff.uww.edu/mccreadd/

Way to shoot yourself in the foot!

In specific, the apparent rising and setting of the sun on the flat earth is explained in Chapter 9 of "Earth Not a Globe."  See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm

No it is not explained in that crappy sacred text. How many times do I have to tell you this. If you understood yourself how it worked why do you never dare try to explain in your own words but rather just point people to this garbage? Of course the ground and sky will converge in your line of sight. It doesn't mean that something passing over head will disappear and yet magically stay the same size. How about a bit of open-mindedness for a change?



Quote
Not to mention the fact it always appears round no matter what time of day it is even though it's a disk..

The sun is a sphere in the Flat Earth model.

Please update FAQ.

Quote
You see, there is nothing that disproves a round Earth.

Actually, there is.

Actually, there isn't

Quote
There is nothing strange that occurs that makes you question it.

Please explain the mechanism for gravity on a Round Earth.

It is unknown of course. We can however observe the attraction of all mass to all other mass and create predictive equations for that attraction. This is where you tell me that we can observe the effects of UA. All well and good but seeing as the Earth has no gravity, please explain to me why pieces of it attract to eachother this proving that it should have a centre of gravity.

Now you can do something else for me..

Please explain the mechanism for Universal accelerator. Oh yeah I already know that you can't. Sorry.

Please expalin the relevance of any question about the mechanism of gravity OR ua to the topic at hand. Please stop using fallacious red herring arguments and answer the questions that are put to you in a proper way.
Logged
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: I'm back and almost converted to FE
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2007, 04:49:07 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 27, 2007, 04:31:49 PM


Please explain the mechanism for gravity on a Round Earth.
Mass.  That was easy. 

Quote
In specific, the apparent rising and setting of the sun on the Fat Earth is explained in Chapter 9 of "Earth Not a Globe."  See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm
  Pelase paraphrase it for us.  You believe it so you must understand it.  I read it but cant understand it.  All I gather is the sun is always above us so some giant monster eats the light to make night.  But good thing for use he sleeps during the day. 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 04:53:42 PM by sokarul »
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »