Flat earth sun locations vs. Round earth sun locations at various times.

I thought it might be worth creating the following image to show the difference between the flat and round earth sun motions, or rather, the apparent path and the path given by the popular, north-pole-centred-3000-mile-high-sun flat earth model.



The pink dots give the apparent position (lower) and flat earth model position (upper) for the sun at sunset on the winter solstice where I live (30° South). The yellow dots are sunset on the equinox, and the red dots sunset on the summer solstice.

The orange, green, and blue dots represent the sun's position at midday on the summer solstice, equinox, and winter solstice respectively. The dots at the top of a line represent the apparent position of the sun at these times, and the dots on the arcs represent the flat earth model position for the sun at these times.

I apologise for the lack of artistry, this was initially drawn in a 3D modelling program, and the dots added with an image editor. I wasn't really trying to make a pretty picture anyway, just something to give an idea of the relative positions of the sun at various times. Hopefully it is clear enough! Oh, and the apparent positions of the sun have been verified for my location, so no mistakes there!

Point to be debated: the difference in apparent and flat earth model locations of the sun at various times is far too great to lend any credibility to the idea of a flat earth.

Note: "Bendy light" (aka "electromagnetic acceleration") is not an acceptable explanation, as it has too many holes and has never been observed. Refraction and perspective are also unsuitable, as they do not explain the lateral or vertical difference in locations of the sun at sunset.

Is anyone going to have a crack at this?

I've been trying that for about two dozen days, now. I don't think we're going to get answered. Maybe we should PM the more vocal flat-earth advocates and see if they respond. You know, do some science!

I think you know your not going to get a response other than... Magiiiccc.

Yeah, I think you're both right, this thread will most likely go the same way as all others that pose a question that simply cannot be answered by FET: ignored until it goes away. It happens every time... 

I find it quite amusing. REers are doing their best at pointing out obvious stuff whilst providing evidence (from photos to physics/mathematics calculations), FEers only question the proof given to them in a very superficial way. I'm not saying it's wrong to be skeptical, but come on.. entire threads and pages of people that aren't calling you flat earth believers crazy, but instead explaining and countering your every doubt about a round earth.

By the way, if any FEer reads my post, please do not reply. You'll only prove my point. Instead, try and solve what the op said.

Have a good one

Standard geometric perspective (art school perspective) is not the correct form of perspective. Read Earth Not a Globe for further details.

Standard geometric perspective (art school perspective) is not the correct form of perspective. Read Earth Not a Globe for further details.

For those of us not inclined to go waste money on a book for a single part describing how perspective works, would you care to either explain or point us to the part where this is explained in a free version?

Standard geometric perspective (art school perspective) is not the correct form of perspective. Read Earth Not a Globe for further details.

Yes, I've read about your perspective theories. If you go here, however, you'll find my experiment data showing the sun rising and setting no less than 40 degrees away from where it should on a flat-Earth. That's 40 horizontal degrees, and has nothing to do with perspective.

Also, you've yet to cover how your perspective turns 26.5 degrees into 0 degrees. Have you performed my ladder experiment?

Standard geometric perspective (art school perspective) is not the correct form of perspective. Read Earth Not a Globe for further details.

I've read a large portion of ENaG, and even it cannot explain how ~84° (the overall angular difference between where the sun appears to set, and where it should be in the FE model, from my location on the December solstice) can appear to be 0°.

Pyrolizard, you can find a free, online version of ENaG here. Enjoy!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2013, 08:52:25 AM

Standard geometric perspective (art school perspective) is not the correct form of perspective. Read Earth Not a Globe for further details.

I've read a large portion of ENaG, and even it cannot explain how ~84° (the overall angular difference between where the sun appears to set, and where it should be in the FE model, from my location on the December solstice) can appear to be 0°.

Pyrolizard, you can find a free, online version of ENaG here. Enjoy!

Thank ya, bud!  I'll start reading up.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2013, 08:52:25 AM

Standard geometric perspective (art school perspective) is not the correct form of perspective. Read Earth Not a Globe for further details.

I've read a large portion of ENaG, and even it cannot explain how ~84° (the overall angular difference between where the sun appears to set, and where it should be in the FE model, from my location on the December solstice) can appear to be 0°.

Pyrolizard, you can find a free, online version of ENaG here. Enjoy!

Again, art school perspective is not correct. This is all explained in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Quote from: Scintific Method on July 28, 2013, 03:49:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2013, 08:52:25 AM

Standard geometric perspective (art school perspective) is not the correct form of perspective. Read Earth Not a Globe for further details.

I've read a large portion of ENaG, and even it cannot explain how ~84° (the overall angular difference between where the sun appears to set, and where it should be in the FE model, from my location on the December solstice) can appear to be 0°.

Pyrolizard, you can find a free, online version of ENaG here. Enjoy!

Again, art school perspective is not correct. This is all explained in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Do you mean this chapter http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm where he essentially says "as things move away from you they appear to get closer and eventually disappear behind the horizon at a rate which is consistent with a globe, my personal view though is that the Earth is flat therefore something else must be happening, I think I'll blame this on perspective."

Again, art school perspective is not correct. This is all explained in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Again, this fails to explain the enormous difference in apparent and FE positions for the sun. Seeing it setting at the horizon when it (according to the quoted model) should be a good 25°+ above the horizon, and 60°+ to the right (can't be bothered doing the exact calculations tonight), just doesn't even come close to agreeing with Rowbotham's writings.

For a ready visual aid to what these angles look like, hold a metric ruler at arms length. At this distance from your eye, 1cm is pretty close to 1°, so find the 25cm mark, and that's about how far the sun would be away from where you see it at sunset vertically. A 2ft ruler would give you an idea of the horizontal difference.

Seriously Tom, stop it with the perspective thing, we're talking about angles far greater than 1 minute of arc, so it's not relevant.

PS. Manarq, I like your style! There is so much confirmation bias in ENaG ("what I see is exactly what I should see on a round earth, but I believe it's flat, so what I see must be wrong"), it'd be funny if he wasn't serious.

Again, art school perspective is not correct.

If "art school" perspective is not correct, then why does it produce realistic results?

Standard geometric perspective (art school perspective) is not the correct form of perspective. Read Earth Not a Globe for further details.

I suggest you leave this debate. Not everyone knows about your old dispute with a certain forum user back in 2007/8 and I'm sure you don't want them to find out. Consider this a warning.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2013, 08:52:25 AM

Standard geometric perspective (art school perspective) is not the correct form of perspective. Read Earth Not a Globe for further details.

I suggest you leave this debate. Not everyone knows about your old dispute with a certain forum user back in 2007/8 and I'm sure you don't want them to find out. Consider this a warning.

I don't know who you are, but I suggest that you do not threaten any of the members of this forum.  Consider this a warning.   

It's not like I threatend to take his life or something. I may have been rude, but my attitude towards him is understandble, taking in consideration what happened back then.

It's not like I threatend to take his life or something. I may have been rude, but my attitude towards him is understandble, taking in consideration what happened back then.

Blackmail is a threat just as serious as threatening bodily harm.  Don't do it again.

I am quite sure that Tom does not even care about your threats.  But it is still wrong.   

You're right about the blackmail fact, but I don't think it's serious in this case. After all, it's all about the truth here, not necessarily about me wanting to get something (in this case, not wanting him to take part in this debate)

Anyways, let's not wonder off in to off-topic land too much. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I'm Alex and I'm pleased to meet you, good sir.

You're right about the blackmail fact, but I don't think it's serious in this case. After all, it's all about the truth here, not necessarily about me wanting to get something (in this case, not wanting him to take part in this debate)

Anyways, let's not wonder off in to off-topic land too much. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I'm Alex and I'm pleased to meet you, good sir.

You can tell truth here, as long as you do not break any rules.  Anyway, if you want to discuss this further, PM me.  We have already derailed this thread enough.

So, not even an attempt at answering this question? I thought simple observations of the universe around us was supposed to show the Earth was flat, but simple observations of the sun completely disagree. Is any flat-earth advocate going to come explain this?