Why does the world seem to rotate above us, setting and rising at the horizon?

Put simply, what are we seeing when the sun sets? In RET this is easy. In FET it seems that it should always be possible to draw a straight line from where you are to the sun, since the sun orbits above the plane of the earth. Light from the sun may not always be shining on you, so the sun may go dark from your perspective, but it should do so while in the sky. I don't see why it would go below the horizon, and then rise up from the horizon on the other side.

The same applies to the moon and, well, every star in the sky. If you watch the night sky, every star moves in a circular path around a single central point. The whole sky rotates in unison around the celestial north or south pole. Which makes sense if the earth is rotating, because then everything just appears to move. But in FET, it seems that we have to conclude that the entire universe rotates around us, which is quite a thing to imagine (what causes this rotation?) but moreover the rotation isn't parallel to the plane of the earth, it goes around it, i.e. above and below it. That is what we see.

Flat earthers usually try to pass this off as an effect of 'bendy light'. Unfortunately for that idea, it requires a lot of pretty wild bending, as I've shown here. Since this is the only way to get the required visual effect, it either works in spite of the amount of bending required, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the earth is easily shown to be a globe.

This lovely image illustrates what you are talking about in the second part of your post.



Were the earth flat, as some suggest, and the heavens turning above us, these paths would appear elliptical (like a circle viewed side on).

Anyway, prepare to either be ignored, or flooded with unsubstantiated BS. 

The Law of Perspective.

The Law of Perspective.

I think you need to qualify this a bit, because clearly you mean the FE Law of Perspective, which is even more magical than bendy light, because it somehow keeps the sun the same size no matter how far away it is, even when it is so far that it appears to touch the horizon, and also somehow causes the star paths to look circular when they should look elliptical!

The Law of Perspective.

.

Round Earth

...somehow keeps the sun the same size no matter how far away it is...

It is easy to observe that this is not the case.

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 11:59:13 AM

...somehow keeps the sun the same size no matter how far away it is...

It is easy to observe that this is not the case.

Evidence?

I have read that the largest variation in angular diameter is 31.6 minutes of arc to 32.7 minutes of arc.  This is not a daily variation, but a yearly one.  On the FE view, the sun would change angular diameter daily.  I suppose it would on RE view as well, but somewhere on the order of 1/365th of 1.1 arc minutes +/- the small adjustment for the diameter of the earth that the sun is being viewed across.

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 11:59:13 AM

...somehow keeps the sun the same size no matter how far away it is...

It is easy to observe that this is not the case.

I can plainly see that the sun doesn't appear to shrink in size as it goes from it's closest point at noon to it's farthest point at sunset. Why not if in FE the sun is more than twice as far away at sunset?


And why when you see the sun at rise and set is it at nearly zero degrees above the horizon? What kind of perspective does this when you should see it at nearly 27 degrees?

The Law of Perspective.

lol. Go inside a large building with lights on the ceiling, assuming the ceiling is flat. This is what it looks like.


Notice how the lights, even though evenly spaced (pick a line of lights), are converging on another? They are getting closer, due to the laws of perspective. It does not, however appear like this you are directly beneath them, making them appear evenly spaced.

The distance between stars does not change as they go across the sky. They stay the same. According to the Laws of Perspective, you should see this effect in the picture above. I realize that the distance ration between where that photo was taken is way too high compared to how tall we are and how high the stars are, but it doesn't matter. You will still see that converging of things as the distance increases.

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 05, 2013, 11:53:57 AM

The Law of Perspective.

lol. Go inside a large building with lights on the ceiling, assuming the ceiling is flat. This is what it looks like.


Notice how the lights, even though evenly spaced (pick a line of lights), are converging on another? They are getting closer, due to the laws of perspective. It does not, however appear like this you are directly beneath them, making them appear evenly spaced.

The distance between stars does not change as they go across the sky. They stay the same. According to the Laws of Perspective, you should see this effect in the picture above. I realize that the distance ration between where that photo was taken is way too high compared to how tall we are and how high the stars are, but it doesn't matter. You will still see that converging of things as the distance increases.

Your concept of scale is seriously flawed.

I can plainly see that the sun doesn't appear to shrink in size as it goes from it's closest point at noon to it's farthest point at sunset. Why not if in FE the sun is more than twice as far away at sunset?

Not on my Earth. On my Earth, it also gets cooler at night.

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 01:57:53 PM

I can plainly see that the sun doesn't appear to shrink in size as it goes from it's closest point at noon to it's farthest point at sunset. Why not if in FE the sun is more than twice as far away at sunset?

Not on my Earth. On my Earth, it also gets cooler at night.

Straw man alert! 

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 05, 2013, 01:57:53 PM

I can plainly see that the sun doesn't appear to shrink in size as it goes from it's closest point at noon to it's farthest point at sunset. Why not if in FE the sun is more than twice as far away at sunset?

Not on my Earth. On my Earth, it also gets cooler at night.

Yes, and on your Earth it appears that perspective doesn't actually work, gravity doesn't work, nor do logic and common sense.

Your concept of scale is seriously flawed.

I stated that the scale is off in my post. Please read it before you respond. It doesn't matter how high it is, or how low you are, the lights (stars) will seem to come closer together due to the laws of perspective.

Of course, if the ceiling (sky) is higher, than the distance required for this converging of points will be greater, but on Earth, the FE stars are low enough for this to happen. If a star is directly above me at 0600, lets say it will be directly above someone else in Africa at 1400 (my time). The distance, about 5000 miles, should make something that is 3000 miles up to cause this convergence of stars. But it doesn't.

Lets reduce the distances evenly. Suppose you are lying on the ground looking at a ceiling with evenly spaced lights that are 3 meters high. Then, pick a spot 5 meters away. The lights will appear to be closer together due to the laws of perspective which you clearly do not understand.

also, consider how stars rotate around us when viewed along the equator - assuming a flat earth and that the sky is a dome above us, what could cause this?

also, consider how stars rotate around us when viewed along the equator - assuming a flat earth and that the sky is a dome above us, what could cause this?

This is perfectly expected. One should not be mistaken about stars as stationary objects.

Quote from: neimoka on April 08, 2013, 12:00:12 PM

also, consider how stars rotate around us when viewed along the equator - assuming a flat earth and that the sky is a dome above us, what could cause this?

This is perfectly expected. One should not be mistaken about stars as stationary objects.

perhaps you would care to elaborate how this is expected?

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 08, 2013, 12:08:58 PM

Quote from: neimoka on April 08, 2013, 12:00:12 PM

also, consider how stars rotate around us when viewed along the equator - assuming a flat earth and that the sky is a dome above us, what could cause this?

This is perfectly expected. One should not be mistaken about stars as stationary objects.

perhaps you would care to elaborate how this is expected?

Observe the location of the stars after sunset and before sunrise. Also, at different times of the year.

Quote from: neimoka on April 08, 2013, 12:00:12 PM

also, consider how stars rotate around us when viewed along the equator - assuming a flat earth and that the sky is a dome above us, what could cause this?

This is perfectly expected. One should not be mistaken about stars as stationary objects.

What do you mean? That stars are stationary objects or that they're not? IIRC you have said that the stars are fixed to a rotating canopy. How is the picture showing the star trails at the equator expected from this?

What am I missing here? How do you account for this picture? The entry on stars in the wiki completely fails to explain it.

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 08, 2013, 12:08:58 PM

Quote from: neimoka on April 08, 2013, 12:00:12 PM

also, consider how stars rotate around us when viewed along the equator - assuming a flat earth and that the sky is a dome above us, what could cause this?

This is perfectly expected. One should not be mistaken about stars as stationary objects.

What do you mean? That stars are stationary objects or that they're not? IIRC you have said that the stars are fixed to a rotating canopy. How is the picture showing the star trails at the equator expected from this?

What am I missing here? How do you account for this picture? The entry on stars in the wiki completely fails to explain it.

I have no reason to believe that the stars are firmly secured to the canopy.

Quote from: neimoka on April 08, 2013, 12:15:02 PM

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 08, 2013, 12:08:58 PM

Quote from: neimoka on April 08, 2013, 12:00:12 PM

also, consider how stars rotate around us when viewed along the equator - assuming a flat earth and that the sky is a dome above us, what could cause this?

This is perfectly expected. One should not be mistaken about stars as stationary objects.

perhaps you would care to elaborate how this is expected?

Observe the location of the stars after sunset and before sunrise. Also, at different times of the year.

....and?

Quote from: Shmeggley on April 08, 2013, 12:19:02 PM

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 08, 2013, 12:08:58 PM

Quote from: neimoka on April 08, 2013, 12:00:12 PM

also, consider how stars rotate around us when viewed along the equator - assuming a flat earth and that the sky is a dome above us, what could cause this?

This is perfectly expected. One should not be mistaken about stars as stationary objects.

What do you mean? That stars are stationary objects or that they're not? IIRC you have said that the stars are fixed to a rotating canopy. How is the picture showing the star trails at the equator expected from this?

What am I missing here? How do you account for this picture? The entry on stars in the wiki completely fails to explain it.

I have no reason to believe that the stars are firmly secured to the canopy.

I agree (although I believe you have said otherwise in another thread). And if they are not secured, there should be no reason to think they are "attached" to anything, except by gravitational force.

I agree (although I believe you have said otherwise in another thread). And if they are not secured, there should be no reason to think they are "attached" to anything, except by gravitational force.

Have you ever seen a spider crawling on the ceiling?

spiders?

could someone else suggest a plausible explanation?

spiders?

could someone else suggest a plausible explanation?

Whoosh!

spiders?

could someone else suggest a plausible explanation?

Well I have a halfway plausible explanation that has a few problems, but what the hell, let's try it out.

Suppose this rotating "canopy" of stars is a sphere with the stars on the inside of it. At the North Pole you can see Polaris directly overhead more or less, and the other stars wheel around it. Normally you run into problems when you travel South, because on FE you are still looking straight up wherever you are. Now suppose when you travel south, the canopy rotates, so that when you are at the Equator it has turned 90 degrees, and you see the stars wheeling in a line, like in the picture, and you see stars you couldn't in the far north. As you travel to the South pole, it continues to rotate until you see the South Celestial pole (and whatever star is in the center of that) directly overhead, with the rotation the opposite from what you saw in the North pole.

Now, can anyone tell me why this DOESN'T work? I know it doesn't, but I want some flatsies to tell me why for a change. Then please explain how it actually does work without the use of spiders please.

Quote from: neimoka on April 08, 2013, 12:57:09 PM

spiders?

could someone else suggest a plausible explanation?

Well I have a halfway plausible explanation that has a few problems, but what the hell, let's try it out.

Suppose this rotating "canopy" of stars is a sphere with the stars on the inside of it. At the North Pole you can see Polaris directly overhead more or less, and the other stars wheel around it. Normally you run into problems when you travel South, because on FE you are still looking straight up wherever you are. Now suppose when you travel south, the canopy rotates, so that when you are at the Equator it has turned 90 degrees, and you see the stars wheeling in a line, like in the picture, and you see stars you couldn't in the far north. As you travel to the South pole, it continues to rotate until you see the South Celestial pole (and whatever star is in the center of that) directly overhead, with the rotation the opposite from what you saw in the North pole.

Now, can anyone tell me why this DOESN'T work? I know it doesn't, but I want some flatsies to tell me why for a change. Then please explain how it actually does work without the use of spiders please.

This sounds strangely like some sort of  thought experiment.

Why doesn't what work, shmeg? I can't understand what you are asking.

Why doesn't what work, shmeg? I can't understand what you are asking.

Since nobody has ever been able to explain why the stars appear to rotate in the opposite directions in the Northern and Southern hemispheres (on a Flat Earth), I thought I'd try to come up with something. I knew it was flawed from the start, and I was wondering if anyone could point out why. Did you understand what I was trying to say about how the Celestial sphere rotates as you travel South?