Flat Earth model of sun's movement is false

Except for the people who have been into space.

Movement in an elevator has nothing to do with the Sun's movements. Please stay on topic, as we're already having this discussion in three separate threads across the forum.

Yes, movement in an elevator is directly analogous to the Earth's movements. The point is that you cannot sense constant motion. Galileo knew this. Now it's time for you to catch up.

You can say that about anyone!

Sure, but the context is direct sensorial evidence and the shape of the Earth.

If you cannot tell me how you differentiate between gaps and letters in that image, then you cannot tell me that the statement "there are no letters in this post, just black gaps" is nonsense. On what basis do you conclude that it is nonsense if you cannot explain how you differentiate between the letters and gaps in this or any other post?

That image =/= A normal post
We cannot apply the same rules to both. So that I can see letters where there is none in a image based on gaps and certain forms, has nothing to do with admitting the existence of letters as black gaps, thing that I've proven impossible.
If we start doing random comparisions, the topic will become a useless mess.

The point is that there is no difference. Our senses accurately report that image to us. The problem is that the image is constructed in such a way as to make decoding the message difficult. Our senses are not at fault, but our brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the symbols present. This post is easier to decode because the symbols match our mind's expectations, not because it contains letters and the image doesn't.

Great, nothing to disagree with, now use that with your reasoning about the sensorial perception of the Earth.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2010, 08:48:35 AM

The point is that there is no difference. Our senses accurately report that image to us. The problem is that the image is constructed in such a way as to make decoding the message difficult. Our senses are not at fault, but our brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the symbols present. This post is easier to decode because the symbols match our mind's expectations, not because it contains letters and the image doesn't.

Great, nothing to disagree with, now use that with your reasoning about the sensorial perception of the Earth.

 You know, if you put it that way then the image demonstrates exactly the Wilmore's case and it is nicely cleared up.

 His senses accurately report the direct sensory data about local flatness to him. The problem is that the whole picture is constructed in such a way as to make decoding of the whole picture difficult. His senses are not at fault but his brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the data presented about the whole picture. The local flatness is easier to decode because the idea matches his mind's expectations.

Scientists call that confirmation bias, when you draw conclusion

s from insufficient evidence based on what you want to be true.  From his description (locally flat in many different areas) the earth could be in the shape of a buckyball among other shapes and still meet the requirements, yet Wilmore has prematurely concluded that It is a flat plane.

Edit: typing on my phone is difficult.

It feels like I am moving, hence this is direct sensorial evidence. 

Actually, you can't sense uniform motion.  What you sense is variations in motion.

Quote from: Kira-SY on November 19, 2010, 12:20:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 19, 2010, 08:48:35 AM

The point is that there is no difference. Our senses accurately report that image to us. The problem is that the image is constructed in such a way as to make decoding the message difficult. Our senses are not at fault, but our brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the symbols present. This post is easier to decode because the symbols match our mind's expectations, not because it contains letters and the image doesn't.

Great, nothing to disagree with, now use that with your reasoning about the sensorial perception of the Earth.

 You know, if you put it that way then the image demonstrates exactly the Wilmore's case and it is nicely cleared up.

 His senses accurately report the direct sensory data about local flatness to him. The problem is that the whole picture is constructed in such a way as to make decoding of the whole picture difficult. His senses are not at fault but his brain's capacity to interpret sensory data and identify the data presented about the whole picture. The local flatness is easier to decode because the idea matches his mind's expectations.

The flatness is the white gaps.
The roudness is the black shapes.

He believes he's seeing a flat surface, but what he's really seeing is a curved one. His senses are misleading him.

That image =/= A normal post
We cannot apply the same rules to both. So that I can see letters where there is none in a image based on gaps and certain forms, has nothing to do with admitting the existence of letters as black gaps, thing that I've proven impossible.
If we start doing random comparisions, the topic will become a useless mess.

They're not random comparisons at all. Please explain the difference, or acknowledge that there is no difference. By the way, I know what I'm talking about here. The only distinctions are arbitrary distinctions which we make up. That image contains letters in any meaningful sense of the term.

Great, nothing to disagree with, now use that with your reasoning about the sensorial perception of the Earth.

I've done all the reasoning I need to. Even if your point made sense (which it doesn't), it fails to challenge either of my original premises. Please acquaint yourself with my argument if you're going to challenge it.

well, lord wilmore, there are technically no letter on the 1st picture, as all the white space is linked, but it is your brain trying to make sense of it that forms the letters, which is also technically called drawing conclusions.
the 2nd picture shows that your brain analytical (i think i spelled it right) abilities is limited and is affected by the conditions around it
and becuase sensorial evidence has to go into your brain for interpretation before you can type it in, it can be unreliable

doesnt this show that at time sensorial evidence is not reliable (especially in this case)

well, lord wilmore, there are technically no letter on the 1st picture, as all the white space is linked, but it is your brain trying to make sense of it that forms the letters, which is also technically called drawing conclusions.
the 2nd picture shows that your brain analytical (i think i spelled it right) abilities is limited and is affected by the conditions around it
and becuase sensorial evidence has to go into your brain for interpretation before you can type it in, it can be unreliable

doesnt this show that at time sensorial evidence is not reliable (especially in this case)

Uh, there are letters in the image, as I have demonstrated.

where? too lazy to lurk

and there are not letters, if you just looked at the white as a whole, you would not see letters, you would see a shape, but if you use your brain to interpret the white shape and split it into letters, then you see the letters

where? too lazy to lurk

and there are not letters, if you just looked at the white as a whole, you would not see letters, you would see a shape, but if you use your brain to interpret the white shape and split it into letters, then you see the letters

None of these posts contain letters, just black gaps. When you think you see letters, it's actually just your brain interpreting the gaps as letters. Prove me wrong.


You need to realise that just because that image is an optical illusion, does not mean that there are no letters in it. I can post the letter 'f' in a thousand fonts, yet we will all agree that it is the one letter. In the same way, you and I both know that there is a written message within that image, and if there is a written message then there must be letters. The distinction you are making is arbitrary and unsustainable.


In any even, none of this has anything to do with the senses, nor does it cause any problems for my original premises.

however, if you took that white space, you would not recognize it as a whole as letters, wheras the black gaps can be completely distiguished as letters, however, you are right in saying your brain is interpreting them as letters.  there are letters in it, but the shape itself is not a letter, just like a shaded circle can have letters in it, but it as a whole is not a letter.  also, how is SEEING stuff on a screen have nothing to do with letters?  please show me how seeing stuff and its interpretation have nothing to do with letters.  also, some people find it hard to discern the "letters" in the white space, it takes me some time to do it.

also, interpretation has a lot to do with senses, seeing is just electrical signals, your brain has to interpret those signals as an image.  same with pretty much all senses.

and i will give you one example of senses can be fooled

have you been to those circular raft rides.  if you stood on the spinning ring around it, you would see the middle spin, while you stay still, but if you were to stand on the still center, you would correctly see the spinning disk.  i myself have seen this happen, and also this can be applied to the sun's movement.  the sun could be spinning, or the earth can, while the sun moves back and forth.  if you were on the sun, you would probably see the earth move, and if you were on the earth, you will see the sun move

also, i dont remeber you original premises, sorry, again, too lazy to lurk

however, if you took that white space, you would not recognize it as a whole as letters, wheras the black gaps can be completely distiguished as letters, however, you are right in saying your brain is interpreting them as letters.  there are letters in it, but the shape itself is not a letter, just like a shaded circle can have letters in it, but it as a whole is not a letter.

When does the letter it end and the rest of it begin? Like I said, these distinctions are totally arbitrary. Any good semiotician or symbologist will tell you there are letters in that image.

  also, how is SEEING stuff on a screen have nothing to do with letters?  please show me how seeing stuff and its interpretation have nothing to do with letters.

I never said it had "nothing to do with letters". However I'm not sure that "seeing stuff on a screen" necessarily has anything to do with letters. It would depend what was on the screen.

also, some people find it hard to discern the "letters" in the white space, it takes me some time to do it.

There are lots of people who have trouble figuring out letters in general, and there are many medical conditions associated with such difficulties. Yet the rest of us agree that the letters are there.

also, interpretation has a lot to do with senses, seeing is just electrical signals, your brain has to interpret those signals as an image.  same with pretty much all senses.

I don't disagree with this, indeed I have said as much already.

and i will give you one example of senses can be fooled

have you been to those circular raft rides.  if you stood on the spinning ring around it, you would see the middle spin, while you stay still, but if you were to stand on the still center, you would correctly see the spinning disk.  i myself have seen this happen, and also this can be applied to the sun's movement.  the sun could be spinning, or the earth can, while the sun moves back and forth.  if you were on the sun, you would probably see the earth move, and if you were on the earth, you will see the sun move

This is all well and good, but I don't think a thought experiment is a particularly good example of how the senses can be fooled. In any event, I have never claimed that the senses are infallible.

also, i dont remeber you original premises, sorry, again, too lazy to lurk

You are too lazy to lurk, and I am too lazy to link.

sorry i meant senses, typed the wront thing

and we normally use different colors to distiguish between letters,  if you dont, i cannot say how you discern letters from this page

also, if i gave you an image of a w, would you say it is actually two v's?  the w has 2 v's, and you can say an 8 has two o's, but we say an 8 is an 8, and a w is a w, not a w is 2 v's, and an 8 is two o's

that isnt a thought experiment, ive done it before on amusement parks.  (at least the first part)  the second part is an analogy

aww man, now i have to lurk T,T


***edit***
i found you original premises (at least i think) that you dont come to conclusions, but you only use sensorial eviedence

now

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 29, 2010, 06:42:02 PM

however, if you took that white space, you would not recognize it as a whole as letters, wheras the black gaps can be completely distiguished as letters, however, you are right in saying your brain is interpreting them as letters.  there are letters in it, but the shape itself is not a letter, just like a shaded circle can have letters in it, but it as a whole is not a letter.

When does the letter it end and the rest of it begin? Like I said, these distinctions are totally arbitrary. Any good semiotician or symbologist will tell you there are letters in that image.

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 29, 2010, 06:42:02 PM

  also, how is SEEING stuff on a screen have nothing to do with letters?  please show me how seeing stuff and its interpretation have nothing to do with letters.

I never said it had "nothing to do with letters". However I'm not sure that "seeing stuff on a screen" necessarily has anything to do with letters. It would depend what was on the screen.

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 29, 2010, 06:42:02 PM

also, some people find it hard to discern the "letters" in the white space, it takes me some time to do it.

There are lots of people who have trouble figuring out letters in general, and there are many medical conditions associated with such difficulties. Yet the rest of us agree that the letters are there.

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 29, 2010, 06:42:02 PM

also, interpretation has a lot to do with senses, seeing is just electrical signals, your brain has to interpret those signals as an image.  same with pretty much all senses.

I don't disagree with this, indeed I have said as much already.

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 29, 2010, 06:42:02 PM

and i will give you one example of senses can be fooled

have you been to those circular raft rides.  if you stood on the spinning ring around it, you would see the middle spin, while you stay still, but if you were to stand on the still center, you would correctly see the spinning disk.  i myself have seen this happen, and also this can be applied to the sun's movement.  the sun could be spinning, or the earth can, while the sun moves back and forth.  if you were on the sun, you would probably see the earth move, and if you were on the earth, you will see the sun move

This is all well and good, but I don't think a thought experiment is a particularly good example of how the senses can be fooled. In any event, I have never claimed that the senses are infallible.

Quote from: vhu9644 on November 29, 2010, 06:42:02 PM

also, i dont remeber you original premises, sorry, again, too lazy to lurk

You are too lazy to lurk, and I am too lazy to link.

you agreed that interpretation is used to use sensorial evidence, and interpretation is just drawing conclusions from what you see to make the information understanable

The point is that we distinctions we make to decide what is or isn't a letter are totally arbitrary and don't hold up to any scrutiny. The people who created that image formed shapes that would communicate a message to us. The message communicates that meaning, and we all see the letters. They may not be letters in the conventional sense, but they are still letters.


The point you and Kira-SY have raised is interesting, but the problem is you're looking at it the wrong way. You've simply accepted these conventons as having some kind of inherent value. What the image shows us is that the concept of a letter can be stretched pretty far. Their shape, colour etc. does not matter- all that matters is the meaning conveyed.


And incidentally, why do you think 'w' is pronounced 'double u'?

V and U used to be the same letter, thus W is a double V and W is a double U. Get over it.

Also, West and East are circles, not lines. OP is majorly flawed. Get over it.

Also, West and East are circles, not lines. OP is majorly flawed. Get over it.

The OP is not "majorly flawed". I never claimed that east and west weren't circles. Even in RET they are circles. What I am claiming however is that for the observer situated where they are in the diagram, the apparent direction of east and west that they see are the tangents to the east-west circle at this point. So unless you're claiming that light now bends in circular arcs around the north pole, the argument stands. The sunrise may be technically due east of the observer, in that it is at the same latitude, but the point remains that in FET, an observer would see the sun appear to rise in the north east and set in the north west. This is not observed.

The point is that we distinctions we make to decide what is or isn't a letter are totally arbitrary and don't hold up to any scrutiny. The people who created that image formed shapes that would communicate a message to us. The message communicates that meaning, and we all see the letters. They may not be letters in the conventional sense, but they are still letters.


The point you and Kira-SY have raised is interesting, but the problem is you're looking at it the wrong way. You've simply accepted these conventons as having some kind of inherent value. What the image shows us is that the concept of a letter can be stretched pretty far. Their shape, colour etc. does not matter- all that matters is the meaning conveyed.


And incidentally, why do you think 'w' is pronounced 'double u'?

ok, thx we're on the same paga again

also i know why w is pronounced that way, just used it as an example to show that w is not 2 v's , but a w

How does the sun rise and fall in FET?

How does the sun rise and fall in FET?

Please read the FAQ.

Oh, and you spelled "offworlder" wrong.

I know, but hey I can't change it now, so, what the heck, I made up my own wrod, Doh!

I did not find the FAQ helpful in answering this question.
Any further explanation?

I did not find the FAQ helpful

Welcome to TFES.

Why do cities in the north experience 24 hours of sunlight in summer and 24 hours of night in winter?
I guess the sun moves in and out, right?
How come it doesn't get bigger and smaller?

Why do cities in the north experience 24 hours of sunlight in summer and 24 hours of night in winter?
I guess the sun moves in and out, right?
How come it doesn't get bigger and smaller?

This will serve you well.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm

Quote from: Offwrolder on December 02, 2010, 09:30:13 AM

Why do cities in the north experience 24 hours of sunlight in summer and 24 hours of night in winter?
I guess the sun moves in and out, right?
How come it doesn't get bigger and smaller?

This will serve you well.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm

two things wrong.
1. the sun suddenly disappears. However, it's explanation, saying that light gradually diminishes, is wrong, as the sun is visible and a minute later, it has sunk below the horizon.
2. The earth is not symmetrical, and that page just assumes that it's the sun that causes this. This assumption is wrong. 

two things wrong.
1. the sun suddenly disappears. However, it's explanation, saying that light gradually diminishes, is wrong, as the sun is visible and a minute later, it has sunk below the horizon.
2. The earth is not symmetrical, and that page just assumes that it's the sun that causes this. This assumption is wrong. 

1. You can see daylight dimming as the day approaches sunset, the and twilight remains for some time afterward. It is not a sudden disappearance.
2. In either both RET and FET, the earth is more or less symmetrical in shape, ignoring comparatively small local anomalies such as mountains etc. A disk shaped earth is symmetrical about any plane which passes through the center and runs perpendicular to the ground, and a spherical earth is symmetrical about any plane which passes through the center.

I was looking at the example linked (Thanks Gotham.)
It would appear that sunlight only covers a quarter of the disk at any time.
Therefore the equinoxes would be non-existent. At the equator during what would be commonly known as the equinox, when the sun's path corresponds to the equatorial circle, those at the equator would experience 8 hours of Sunlight and 16 of darkness, (assuming that the sun still goes round in 24 hours at a relatively steady angular velocity), as the disk of sunlight extends only across 120 degrees of the equator at that time.

 Indeed only those latitudes within the arctic circle would experience an equinox and each latitude on different days throughout the year, and everywhere else, never!