Solargraphy more consistant with Round Earth than Rowbotham model

  • 4 Replies
  • 1091 Views
?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
A while back, Tom Bishop started a thread showing an apparent bell curve path that the sun appeared to make when captured using solargraphy, and claimed that this bell curve was inconsistent with the round Earth model.  I have since left this post refuting his claim that he has yet to counter.

I have a rendering of what shape the FE sun would make in a solargraphy image.  The Round Earth sun is in red, and the Flat Earth sun is white.  The OP image is placed next to the simulated image for comparison.



This is a wide shot of the model I used for this.  While the round earth sun does not represent true distance, it is set up so that it's angular position relative to bristol is exactly what it would be for round earth.


Here is the solargraphy camera.  A normal cg camera with a reflective hyperbolic surface, to simulate the cylindrical projection that the pinhole camera produces.


I think it clearly shows that solargraphy in fact supports the round earth theory more, as the Rowbotham model failed to produce a curve anywhere close to as accurate to the photograph as round earth theory did.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Solargraphy more consistant with Round Earth than Rowbotham model
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2011, 06:11:22 PM »
On a Round Earth the arcs of the sun should be an arc of a circle, not a bell curve. How is a bell curve consistent with a Round Earth model when RET says that the sun is making arcs of a circle around the earth?

And you got the FE model wrong. According to your FE model the sun will never set. It clearly does, and you clearly have not read Earth Not a Globe.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Solargraphy more consistant with Round Earth than Rowbotham model
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2011, 06:34:46 PM »
On a Round Earth the arcs of the sun should be an arc of a circle, not a bell curve. How is a bell curve consistent with a Round Earth model when RET says that the sun is making arcs of a circle around the earth?

And you got the FE model wrong. According to your FE model the sun will never set. It clearly does, and you clearly have not read Earth Not a Globe.

Actually, my FE model is modeled using the specifications given in FAQ, which I undestand is rowbotham's model.  If my model doesn't have a setting sun, then neither does the FAQs.
Quote from FAQ:

Quote
"Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 125,891 km (78,225 miles)
Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level."

Also I explained that the projection caused by the solargraphy is cylindrical, and will cause a circular path to appear as a bell curve, which I demonstrated.  I even showed you the method I used to illustrate this distortion, and you seem to have outright ignored it all.

Re: Solargraphy more consistant with Round Earth than Rowbotham model
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2011, 07:19:12 PM »
please disregard Mr Bishop. He is a man of hate and does not reflect those that truly believe,
please moderators, ban him.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Solargraphy more consistant with Round Earth than Rowbotham model
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2011, 02:18:27 AM »
On a Round Earth the arcs of the sun should be an arc of a circle, not a bell curve. How is a bell curve consistent with a Round Earth model when RET says that the sun is making arcs of a circle around the earth?

And you got the FE model wrong. According to your FE model the sun will never set. It clearly does, and you clearly have not read Earth Not a Globe.
Two simple points:

1. Mr Bishop has not understood the nature of the cilitrical solargraphy camera used in this picture by Justin Quinnell, who uses common 'can' type pinhole cameras.

2. Robotham attempts to "make" the sun set by introducing a bogus perspective theory.  This theory contradicts simple non-perspective high-school trigonometry (e.g. the sun's angle above the horizontal) which was beyond Robotham and seemly Mr Bishop.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.