Where is the sun in this photo?

  • 109 Replies
  • 6827 Views
?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #90 on: December 21, 2017, 08:01:45 AM »
how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?

I guarantee 100% that you'll fail

Read the FAQ

Hey necrobury! Thanks for the tip!

Glad I could help!

Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #91 on: December 21, 2017, 11:10:32 AM »
Is there a problem here?
Have a look at narcberry's fantasies and see what you think?

I'm glad narcberry is back and enjoy watching him make you and your crew look foolish :)

Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #92 on: December 21, 2017, 01:06:20 PM »
I'm glad narcberry is back and enjoy watching him make you and your crew look foolish :)
You might want to learn what foolish means. He is only making himself and the FE community look foolish.

*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #93 on: December 21, 2017, 02:21:34 PM »
I'm glad narcberry is back and enjoy watching him make you and your crew look foolish.
And he's having as little success as you have.

By the way, fudged any new equations yet?
It is so easy to find some "equation" that will give the desired answer when you know the desired answer beforehand.

Maybe try your hand at explaining why the sun rose here in Brisbane, Australia at 117o (that is 27o SOUTH of east) yesterday morning, the summer solstice.

On your "Ice-Wall map" the sun should have been at about -23.500oS 102.878oW when it appeared to be rising here. That is a location well north of here!

If you bother to check it out the sun rises here south of east every day from 23rd Sep to 20th Mar the next year.
Yet on the "Ice-Wall map", with the sun circling overhead, the sun is always north of here!

Got any more magic Silicon Fudges to paper over this massive hole in FET?


?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #94 on: December 22, 2017, 07:49:49 AM »
The UA can accelerate light as well, since it has virtual mass. Since the sunlight must travel much further to Austrailia, the distortion is greater.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #95 on: December 22, 2017, 08:43:52 AM »
I'm glad narcberry is back and enjoy watching him make you and your crew look foolish :)
You might want to learn what foolish means. He is only making himself and the FE community look foolish.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #96 on: December 22, 2017, 12:06:37 PM »
The UA can accelerate light as well, since it has virtual mass. Since the sunlight must travel much further to Austrailia, the distortion is greater.
The time required for the light to reach us would cause no significant change in apparent angle.

Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #97 on: December 23, 2017, 12:07:23 AM »
The UA can accelerate light as well, since it has virtual mass. Since the sunlight must travel much further to Austrailia, the distortion is greater.
The time required for the light to reach us would cause no significant change in apparent angle.

It has been demonstrated that it takes light 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the sun to the earth.  If the sun is only 8,000 km away that means light speed is 16 km/sec.  At the fantastic rate the flat plane of the earth is accelerating upwards, it should be easy to demonstrate that the light leaving the sun the would appear to be lower than it actually is because of the time it took the light to travel from the sun to the earth.  16 km/sec is really not that fast.

Discuss.

Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #98 on: December 23, 2017, 12:43:55 AM »
It has been demonstrated that it takes light 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the sun to the earth.  If the sun is only 8,000 km away that means light speed is 16 km/sec.  At the fantastic rate the flat plane of the earth is accelerating upwards, it should be easy to demonstrate that the light leaving the sun the would appear to be lower than it actually is because of the time it took the light to travel from the sun to the earth.  16 km/sec is really not that fast.

Discuss.
The primary reason we know it takes light that long to travel to Earth from the sun is the distance to the sun.
The FEers reject that model, and typically reject everything to do with space. We have no direct measurements of time taken.

However there are plenty of lab experiments which show the speed of light is roughly 300 000 km/s.
With a sun/Polaris that is roughly 5000 km above us, and sets when it is above a point 10 000 km away, this gives us an actual distance to the setting sun of roughly 11200 km. Now this doesn't take into consideration Earth's movement. Earth's alleged upwards acceleration would result in this distance being slightly less.

But light will traverse these 11200 km in less than 0.04 seconds. So I doubt it would do anything significant.

If it did, shouldn't Earth accelerating upwards make the sun appear higher? But then again, it would depend upon how light behaves in general.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #99 on: December 26, 2017, 07:34:53 AM »
It has been demonstrated that it takes light 8 minutes and 20 seconds to travel from the sun to the earth.  If the sun is only 8,000 km away that means light speed is 16 km/sec.  At the fantastic rate the flat plane of the earth is accelerating upwards, it should be easy to demonstrate that the light leaving the sun the would appear to be lower than it actually is because of the time it took the light to travel from the sun to the earth.  16 km/sec is really not that fast.

Discuss.
The primary reason we know it takes light that long to travel to Earth from the sun is the distance to the sun.
The FEers reject that model, and typically reject everything to do with space. We have no direct measurements of time taken.

However there are plenty of lab experiments which show the speed of light is roughly 300 000 km/s.
With a sun/Polaris that is roughly 5000 km above us, and sets when it is above a point 10 000 km away, this gives us an actual distance to the setting sun of roughly 11200 km. Now this doesn't take into consideration Earth's movement. Earth's alleged upwards acceleration would result in this distance being slightly less.

But light will traverse these 11200 km in less than 0.04 seconds. So I doubt it would do anything significant.

If it did, shouldn't Earth accelerating upwards make the sun appear higher? But then again, it would depend upon how light behaves in general.

You're also forgetting that the speed of light is for light in a vacuum - which is not the scenario we're dealing with.

Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #100 on: December 26, 2017, 12:14:13 PM »
You're also forgetting that the speed of light is for light in a vacuum - which is not the scenario we're dealing with.
No I'm not.
The speed of light does not change by a large enough amount to cause any significant issue.

Now how about instead of just spouting crap you try to actually justify your claim?
Explain how the sun manages to appear so low.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #101 on: December 26, 2017, 12:20:12 PM »
You're also forgetting that the speed of light is for light in a vacuum - which is not the scenario we're dealing with.
No I'm not.
The speed of light does not change by a large enough amount to cause any significant issue.

Now how about instead of just spouting crap you try to actually justify your claim?
Explain how the sun manages to appear so low.

The earth is accelerating upwards, occluding low angle light.
The light is slowed down in the atmosphere, as expected, increasing the amount of occluded light.
Light is bent within UA turbulence, increasing time to target as expected in FET.

All these, and other factors, cause this optical illusion

Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #102 on: December 26, 2017, 12:28:20 PM »
The earth is accelerating upwards, occluding low angle light.
The light is slowed down in the atmosphere, as expected, increasing the amount of occluded light.
Light is bent within UA turbulence, increasing time to target as expected in FET.

All these, and other factors, cause this optical illusion
This is not an explanation.
This is just baselessly asserting crap.

As I have already explained, the time taken is so small it would have no significant effect.

Provide a quantitative explanation. How much should the light bend?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #103 on: December 26, 2017, 12:39:33 PM »
I think you missed SavagePilot's post

Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #104 on: December 26, 2017, 12:53:45 PM »
I think you missed SavagePilot's post
No, I responded directly to it.
Perhaps you can try addressing the issue at hand for once?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #105 on: December 26, 2017, 01:00:41 PM »
I think you missed SavagePilot's post
No, I responded directly to it.
Perhaps you can try addressing the issue at hand for once?

All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #106 on: December 26, 2017, 01:10:00 PM »
I think you missed SavagePilot's post
No, I responded directly to it.
Perhaps you can try addressing the issue at hand for once?

All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.
Another victory for reality
Sorry about not including a full stop, mine is not working, but a victory none the less
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

rabinoz

  • 26394
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #107 on: December 26, 2017, 06:55:09 PM »
Perhaps you can try addressing the issue at hand for once?

All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.
The useful and relevant parts of your posts in this thread:
In the sky, like always << useless trivial information>>
Read the FAQ << useless trivial information >>
Nope. As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away. << useless unproven hypothesis >>
See my sig for links to things I've already explained. << useless link to totally unproven hypotheses (ie fairy-tales) >>
Now you're just speaking nonsense. << incorrect useless trivial information>>
I'm sorry, you've been on a tangent so long I didn't realize you had a question. << more delaying tactics to cover your own ignorance. >>
Anyone can read the thread and see this isn't true. << continued delaying tactics to cover your own ignorance. >>
You're going nowhere with this line of reasoning << continued delaying tactics to cover your own ignorance. >>
UA turbulence causes this measurement variation. Obviously you didn't consider that. << totally unproven hypotheses (ie fairy-tales) >>
I'll skip the numerous cases of the Nark weaving and dodging to cover up for his total ignorance and finish with:
All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.
<< Translation: "All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you asking for answers and me dodging and weaving to avoid any actual  answers". >>

Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #108 on: December 26, 2017, 08:03:24 PM »
All I see in this thread is a bunch of posts of you whining. I've lost track of your actual question. Unless you're talking about something I've already answered.
Pointing out your bullshit and pathetic deflections is not whining.

What I have seen in this thread is you repeatedly being asked simple questions and you repeatedly deflecting, refusing to provide answers.

No, you haven't answered my questions. You repeatedly deflect them.

Can you substantiate your claim that your UA BS (which doesn't work at all as it would result in Earth tearing itself apart; but ignoring that and assuming UA does magically work), can magically make the light from the sun bend in such a way as to produce an apparent negative angle of elevation?
Note: This requires a justification of the magnitude of the effect.

Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« Reply #109 on: December 29, 2017, 11:54:53 AM »
Can you substantiate your claim that your UA...can magically make the light from the sun bend in such a way as to produce an apparent negative angle of elevation?  Note: This requires a justification of the magnitude of the effect.

Don’t forget the left/right bending effect as well.  To illustrate what I mean by that, I calculated the actual position of FE’s “nearby sun above the flat earth” from the viewpoint of an observer located at 45° North latitude on the day of the September Solstice.  I did this using simple trigonometry, as illustrated below, calculating the distance and compass direction to the sub-solar point on the earth's surface, and then the elevation angle up to the sun knowing the distance and height.  I did this ignoring any atmospheric or perspective effects, which matches how Rowbotham and other FE calculate the sun's height.  (Notice in the wiki, for example, that during the section on calculating the height of the sun, no allowance is made for the sun appearing to be at 45° elevation angle while actually being somewhere else.  No, it is assumed to actually be where it appears to be, at 45° elevation)  I did ten minute increments all night and day, midnight to midnight.

I then pulled information from the US Naval Observatory web site listing the projected direction and elevation angles for the same geographic location and also in ten minute increments.  I then calculated the difference between the USNO numbers and my calculation, and graphed the result.  This number is the magnitude of the FE proposed perspective and atmospheric effects.  It is how much the sun’s apparent position deviates from the FE sun’s supposed actual position.  The X axis on the graph is the difference between the compass direction the sun is observed to be, and the direction it is supposed to be at that time of day.  The Y axis the difference in how high above the horizon the sun should be, absent the proposed perspective and atmospheric effects.  This curve is slightly asymmetrical due to my local apparent solar noon not lining up exactly with clock noon, so the USNO numbers are coming in slightly ahead of my calculated numbers.