Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe

As light travels through the Atmosphere it gets scattered by the particles in the atmosphere, in effect weakening it. At the equator, the sunlight has the least distance to go to the earth through the atmosphere, making it hotter at the equator. At the poles, the light has to travel through more of the atmosphere, which weakens it, making the suns light colder.

There's no logical connection between the above paragraph, and the following sentence:

Thus the equator is hotter because it is closer to the sun.

What you said in the above paragraph is that there's less atmosphere between the Earth's surface and the sun.  That has nothing to do with the fact that the surface is closer to the sun.

One of the hottest and driest places on Earth is Death Valley, which is also one of the lowest elevations on Earth, and hence, *farther* from the sun.

To clarify why deserts are where they are, lets use a case study, Africa.  ... Thus the greatest deserts in Africa lie to the north and south of the equator.

I said that deserts exist where they do because they are closer to the sun.

Yeah, and this is the point -- the closer-to-the-sun claim -- that I've taken issue with.  You haven't established any connection with the closer-to-the-sun premise, merely a closer-to-the-equator / weather-pattern premise.

Don't forget that during some of the year, the Sahara Desert (which lies on the Tropic of Cancer) is closer to the sun than the equator.

And have you ever actually climbed any of the world's big mountain's? it gets pretty hot up there. And barren. One could be forgiven for thinking that it is a desert.

Honestly I'm pretty shocked about this "mountaintops get pretty hot" claim.  When they're bursting forth with lava, maybe.

I haven't climbed any of the world's big mountains, but the area around me is heavily mountained, and they all seem to be covered with snow for much of the year, even when it's not snowing where I live.  I've also seen a few pictures of "the world's big mountains", and they seem to look pretty cold.  And barren, yes -- turns out that's because (a) it's friggin cold and (b) there's not much in the way of fertile soil and (c) there's too much erosion from the high winds.

That being said I have climed a few of the worlds not-so-big mountains, usually in the summertime, and it gets damn cold.  I have pictures of myself in shorts and t-shirt trudging through snow at a relative elevation of about 800 meters.

Turns out that being closer to the sun while you're on the Earth's surface doesn't really help you get warmer.  Mostly this is because the thing that keeps us warm is the atmosphere, which acts as a blanket that thins out as you get higher up.

On a flat Earth, this difference does not exist, as all points are much closer to the sun

Actually, it does, and to a much greater degree.  Like, on Earth, some places are maybe 1.00000005 times closer to the sun than others.  On the flat Earth, with the sun 3000 miles away, Consider a point directly underneath the sun (3000 mi) and a point, say, 4000 mi away, or 5000 mi from the sun.  The difference here is a factor of 1.4.  Wouldn't you say that's a little more significant than 1.00000005?

secondly Antarctica is considered by most to be the worlds biggest desert, as a desert is defined as an area that gets less than 10mm or rain per year.

Yeah, so, here's the counterexample to your own argument (so much for case studies), and it's in fact why I brought it up in the first place.  Antarctica, surely, is farther from the sun than either the Saharah or the Kalahari, and is farther from the equator than them, as well as being farther from the equator than where I live, which as it turns out is a rain forest.

I think you should examine your argument, which was a misdirected attempt to establish closeness to the sun with hotness, dryness, and desertness.

-Erasmus

There's no logical connection between the above paragraph, and the following sentence:

Ok, see if you can follow this. If the Earth is a sphere, and Right now i'm assuming it is for these purposes (And we seem to have driven off every Flat Earther On the forum, So I'd say this point is Academic), And it is orbiting the sun, then one Area of the Earth will be closer to the sun. The only way this will not be true is if the Earth is a concave shape.

Because sunlight will weaken as it travels through more of the atmosphere, then the light traveling a direct path through said atmosphere at the equator will not have spent as much time travelling through the Atmosphere, as the distance between the edge of space and the Earths surface will be smaller.

At the poles, The distance from where the suns light hits the Atmosphere to where it hits the surface of the Earth will be greater than at the Equator. This means that the light will pass through more of the Earth's Atmosphere, making it weaker.

Thus because the part of the Earth known as the Equator is at the Equator, and is thus closer to the sun, it is hotter. As the Sun is the only non negligeble Heat Source in the solar system available to Earth, then the statement "the Equator is hotter because it is closer to the sun" is Logically connected to the argument.

Honestly I'm pretty shocked about this "mountaintops get pretty hot" claim. When they're bursting forth with lava, maybe.

I was thinking of Nepal... not alot of snow up there. Also I think we could locate some mountains that didn't have snow on them year round... But I think you are making a big issue of a small arguement

Actually, it does, and to a much greater degree. Like, on Earth, some places are maybe 1.00000005 times closer to the sun than others. On the flat Earth, with the sun 3000 miles away, Consider a point directly underneath the sun (3000 mi) and a point, say, 4000 mi away, or 5000 mi from the sun. The difference here is a factor of 1.4. Wouldn't you say that's a little more significant than 1.00000005?

I think most people have accepted that the flat Earth is dead. Under the current theory, the flat Earth's Sun will not have the mass to begin stellar fusion. However what I was taking issue here with was not the distances from the sun, but is current orbit. (now you look at the current model since I'm not going to spend a page describing its motion) The Suns current orbit will continually alter The distance between any given point on the Earths surface and the sun. Assuming the Suns heat to be constant, and its orbit regular, then the weather patterns causing the deserts would not exist, as the air the is being cooled as it moves to the north and south would instead be heated continuously as the sun followed its orbit. This process would result in a complete abscence of deserts as they would no longer lose all there moisture to winds moving back towards the Equator.

Yeah, so, here's the counterexample to your own argument (so much for case studies), and it's in fact why I brought it up in the first place. Antarctica, surely, is farther from the sun than either the Saharah or the Kalahari, and is farther from the equator than them, as well as being farther from the equator than where I live, which as it turns out is a rain forest.

Antarctica is a COLD desert, as indeed it gets no rain. Thus by the DEFINITION of a desert it is one. How ever, it is desert for a different reason; it is not warm enough for rain to occur. It is NOT a desert for the same reasons as the Sahara, Thus it is NOT a counter example.

I think you should examine your argument, which was a misdirected attempt to establish closeness to the sun with hotness, dryness, and desertness.

Where have I used the word dryness in my Arguement? Or Desertness? and Is desertness even a word? And if you read my arguement, you would see that I have established that the distance between Earth and the Sun is related to the 'hotness' of an area. I have established that certain deserts exist where they do because Of their proximity to the sun, and as an indirect result of Earths stable orbit around the sun. On the flat Earth this does not exist, BECAUSE of the suns instable orbit.

Because sunlight will weaken as it travels through more of the atmosphere, then the light traveling a direct path through said atmosphere at the equator will not have spent as much time travelling through the Atmosphere, as the distance between the edge of space and the Earths surface will be smaller.

Yes yes, the atmosphere attenuates sunlight.  However, even if there were no atmosphere, the area where the sun is highest in the sky would still be warmer than areas where the sun is lower in the sky.  This is because the dominating control factor in surface heating is not atmospheric absorption of light, but foreshortening of the sun's rays, which explains why noon is hotter than dawn or dusk and why the summer is warmer than the winter.

In any case, what you always argue about is really distance to the edge of the atmosphere, not distance to the sun.  So if you take the tallest mountain on the Earth, when the sun is almost directly overhead (note that Mt. Everest, at 27 degrees N, is not quite tropical), why isn't it hotter than any other place on Earth?  It's both closer to the sun, and closer to the edge of the atmosphere, than any point near its base, right?

Thus because the part of the Earth known as the Equator is at the Equator, and is thus closer to the sun,

All year round?

As the Sun is the only non negligeble Heat Source in the solar system available to Earth,

Well, technically, the Earth itself generates heat, but barring that, yes, the sun is the only heat source.  However, solar radiation is not the only way the Earth's surface is heated.  Remember those winds you talked about?  Well, if warm wind blows someplace cold, the cold place warms up.  If warm water flows someplace cold, the cold place warms up.  The waters in the Pacific Northwest, e.g., are often warmer than those off the coast of California, because of warm ocean currents.  In fact, climate is very strongly tied to ocean currents; they often decide whether a certain region is a desert or a rain forest.

I was thinking of Nepal... not alot of snow up there.

Are we thinking of the same Nepal?  The one with Mt. Everest on its Tibetan border?  Maybe you should have a look at pictures of it.

Also I think we could locate some mountains that didn't have snow on them year round...

Certainly... they're typically the ones that are much farther from the sun, and, coincidentally, warmer.

But I think you are making a big issue of a small arguement

I noticed that you think that.  Pretend, for a second, that it's a big argument, and give it some more thought.

Quote from: Erasmus

Actually, it does, and to a much greater degree. Like, on Earth, some places are maybe 1.00000005 times closer to the sun than others. On the flat Earth, with the sun 3000 miles away, Consider a point directly underneath the sun (3000 mi) and a point, say, 4000 mi away, or 5000 mi from the sun. The difference here is a factor of 1.4. Wouldn't you say that's a little more significant than 1.00000005?

Quote

I think most people have accepted that the flat Earth is dead.

And yet we're still here!

Note that that paragraph of mine was in response to

Quote

On a flat Earth, this difference does not exist, as all points are much closer to the sun

Quote

Under the current theory, the flat Earth's Sun will not have the mass to begin stellar fusion.

It has other ways of producing heat.  Since it's so much closer in FE theory, it doesn't need to produce as much heat.

Quote

The Suns current orbit will continually alter The distance between any given point on the Earths surface and the sun. Assuming the Suns heat to be constant, and its orbit regular, then the weather patterns causing the deserts would not exist, as the air the is being cooled as it moves to the north and south would instead be heated continuously as the sun followed its orbit.

How is this different on a round Earth?  Throughout the day, the distance between a sun and a point on the Earth varies by an extra terms approximately equal to the diameter of the Earth...

Also, how does the sun's orbit continuously alter?  You mean, it's different at different points throughout the year?  You do realize, of course, that this happens in the round Earth model as well... whole season thing.

Anyway, I'm still not compelled to believe that
a) points closer to the sun on the Earth's surface are hotter, or that
b) the flat Earth doesn't satisfy heat-related constraints on possible world models just as well as the round Earth does.

-Erasmus

Is this an acceptable picture of the Flat Earth model of the universe?

ok... Before you start making astronmy drawings, learn the basics of astronamy.
A planet is not a Universe idiot... Planet/Solar System/Galaxy/*THEN* Universe.

As light travels through the Atmosphere it gets scattered by the particles in the atmosphere, in effect weakening it. At the equator, the sunlight has the least distance to go to the earth through the atmosphere, making it hotter at the equator. At the poles, the light has to travel through more of the atmosphere, which weakens it, making the suns light colder.

I don't really care what you say... If you say how close the sun is, you wouldn't even be talking about this. For the great fact is, Earth would have been destroyed long ago, it would of been pulled into the sun.
Hell... There wouldn't even be a formation of Earth if what you say is true.

Can you also tell me how something so small as Earth gets the largest substance in our solar system to orbit (above us if I get this lil theory of yours) Earth?! And why do we get day, night and seasons if the Sun is so close.

THE sun doesn't orbit US, WE orbit the sun.

Again if you say the moon is as close as you people say it is... Where's our mega stupidly large tides? And when the sun and moon pass each other. Why doesn't the moon get completely DESTROYED?

I mean... sure the Flat Earth might be right (although you people are having a weird way proving it). But the astronamy, it doesn't make ANY sense at all. Don't muck with something that already works and change it to something that completely backfires on it's self.

Quote from: "flyingspaghettimonster"

But it's too bad that the thickness of the disc precludes the Earth from having a magnetic field in the first place.

Why would the thickness of the crust of earth have anything to do with magnetic field?  It's the what's underneath that creates the field anyway.

Wrong... you need the crust to generate the friction... Remember when you were a kid and you rub a baloon on your head and the friction generates a static shock. Same principle with the Earth. Except the moving magma does the rubing. The more thickness you have. The more static you have.
Before you say why doesn't the crust always move then?
IT DOES. Earthquakes? Volcanoes? It's not just the pressure that lets out the magma. If the crust didn't move, we would not have Earthquakes.

A planet is not a Universe idiot... Planet/Solar System/Galaxy/*THEN* Universe.

I think he knows that.

I don't really care what you say... If you say how close the sun is, you wouldn't even be talking about this. For the great fact is, Earth would have been destroyed long ago, it would of been pulled into the sun.
Hell... There wouldn't even be a formation of Earth if what you say is true.

Can you also tell me how something so small as Earth gets the largest substance in our solar system to orbit (above us if I get this lil theory of yours) Earth?! And why do we get day, night and seasons if the Sun is so close.

THE sun doesn't orbit US, WE orbit the sun.

Again if you say the moon is as close as you people say it is... Where's our mega stupidly large tides? And when the sun and moon pass each other. Why doesn't the moon get completely DESTROYED?

I can answer all of these questions at once. In the flat earth model, not only is the sun closer, it's smaller as well. Read the FAQ.

lol A smaller sun *laughs*

I also like the way how you dodged this one.

flyingleaf wrote:


flyingspaghettimonster wrote:
But it's too bad that the thickness of the disc precludes the Earth from having a magnetic field in the first place.

Why would the thickness of the crust of earth have anything to do with magnetic field? It's the what's underneath that creates the field anyway.



Wrong... you need the crust to generate the friction... Remember when you were a kid and you rub a baloon on your head and the friction generates a static shock. Same principle with the Earth. Except the moving magma does the rubing. The more thickness you have. The more static you have.
Before you say why doesn't the crust always move then?
IT DOES. Earthquakes? Volcanoes? It's not just the pressure that lets out the magma. If the crust didn't move, we would not have Earthquakes.

He wasn't dodging it, it was just imposssible to understand what point you are trying to get across, if you want us to adress your points, express yourself in way that we can understand you.

lol A smaller sun *laughs*

You're right, this is just ridiculous, I mean, we've all been to the sun and seen just how big it is haven't we?  How could anyone believe that the sun isn't the size scientists say it is? I mean they're scientists...with lab coats and stuff...

I also like the way how you dodged this one.

I wasn't dodging it, I just thought the answer was obvious. But I guess I need to point this out to you anyway:

Wrong... you need the crust to generate the friction... Remember when you were a kid and you rub a baloon on your head and the friction generates a static shock. Same principle with the Earth. Except the moving magma does the rubing. The more thickness you have. The more static you have.

All this means is that the crust is thick enough to have a magnetic feild.

ya how do you explain zodiac changes and changes in the sun each day if you didnt notice you would see the sun stays in the sky longer also

is it also in the" conspiricy"

I would appreciate if the inclusion of hell (just below earth approx 5000 miles) and heaven (above the moon by 1000 miles) was justly made to this render.
-ujb.

You're an embarrassment to the human race.

whatever idiot thought that the crust moving generates an electromagnetic field needs to die, right now. moving liquid METAL in the core is what causes the electromagentic field, also this moves in one direction, if it just kinda moved around in all directions like the earth's tectonic plates do it would not generate any field of consequence it would generate lots of tiny conflicting electromagnetic fields that would not protect earth from solar radiation


also erasmus, whatever you may think about the earths atmosphere and heat retention i wanna set you straight.

Because the atmosphere is such a good absorber of longwave infrared, it effectively forms a one-way blanket over Earth's surface. Visible and near-visible radiation from the Sun easily gets through, but thermal radiation from the surface can't easily get back out. In response, Earth's surface warms up. The power of the surface radiation increases by the Stefan-Boltzmann law until it (over time) compensates for the atmospheric absorption. Another, simpler, but essentially equivalent way of looking at this is that the surface is heated by two sources: direct solar radiation, and thermal radiation from the atmosphere; it is thus warmer than if heated by solar radiation alone. The result of the greenhouse effect is that average surface temperatures are considerably higher than they would otherwise be if the Earth's surface temperature were determined solely by the albedo and blackbody properties of the surface.


in synopsis:
the atmosphere both absorbs, deflects, and retains heat and all of these aspects are important to maintaining a desirable earth temperature, and the fact that mountains are colder than lower areas is grade school science and im honestly appalled you would site that as a legitimate reason for a FE theory


Also the earth does not actually generate any heat watsoever, the core  retains heat from its formation but it cools off at a very very very slow but steady amount

whatever idiot thought that the crust moving generates an electromagnetic field needs to die, right now.

omg, such anger.  You should talk to somebody about that.  Meanwhile I'll just go ahead and skip over paragraphs in which you regurgitate some RE textbook.

also erasmus ... i wanna set you straight.

Don't touch me.

Also the earth does not actually generate any heat watsoever,

None?  Whatsoever?  Not even from beta decay?  Not even from us burning things?

i meant to quote erasmus, and tell him he's wrong (in regard to proximity to the sun Vs temperature (likelyhood of a desert)... but after thinking about it, hes right!


think about the lapse rates in the atmosphere, the temperature DECREASES as it gets further away from the surface of the earth (in the troposphere... then it starts increasing again in the stratosphere), and that is technically closer to the sun!

there are many more things that control the formation of a desert...

latitude
altitude
precipitation
geology

just to name a few... it just so happens that most of these areas lie near the equator


(and another thing, i think the southern hemisphere is "closer" to the sun during their summer due to the eliptical orbit of the earth)

Why would the thickness of the crust of earth have anything to do with magnetic field? It's the what's underneath that creates the field anyway.
Wrong... you need the crust to generate the friction... Remember when you were a kid and you rub a baloon on your head and the friction generates a static shock. Same principle with the Earth. Except the moving magma does the rubing. The more thickness you have. The more static you have.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all day.  Oh, besides that FE'ers must believe the world is 2D...

What about Daylight Savings Time?

I think it is obvious that this photo has been computer generated or 'faked.' Stop showing us conspiracy pictures meant to make us believe that the Earth is flat.

I think it is obvious that this photo has been computer generated or 'faked.' Stop showing us conspiracy pictures meant to make us believe that the Earth is flat.

Are you referring to the image on the first page of this thread?  That one was explicitly described as "I created this on my computer" by its creator.  Nobody is trying to pass it off as a genuine photograph.  It exists as a response to all those pointless "Well do you guys have a map?" questions.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

I think it is obvious that this photo has been computer generated or 'faked.' Stop showing us conspiracy pictures meant to make us believe that the Earth is flat.

Are you referring to the image on the first page of this thread?  That one was explicitly described as "I created this on my computer" by its creator.  Nobody is trying to pass it off as a genuine photograph.  It exists as a response to all those pointless "Well do you guys have a map?" questions.

I was trying to be sarcastic.

I was trying to be sarcastic.

Aha, my mistake :)

By looking at this map, the distance covered if you travelled around the Round Earth Tropic of Cancer by plane would be significantly smaller than travelling around the Tropic of Capricorn, whereas in practice surely the distances should be roughly the same. Just wondering if theres an explanation for this, I'm interested

in practice surely the distances should be roughly the same.

"Surely"?

Quote from: "TimmTom"

in practice surely the distances should be roughly the same.

"Surely"?

Nice explanation.

Nice explanation.

Thanks.  I guess you too were wondering how he could be so sure that they would be the same.  Or, as he put it, roughly the same.

I think if Unimportant were here he'd respond, "Surely, if you went and actually measured it, the Tropic of Capricorn would be quite a bit longer than the Tropic of Cancer."

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Nice explanation.

Thanks.  I guess you too were wondering how he could be so sure that they would be the same.  Or, as he put it, roughly the same.

I think if Unimportant were here he'd respond, "Surely, if you went and actually measured it, the Tropic of Capricorn would be quite a bit longer than the Tropic of Cancer."

Yet, trips around the world south of the equator aren't quite a bit longer than trips around the world north of the equator. Go figure.

I assume the velocity of the plane would factor into the length of the trip somehow...

And, of course, the flight path could always be altered.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Nice explanation.

Thanks.  I guess you too were wondering how he could be so sure that they would be the same.  Or, as he put it, roughly the same.

I think if Unimportant were here he'd respond, "Surely, if you went and actually measured it, the Tropic of Capricorn would be quite a bit longer than the Tropic of Cancer."

Go bring us some measurements.

I think the earth is round but I don't see any problems with an airplane flying from some spot on the tropic of capricorn to another would fly for the same amount of hours as a plane going from one spot on the tropic of cancer, how about, to maintain the illusion, they have the northernmost routes follow the tropic of cancer, flying in a bow, while the flights along the tropic of capricorn would just fly straight across, and hope for clouds over the arctic  :wink: The real question would rather then be, why bother? Seems they feel they know why.  :shock:

Go bring us some measurements.

I don't need to.  I can just compute the correct values geometrically, or read them off a to-scale FE map.  Isn't that exactly why you think that the two Tropics are the same length?