Anyone care to try and follow my post. Jack Black fails miserably.
I already did it. What do you want me to copy and paste what I had already provided? (I doubt it as you will likely ignore it either way).
If so, here it is:
A nice simple one is measuring the path of the sun or other stars.
Doing so you notice that they appear to circle around us, not above us as is required for a FE.
The only way for Earth to be flat with that evidence in hand is to ignore the existence of other locations and time zones.
Again, to show this, in a nice simple physical way (with some more stuff for the globe), get a camera mounted such that you can control several axes in this order (and this is just to make it easier):
1 - A tilt to align the next axis with Earth's axis of rotation. This can be manually set.
2 - a motorised axis which allows you to turn it to cancel the rotation of Earth. This could also be controlled in a more complex manner where it instead tracks the object and displays what rate it needs to turn.
3 - Additional axes (2) such that you can aim the turning camera at any object.
Applying this to the sun (or any other celestial object) shows that they appear to circle Earth's axis.
For the sun, this means it would have to go BELOW the flat Earth.
But we know that the sun is always visible somewhere, making a flat Earth impossible.
And just in case you don't quite get it all, this shows it is circling Earth as it is moving at a constant angular rate. If it was circling above Earth it would appear to travel at different speeds based upon its distance.
Also, make sure you use a solar filter.
Now stop ignoring this proof.
Either accept it or refute it.
And again, can you provide any at all for your FE delusions?
Where would we have to be situated for you to perform this experiment that physically proves your spinning globe.
Also, how exactly does it prove a spinning globe and not lights moving above or around a stationary Earth?
Remember, do not revert to books.
I need you to sit beside me and talk me through this as if we are at the location that supposedly verifies your model.
Do not copy and paste anything.
Firstly, this wasn't aimed at proving it was spinning, just that it was a globe, as per your earlier request in this thread. We can get to spinning later.
Secondly, you would do this experiment in a few locations around the world, although if you are willing to accept the observations of others, just doing it in one spot should be fine.
Thirdly, perhaps you should start reading what I said:
"And just in case you don't quite get it all, this shows it is circling Earth as it is moving at a constant angular rate. If it was circling above Earth it would appear to travel at different speeds based upon its distance."
Yes, technically I should have said that it shows it relative motion to Earth is it circling Earth.
If it was the sun moving above a stationary Earth, it's angular velocity would change depending upon how far away it was. This is due to perspective, where the further away something is the shorter a distance would appear, and as the sun would be moving at the same distance per unit time, it would appear to move at a slower rate.
Additionally, it would be found at a completely different location.
Alternatively, you could have the speed of the sun changing massively, but that would cause other issues such as its apparent size which does not change enough to compensate. So that would mean as well as changing position you would need it to massively change size.
But that still doesn't explain a sunset or sun rise, where it gets a negative angle of elevation and causes significant issues in other locations on Earth such as where the sun should be directly overhead.
But in fact, anywhere else would be a problem, as you set it up so it works out perfectly for you, then somewhere else would then observe something completely different.
For example, some one a decent amount west of you would see the sun slow down as it approaches you and then speed up once it goes past you, going past them much faster. They would also see it appear to grow significantly.
You then have the other issue of completing the circle to get back to the same spot.
Perhaps a good place to start would be at the equator on the equinox, preferably a few places stationed around the equator, where the equipment gets set up, you move on, the next one is set up and so on, synchronising the time between them. 3 should be fine.
This will allow you to observe the sun appear to move in a circle perpendicular to the ground (well, roughly the local level) at these three points and aligned in an east-west direction.
This shows that the equator is a circle and that the sun's apparent path is a circle.
But a key point is that these 2 circles are in the same plane, one which is perpendicular to the ground and aligned east-west. The only way that works out is if Earth is round. This is because the circle at the equator would have to bend into the ground.
Try and understand what physical proof is.
Sitting on a beach or field and pointing to a disappearing sun is not proof of anything other than story telling as to what you were told about your global rotation.
That's right. It doesn't show Earth is rotating, but it does show it is a globe.
This shows the sun is at a negative angle of elevation. The only way for it to work on a flat Earth is if it goes under the flat Earth (like it did in ancient FE models). That would mean it couldn't be above some other place on the FE at the same time.
Now I'll sit next to you and say, " see that sun disappearing?...It's moving away from us and over that dome as a reflection."
That doesn't make me physically right any more than you are physically correct on your aided assumption.
And then I will sit next to you and explain how that doesn't work at all, providing several examples.
Lets start with the southern summer (don't worry, I will use other examples as well).
Lets jump to a time (around the 21st of December) where the sun appears directly overhead the tropic of Capricorn at 0 degrees east.
Where would the sun need to be?
Well if it is a "reflection" off the dome (by which I assume you mean the dome is somehow bending the light akin to refraction, but not bending it back after it goes through the dome), it would need to be some place south of that location (unless you are going to claim the dome isn't a dome).
For places south, it would appear due north. It would take some complex math and assumptions about the dome to get any issue with this, so I won't bother, and instead just leave that as working fine. However note that it only appears due north, no where else.
For places north of the dome, it would appear due south. This includes a point on the Arctic circle where it will appear due south at roughly 0 degrees angle of elevation (it would be sitting right on the horizon).
Anyone along that line (at least those which aren't further away) should thus be able to look along that line and see the sun.
But this line goes all the way down that 0 degree longitude, right to the edge of the dome. That means places like the tropic and even further south like Antarctica should be able to look due south at the horizon and see the sun, but they don't.
So that alone is enough to poke some serious holes in that idea, as it simply doesn't match reality.
But don't worry, it gets worse.
What is happening around the world, at 180 degrees longitude, south of the Antarctic circle?
Well right on that circle the sun appears due south, just above the horizon. At first this doesn't seem like an issue, until you remember that in the FE model, due south here is the same direction as due north at 0 degrees east.
This means the sun has to be in a completely different location further refuting this model.
I would use the equinox, but you will likely say you can't get to Antarctica making it pointless, so lets move on the the northern summer.
You get similar issues here.
The sun appears directly above the tropic of cancer at 0 degrees East. Again, due to how the dome works, it must be somewhere south of here.
On the Antarctic circle, at 0 degrees East, it appears due north, on the horizon.
This means the light goes almost all the way across the entire Earth, and requires the sun to be in a completely different location. But that means almost anyone on Earth, at some point during the northern summer should be able to look due north and see the sun on the horizon, or due south and see the son on the horizon.
But they can't.
In fact, if they are at midday (or north of the Arctic circle at midday or midnight), they should be able to look in either direction and see the sun. This is due to the Arctic circle at 180 degrees East.
Here the sun appears due north, on the horizon. That means the light goes over half way across the world and requires the sun to be in a location more akin to that of the southern summer.
Similar problems arise for other stars, like Polaris.
With Polaris, due to how it appears on the equator, with the light going 3/4 of the way over Earth, along Earth, such that Polaris appears on the horizon, due north, anyone in the northern hemisphere should be able to look due north or due south and see Polaris on the horizon. Anyone south of the equator should at least be able to look due south and see it on the horizon.
But again, this doesn't match reality. Those significantly south of the equator can't see Polaris at all. Those north of the equator see it above the horizon.
So no, that dome explanation doesn't work at all.
You came here to brag about your globe and to ensure that people keep a belief that flat/alternate Earth theorists are crazed idiots, basically. Just like many of your so called global friends.
I came here (to this forum) to see the arguments and evidence put forward for the FE model, and so far have found none that hold up to scrutiny.
My Earth is of no concern to you. You already know that all (except your indoctrinated spinning globe) other theories are apparent nonsense.
Do you know one of the big reason I know they are nonsense?
Because of people like you that claim there is proof but continually refuse to provide it and instead just provide crap or complain about the RE model.
I want you to do this by using your own so called clever scientific mind and not resorting to use of copy and paste reliance on the bullies who force fed you your utter bullshit.
Yes, I'm calling it utter bullshit. Get angry and show me a physical proof. Show me how I can physically be under no illusions about what Earth apparently is, in your mind.
Yet you have been completely unable to explain why it is bullshit. You just dismiss it or ignore it.
I did that. You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said. Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain. It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see. How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
Something like this:
You have the sun illuminating the clouds and the mountain from below, such that the mountain obstructs the path of the light from the sun to the clouds creating a shadow on the clouds.
I did that. You have no alternate explanation you just ignore what was said. Explain how the sun stays the same size and drops below the horizon shinning its light upwards to the top of a mountain. It works in a round model and is physical proof you can see. How does it work in your model.
In bold. Show me what you mean.
I don't understand what you don't understand. Have you never seen a sunset? Explain it in your model.
I don't understand what a sun set is.
What is a sunset and how and why does it SET?
That wasn't what you put in bold.
The sun doesn't actually set, it just appears to.
This is due to the rotation of Earth.
This changes the apparent angle of the sun, with it appearing to move at a near constant rate of 0.25 degrees per minute.
During this apparent motion, its apparent angle of elevation will drop below 0 and drop below the horizon.
This means Earth will start to obstruct your view of the sun, causing it to appear to drop below Earth and thus "set"