Mapping on the cheap - spotlight method

Many flat guys claim the Sun produces a spotlight circle of light on the earth as it floats around.
Many flat guys bang on about how they can't make an accurate map of the world because they don't have the cash for it.

Well here's how you can utilise the first idea to help with the second... of course this will only work IF the sun really is a spotlight 

What you need to do is collect data on times of sunrise and sunset for different places around the world at the same moment in time. For example, you pick a date and time - say, 8th September at 5.00pm GMT - and you find sunrise and sunset times that correspond with that moment. For example, at 5.00pm GMT the sun may be rising in Tokyo and setting in Berlin.
Get as many different locations as you can. Then draw a circle on a piece of paper and plot the points on the edges to represent sunset and sunrise. You can tell where on the circle to put the points because the latitude of the location tells you how far up or down you need to put the point. Sunrises go on the eastern edge and sunsets on the western edge. Do this for multiple times and dates, get enough points and presto! You have a rough map of the world.

Many flat guys claim the Sun produces a spotlight circle of light on the earth as it floats around.
Many flat guys bang on about how they can't make an accurate map of the world because they don't have the cash for it.

Well here's how you can utilise the first idea to help with the second... of course this will only work IF the sun really is a spotlight 

What you need to do is collect data on times of sunrise and sunset for different places around the world at the same moment in time. For example, you pick a date and time - say, 8th September at 5.00pm GMT - and you find sunrise and sunset times that correspond with that moment. For example, at 5.00pm GMT the sun may be rising in Tokyo and setting in Berlin.
Get as many different locations as you can. Then draw a circle on a piece of paper and plot the points on the edges to represent sunset and sunrise. You can tell where on the circle to put the points because the latitude of the location tells you how far up or down you need to put the point. Sunrises go on the eastern edge and sunsets on the western edge. Do this for multiple times and dates, get enough points and presto! You have a rough map of the world.

Why do you think the sun would shine in a circle?

Why do you think the sun would shine in a circle?

I don't. Several flat guys, such as Bishop, claim that it does.

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 03:55:33 AM

Why do you think the sun would shine in a circle?

I don't. Several flat guys, such as Bishop, claim that it does.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they said it acts like a spotlight.

Not all spotlights are circular.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 03:57:23 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 03:55:33 AM

Why do you think the sun would shine in a circle?

I don't. Several flat guys, such as Bishop, claim that it does.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they said it acts like a spotlight.

Not all spotlights are circular.

Well this method will help find out what shape it might be then, won't it? Use data from places where the distances between them are known, you can run the theory in reverse. 

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 04:03:23 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 03:57:23 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 03:55:33 AM

Why do you think the sun would shine in a circle?

I don't. Several flat guys, such as Bishop, claim that it does.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they said it acts like a spotlight.

Not all spotlights are circular.

Well this method will help find out what shape it might be then, won't it? Use data from places where the distances between them are known, you can run the theory in reverse. 

Known in what context?


I agree that the gathering of such data may prove useful, but its impossible to impartially hazard a guess as to why.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 04:08:25 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 04:03:23 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 03:57:23 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 03:55:33 AM

Why do you think the sun would shine in a circle?

I don't. Several flat guys, such as Bishop, claim that it does.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they said it acts like a spotlight.

Not all spotlights are circular.

Well this method will help find out what shape it might be then, won't it? Use data from places where the distances between them are known, you can run the theory in reverse. 

Known in what context?


I agree that the gathering of such data may prove useful, but its impossible to impartially hazard a guess as to why.

really?
wunderground has sunrise and set data for any place in the world
oh wait thats calculated using a round earth
Hmmm again the round earth makes predictions that work out

again make a prediction using your flat model and test it
is that so hard

The flat earth predicts things after it has happened.

again make a prediction using your flat model and test it
is that so hard

Many years ago when I was a kid, I misjudged a jump off a rock about a metre above the ground into a swimming pool. FET predicts that the Earth, when I left contact with the rock, would accelerate towards me, gaining momentum as it did. When I came back into contact with the Earth, it had gained enough momentum to give me a fractured leg for the next few months.

Prediction validated.

ok it works for simple things
how about tides?
sun rise and set for any give place?
jet streams?
weather?
solar storms?
gravitational lensing?
 

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 15, 2010, 04:58:09 AM

again make a prediction using your flat model and test it
is that so hard

Many years ago when I was a kid, I misjudged a jump off a rock about a metre above the ground into a swimming pool. FET predicts that the Earth, when I left contact with the rock, would accelerate towards me, gaining momentum as it did. When I came back into contact with the Earth, it had gained enough momentum to give me a fractured leg for the next few months.

Prediction validated.

The point Space Tourist is trying to make, which you are deliberately ignoring because it's not explicitly stated and you are a tosser, is that theories can make predictions which enable you to differentiate them from other theories which may produce some of the same effects. Sure, the UA and gravity predict the same thing there, but UA predicts there would be no local variation in the force whereas gravity says there will be. Looking at THAT prediction enables you to tell which theory is more likely.

ok it works for simple things
how about tides?
sun rise and set for any give place?
jet streams?
weather?
solar storms?
gravitational lensing?

Tides: Caused by the moon and the submoon, predictions are therefore the same as in RET.
Sunrise and sunset: Will hopefully be available once we have an accurate FE map.
Jet streams: Again, requires an accurate FE map for a meaningful prediction to be made.
Weather: FE map needed, once again, although the basic principle of it being warmer near the Equator is easily explained by that being where the Sun is overhead most of the time.
Solar storms: The Sun's internal workings are as yet unknown.
Gravitational lensing: This would be exactly the same as in RET, given that General Relativity doesn't change when you apply it to a new model.

The point Space Tourist is trying to make, which you are deliberately ignoring because it's not explicitly stated and you are a tosser, is that theories can make predictions which enable you to differentiate them from other theories which may produce some of the same effects. Sure, the UA and gravity predict the same thing there, but UA predicts there would be no local variation in the force whereas gravity says there will be. Looking at THAT prediction enables you to tell which theory is more likely.

I have walked on five of the world's seven continents, and I have never noticed myself having to put more effort into standing up straight in some places, nor have I started bouncing around like an idiot as soon as I got out of the airport. I think it's very clear which theory is more likely.

Aaaaaaaaaand thread successfully derailed. Sure is a shame that no FE'ers have any interest in actually making a map that would help prove their theories...

What the devil is a sub-moon?

AH so you accept Relativity?
you DO know how it was proven right?
with the gravitational lensing of the sun...  based off of stars during a solar eclipse
this proves the sun is massive and to be that massive it must  be much more distant  

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 03:57:23 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 03:55:33 AM

Why do you think the sun would shine in a circle?

I don't. Several flat guys, such as Bishop, claim that it does.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they said it acts like a spotlight.

Not all spotlights are circular.

*Sigh*  The sun appears circular.  How can a circular light source shine in a different shape?

My own zetetic observations show that the sun appears to be a circle, so there is no reason to believe that it would shine in anything other than a circular pattern. Your move.

the sun is a floodlight
and floodlights dont always shine in a circle pattern

spotlights however do.
the sun is NOT a spotlight

the sun is a floodlight
and floodlights dont always shine in a circle pattern

spotlights however do.
the sun is NOT a spotlight

Bishop and others have used the term spotlight to describe the sun and explain why the edge of the earth in space photos always appears to be a sector of a circle. If you want to disagree, take it up with them. I'm merely suggesting an experiment based on certain flat guys beliefs. As I said, it can be worked backwards to try and work out the shape of the lit area.

What the devil is a sub-moon?

An object with roughly the same mass as the moon, which orbits underneath the Earth along the same orbit as the moon, but with opposite phase.

AH so you accept Relativity?
you DO know how it was proven right?
with the gravitational lensing of the sun...  based off of stars during a solar eclipse
this proves the sun is massive and to be that massive it must  be much more distant   

Any object below the critical density for a black hole can emit light. This allows an object with the mass of the RE sun to have a radius as small as 3 km, which at its apparent size would place it less than 650 km above the Earth's surface, much closer than is claimed by FET.

The sun appears circular.

Circles don't have whopping great prominences leaping up from them.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 06:05:26 AM

The point Space Tourist is trying to make, which you are deliberately ignoring because it's not explicitly stated and you are a tosser, is that theories can make predictions which enable you to differentiate them from other theories which may produce some of the same effects. Sure, the UA and gravity predict the same thing there, but UA predicts there would be no local variation in the force whereas gravity says there will be. Looking at THAT prediction enables you to tell which theory is more likely.

I have walked on five of the world's seven continents, and I have never noticed myself having to put more effort into standing up straight in some places, nor have I started bouncing around like an idiot as soon as I got out of the airport. I think it's very clear which theory is more likely.

Please show the data measurements you took on each continent with your gravitometer device to back up your statement, or GTFO.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 06:05:26 AM

The point Space Tourist is trying to make, which you are deliberately ignoring because it's not explicitly stated and you are a tosser, is that theories can make predictions which enable you to differentiate them from other theories which may produce some of the same effects. Sure, the UA and gravity predict the same thing there, but UA predicts there would be no local variation in the force whereas gravity says there will be. Looking at THAT prediction enables you to tell which theory is more likely.

I have walked on five of the world's seven continents, and I have never noticed myself having to put more effort into standing up straight in some places, nor have I started bouncing around like an idiot as soon as I got out of the airport. I think it's very clear which theory is more likely.

Why must you be so dishonest about the variation in gravitation... if FET is true, then there should be absolutely no variation in gravity anywhere on the earth. And so if there is any variation in gravitation beyond the margin of error that is consistent and appears as a form of systematic error, it would disprove FET. RET does NOT predict variations great enough to be detrimental to human walking, and so you are referring to a fantasy RET where the earth is spinning at a dangerously high rate.

Circles don't have whopping great prominences leaping up from them.

[parsifal] When I look at the Sun I don't see any prominences. Neither do you. Do you have any proof there are prominences? Remember, photos are not proof in this forum. [/parsifal]

Please show the data measurements you took on each continent with your gravitometer device to back up your statement, or GTFO.

Why must you be so dishonest about the variation in gravitation... if FET is true, then there should be absolutely no variation in gravity anywhere on the earth. And so if there is any variation in gravitation beyond the margin of error that is consistent and appears as a form of systematic error, it would disprove FET. RET does NOT predict variations great enough to be detrimental to human walking, and so you are referring to a fantasy RET where the earth is spinning at a dangerously high rate.

I shouldn't have to prove a negative. The measurements I have taken with my own senses have not been able to detect any such variance; if you wish to make the claim that there is variance, the burden of proof is on you to show this.

Why do you think the sun would shine in a circle?

What other shape would it shine?it is a spotlight in the shape of a circle.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 07:57:54 AM

Please show the data measurements you took on each continent with your gravitometer device to back up your statement, or GTFO.

Quote from: Pseudointellect on May 15, 2010, 07:59:19 AM

Why must you be so dishonest about the variation in gravitation... if FET is true, then there should be absolutely no variation in gravity anywhere on the earth. And so if there is any variation in gravitation beyond the margin of error that is consistent and appears as a form of systematic error, it would disprove FET. RET does NOT predict variations great enough to be detrimental to human walking, and so you are referring to a fantasy RET where the earth is spinning at a dangerously high rate.

I shouldn't have to prove a negative. The measurements I have taken with my own senses have not been able to detect any such variance; if you wish to make the claim that there is variance, the burden of proof is on you to show this.

http://www.space-electronics.com/Literature/Precise_Measurement_of_Mass.PDF

I think you'll find the instruments and methods detailed in this document far exceed the accuracy of your senses. Further proof that gravitational force is not constant across the world can be found with a cursory search on Google. I'm not doing your homework for you.

You should also be aware that mentioning burden of proof to back yourself up on this forum is becoming pretty much the FES equivalent to Godwin's Law. And is therefore a big fat fail.

I would say "Read Earth Not a Globe" would be the best equivalent of Godwin's law, but that one works too.

I would say "Read Earth Not a Globe" would be the best equivalent of Godwin's law, but that one works too.

Except there's only some people that ever say that, whereas burden of proof is trotted out by both round and flat factions from time to time.

I have walked on five of the world's seven continents, and I have never noticed myself having to put more effort into standing up straight in some places, nor have I started bouncing around like an idiot as soon as I got out of the airport. I think it's very clear which theory is more likely.

Please stop pretending that you don't know any better than that!  How do you benefit from pretending to be as stupid as you sometimes seem?  If that response was not a clear example of trolling, I don't know what is!  You know full well that variations in your weight at different places on the earth's surface are too small to be easily noticed without a very accurate scale (not a balance scale, of course, as it actually measures your mass, rather than your weight, and would give the same readings no matter how great the differences in gravitational acceleration at various places on earth).