SunSet and SunRise Discussion

  • 126 Replies
  • 6469 Views
SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« on: June 13, 2017, 01:18:04 PM »

this is the thread to discuss this thread in the Q&A section:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70980.0


*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 41934
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2017, 01:19:59 PM »
No, the Q & A section of the forum is not for discussions. You should have just posted your thread here in debate.  If you want to copy what you posted in Q & A and edit into your post you can do that.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2017, 01:23:10 PM »
No, the Q & A section of the forum is not for discussions. You should have just posted your thread here in debate.  If you want to copy what you posted in Q & A and edit into your post you can do that.

i set it up that way because i have i question in the Q&A and if a discussion comes up there is already a link in the question thread for the discussion thread so it easier to have the connection.


*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 41934
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2017, 01:24:27 PM »
It's so poorly worded that people will think you are inviting them to Q & A for discussion. There was really no point in making two threads.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2017, 01:35:02 PM »
No, the Q & A section of the forum is not for discussions. You should have just posted your thread here in debate.  If you want to copy what you posted in Q & A and edit into your post you can do that.

i set it up that way because i have i question in the Q&A and if a discussion comes up there is already a link in the question thread for the discussion thread so it easier to have the connection.
...If you want to have a discussion, just post it here. This was silly.

First note, don't appeal to 'the Flat Earth map.' There isn't one, and no one claims that there is except REers looking for a straw man.
Second note, look at pretty much every FE model that doesn't rely on conventional Euclidean space, Davis' non-Euclidean especially. That allows for behaviour like that; one of the postulates behind the model is essentially that the Sun moves in a straight line, in one direction, and can still end up where it started. That's the fun of non-Euclidean space.

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2017, 01:42:15 PM »
No, the Q & A section of the forum is not for discussions. You should have just posted your thread here in debate.  If you want to copy what you posted in Q & A and edit into your post you can do that.

i set it up that way because i have i question in the Q&A and if a discussion comes up there is already a link in the question thread for the discussion thread so it easier to have the connection.
...If you want to have a discussion, just post it here. This was silly.

First note, don't appeal to 'the Flat Earth map.' There isn't one, and no one claims that there is except REers looking for a straw man.
Second note, look at pretty much every FE model that doesn't rely on conventional Euclidean space, Davis' non-Euclidean especially. That allows for behaviour like that; one of the postulates behind the model is essentially that the Sun moves in a straight line, in one direction, and can still end up where it started. That's the fun of non-Euclidean space.

how does a model of this non-euclidean system look like? does a model of that exist?


Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2017, 02:24:00 PM »
You are right. There is no way for FE to explain it.

First note, don't appeal to 'the Flat Earth map.' There isn't one, and no one claims that there is except REers looking for a straw man.
Well, you are partially right. There is no FE map, because there is no FE and thus all maps of this Earth have been RE Maps.
There are people that do claim there are FE maps, well, each person typically claims a single map.

Unless you wish to assert all FEers claiming such crap are just REers setting up strawmen, which would mean basically the entire FE movement is made of REers setting up strawmen and not serious FEers.

Second note, look at pretty much every FE model that doesn't rely on conventional Euclidean space, Davis' non-Euclidean especially. That allows for behaviour like that; one of the postulates behind the model is essentially that the Sun moves in a straight line, in one direction, and can still end up where it started. That's the fun of non-Euclidean space.
Yes, and it still has massive problems as pointed out before.
One such example is that you should be able to see the same sun in multiple locations, and it still doesn't explain sunsets.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2017, 03:33:11 PM »
First note, don't appeal to 'the Flat Earth map.' There isn't one, and no one claims that there is except REers looking for a straw man.
That is not entirely true there Jane.  There are a few trolls...err FE people, who refer to some of those maps.  They are just either new or too stubborn to admit when a model has been completely trashed.  It isn't straw men tactics when someone puts one of those maps up, makes claims with it, and gets destroyed by logic.  Several of those maps in question were prominent in the wiki section here and referred to until fairly recently.  But hey, tote that line, it makes the new trolls think they have a chance.

*

rabinoz

  • 26311
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2017, 03:39:46 PM »
First note, don't appeal to 'the Flat Earth map.' There isn't one, and no one claims that there is except REers looking for a straw man.
Really? I would claim that pretending that the earth is flat, yet having no idea what the basic layout might be it totally ridiculous.

When I and I imagine others refer to a 'Flat Earth map' we don't need a detailed navigation chart, just a rough continental layout is sufficient.

And we do have that in "the Wiki", though it is horribly formatted:
Quote
Circumnavigation
The Flat Earth is laid out like the United Nations logo. The North Pole is at the center while Antarctica is at the rim. The continents are spread out around the North Pole.
Circumnavigation on an FE is achieved because on a compass East and West are always at right angles to North. Thus traveling Eastwards continuously takes you in a circle around the North Pole. East and West are curved
From: The Flat Earth Society Wiki, Circumnavigation

And also in the FAQ:
Quote
What does the map of the Earth look like then?
As evidenced by the logo of the United Nations the Earth is a round disk of indefinite dimensions. The geographic North Pole is located in the center of the disk, and the Antarctic lies around the outer edges.
From: The Flat Earth Society FAQ, What does the map of the Earth look like then?

It looks like an official map to me. And no great accuracy is needed to needed for the type of discussions here.

So, please withdraw your claim, "There isn't one, and no one claims that there is except REers looking for a straw man."

And it is so telling that you seem to regard the Flat Earth Society and its evidence as so weak that you have to step fight its battles.
Let them prop up their own fairy stories!

Quote from: Jane
Second note, look at pretty much every FE model that doesn't rely on conventional Euclidean space, Davis' non-Euclidean especially. That allows for behaviour like that; one of the postulates behind the model is essentially that the Sun moves in a straight line, in one direction, and can still end up where it started. That's the fun of non-Euclidean space.
Your silly "non-Euclidean space" is nothing more that "fun" to you, but totally meaningless in any serious discussion.
There is not the slightest evidence that the real earth might be like that.

In other words, all you ever do is add confusion to any debate that you poke you nose in to, and you do it "just for fun".

If real flat earthers have any serious evidence or argument, let them present it or if you like, you present something that does fit with some "accepted" flat earth theory, not the higher math rubbish that you like to make your plaything!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2017, 04:51:23 PM »
how does a model of this non-euclidean system look like? does a model of that exist?
Non-Euclidean space allows for distances that wouldn't seem to be possible to exist on a flat surface to work just fine. You could make a triangle with three right angles, for example. The basic gist is that you get all the same distances and angles you'd otherwise get on a globe on a flat surface.

Well, you are partially right. There is no FE map, because there is no FE and thus all maps of this Earth have been RE Maps.
There is no FE map because by the time humanity had advanced to the point of being capable to go sailing it generally accepted RET, and in the modern day and age I would seriously love for you to pitch a remotely feasible way for someone to map the entire Earth given that they wouldn't trust the existing map. There is no FE map because it is and remains a stupid thing to ask for, on par with the FEer's "Have you personally been to space?"

Quote
Yes, and it still has massive problems as pointed out before.
One such example is that you should be able to see the same sun in multiple locations, and it still doesn't explain sunsets.
Not getting into this again. Your massive problems were a refusal to accept scientific fact. The former claim there doesn't follow, the latter has no reason to be the case. If you wanted to be incredibly basic, you can create a mapping from RET's Minkowski space to some non-Euclidean space where the Earth is contorted to be a disc. Create a metric from hopping back over to RET and using the regular, and there you go, a non-Euclidean model where everything is exactly as we observe it.

That is not entirely true there Jane.  There are a few trolls...err FE people, who refer to some of those maps.  They are just either new or too stubborn to admit when a model has been completely trashed.  It isn't straw men tactics when someone puts one of those maps up, makes claims with it, and gets destroyed by logic.  Several of those maps in question were prominent in the wiki section here and referred to until fairly recently.  But hey, tote that line, it makes the new trolls think they have a chance.
The only actual attempts at maps I've seen have been Sandokhan's odd thing, a few of the more conspiracy minded believe the UN logo is 100% accurate rather than just a convenient placeholder, and that's pretty much it. I think Intikam was working on one, but I don't think it went anywhere. more often it's REers pushing for FEers to provide a map, until the FEer snaps and just gives a projection they like without actually believing it's meant to be accurate.


Really? I would claim that pretending that the earth is flat, yet having no idea what the basic layout might be it totally ridiculous.
And still it's less ridiculous than expecting people to map out the entire world, even to just a rough continental layout. How would you do that?

Quote
It looks like an official map to me. And no great accuracy is needed to needed for the type of discussions here.

So, please withdraw your claim, "There isn't one, and no one claims that there is except REers looking for a straw man."

And it is so telling that you seem to regard the Flat Earth Society and its evidence as so weak that you have to step fight its battles.
Let them prop up their own fairy stories!

Except I'm pretty sure Davis has been talking about retiring the Wiki so I doubt that's even meant to be a representative answer, and 'laid out' doesn't mean much more than 'North Pole in the centre,' and even that's contested. And in the forum's FAQ, that map gets prefaced by "Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth."
What I'm regarded as weak are these arguments that REers make. This whole map kerfuffle is beyond silly. It's possible to argue for the correct point of view poorly, and honestly I think RET has enough in support of it that you don't have to defend it with stupidity.

Quote
Your silly "non-Euclidean space" is nothing more that "fun" to you, but totally meaningless in any serious discussion.
There is not the slightest evidence that the real earth might be like that.

In other words, all you ever do is add confusion to any debate that you poke you nose in to, and you do it "just for fun".

If real flat earthers have any serious evidence or argument, let them present it or if you like, you present something that does fit with some "accepted" flat earth theory, not the higher math rubbish that you like to make your plaything!
The non-Euclidean Earth is Davis' model, all I ever do is quote what FEers say, when talking about FET, sometimes with a bit more thought into it if it's a topic i like. Davis proposed the notion. If providing FE answers confuses you, I don't really know what to say.

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2017, 05:09:00 PM »
how does a model of this non-euclidean system look like? does a model of that exist?
Non-Euclidean space allows for distances that wouldn't seem to be possible to exist on a flat surface to work just fine. You could make a triangle with three right angles, for example. The basic gist is that you get all the same distances and angles you'd otherwise get on a globe on a flat surface.

...


And that is perfectly possible on a globe shaped earth.
Thank for confirming that the non-euclidean model of the earth is in fact the global earth.

Also your explanation fit for a global earth.
As you explained there is no absolut correct flat map possible from the global earth.

That means the the term non-euclidean model means global.

*

rabinoz

  • 26311
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2017, 12:02:29 AM »
Really? I would claim that pretending that the earth is flat, yet having no idea what the basic layout might be it totally ridiculous.
And still it's less ridiculous than expecting people to map out the entire world, even to just a rough continental layout. How would you do that?
How can there even be a "Flat Earth Model" without some idea of what it looks like and the paths of the sun, moon, planets and stars?

Without at least that, the "Flat Earth Model" boils down to Areallivehuman's "EARTH is FLAT".
If that is the case, there is nothing to discuss and they might as well shut-up shop!

Quote from: Jane
Quote from: rabinoz
It looks like an official map to me. And no great accuracy is needed to needed for the type of discussions here.

Except I'm pretty sure Davis has been talking about retiring the Wiki so I doubt that's even meant to be a representative answer, and 'laid out' doesn't mean much more than 'North Pole in the centre,' and even that's contested. And in the forum's FAQ, that map gets prefaced by "Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth."
What I'm regarded as weak are these arguments that REers make. This whole map kerfuffle is beyond silly. It's possible to argue for the correct point of view poorly, and honestly I think RET has enough in support of it that you don't have to defend it with stupidity.
I'm not defending the Globe, just pointing out that Flat Earthers have no coherent model.
It does appear pointless to try to claim that the existing Globe Earth is incorrect while having no viable alternative.

This "New Flat Earth Movement" started in the early 1800's. Surely in over 200 years one would expect that at least the basic layout would be known. Rowbotham already gave the most accepted layout (around 1881), then Zetetes gave an alternate one that included Antarctica (around 1918) as in

ENaG Fig. 54 Diagram of the earth's surface
     

Zetetes Sea Earth Globe, Fig 25, basic layout.
     

Bipolar Flat Earth - "modern" version of
Zetetes Sea Earth Globe, Fig 25, basic layout.
And your are suggesting that absolutely no progress in well over 100 years is acceptable?

Quote from: Jane
Quote from: rabinoz
If real flat earthers have any serious evidence or argument, let them present it or if you like, you present something that does fit with some "accepted" flat earth theory, not the higher math rubbish that you like to make your plaything!
The non-Euclidean Earth is Davis' model, all I ever do is quote what FEers say, when talking about FET, sometimes with a bit more thought into it if it's a topic I like. Davis proposed the notion. If providing FE answers confuses you, I don't really know what to say.
Yes, as a mathematician it might, but John Davis never had the slightest basis for it other that the "Ferrari Effect" after Leo Ferrari, the "pretend flat earther".
Leo Ferrari came up with these ideas to teach his students about "why we believe that the earth is a Globe".

I did write a bit about John Davis and his claim the Einstein proves that the earth is flat.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GEODESY Message by rabinoz on June 11, 2016, 05:03:06 PM
John Davis wrote
IF its fair game for round earth science to bend space and time itself, why is it all of a sudden ridiculous when a flat earther does it? Psh.
There is a difference, Einstein's GR might affect time to a measurable degree, but hardly alters space in our vicinity and then not by "bending it". The effect is to change the earth's diameter by maybe 1 cm! Big Deal.

So, sure "a flat earther" can hypothesise the bending of spacetime, but only as justified be some reasonable theory.

But, still if you find it fun to speculate like this and play with the maths, go for it!

I'll finish with this bit to give you some idea about Leo Ferrari, and his massive curving:
Could I most humbly and respectfully suggest that in the highly unlikely event that they fail to find "The Edge", but instead find
THE SOUTH POLE,
that a large Penguin proof copy of the plaque be placed at the Geographic South Pole?

Finding "the edge " should be no trouble,

since Andrea Barnes apparently did it unaided on a Snowmobile


In search of the edge of the flat earth
  ;D Or, maybe even she failed, after 50 years of searching! Who knows?  ;D

This may help in understanding the video: In search of the edge, Study Guide, but then again it may not!

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2017, 03:24:33 AM »
Well, you are partially right. There is no FE map, because there is no FE and thus all maps of this Earth have been RE Maps.
There is no FE map because by the time humanity had advanced to the point of being capable to go sailing it generally accepted RET, and in the modern day and age I would seriously love for you to pitch a remotely feasible way for someone to map the entire Earth given that they wouldn't trust the existing map. There is no FE map because it is and remains a stupid thing to ask for, on par with the FEer's "Have you personally been to space?"
No. Humanity has been able to understand a FE for quite some time. It doesn't requite any special skills.
The whole idea of making it non-Euclidean is to make it match a round Earth so they wouldn't even need a new map.
They can make a map the same way those supporting a RE did. They didn't have a map when they were making it.

It is only a stupid thing to ask for because Earth has already been mapped and it isn't flat.

Quote
Yes, and it still has massive problems as pointed out before.
One such example is that you should be able to see the same sun in multiple locations, and it still doesn't explain sunsets.
Not getting into this again. Your massive problems were a refusal to accept scientific fact. The former claim there doesn't follow, the latter has no reason to be the case. If you wanted to be incredibly basic, you can create a mapping from RET's Minkowski space to some non-Euclidean space where the Earth is contorted to be a disc. Create a metric from hopping back over to RET and using the regular, and there you go, a non-Euclidean model where everything is exactly as we observe it.
No. My "massive problem" was a refusal to accept a baseless claim which reality contradicts. If you wish to assert it as a fact you need to be able to justify it, and no, linking to other places which just repeat the baseless claim is not a justification. So no, it isn't a scientific fact.

If light follows geodesics (at least what I can gather a geodesic is which goes against your definition), which as far as I can tell, follow the curvature of space (especially as that is what you want to claim as an equivalent of a straight line and thus the equivalent (or part thereof) of a flat surface), then light would follow the curve of Earth/space.
Then similar to how 2 geodesics can intersect twice, you would be able to see the sun twice.

In this kind of space (to try and make the round Earth flat), light parallel to the surface of Earth would follow the curve of Earth. If it is aimed straight up, it would go straight up. If it is at a slight angle then it would go around Earth proceeding outwards in a spiral.
This means if the sun was directly overhead (as an example), you would be able to look straight up and see the sun. You could also look at an angle offset from straight up, where the light circles around (inward from he sun) and still meets your eye.

As the sun approached the horizon (or 0 degree angle of elevation), you would end up with numerous suns as a massive streak.
The sun would NEVER go below 0 degree angle of elevation.

And no, you can't just map it back and forth as light would follow a fundamentally different path. The only way to do that is appeal to the time axis, but that would significantly effect gravity. If it is capable of throwing light off the surface of Earth rather than having it follow the curvature of space, then it would be even better at throwing us much slower moving objects off the surface.

A simple example, consider the path of light over the surface of a sphere and mapping that back to flat space.
You can start at the north pole, go down to the equator, turn 90 degrees, go along the equator as long as you like, then turn 90 degrees and go back to the north pole.
By centring your transform on the north pole, you would be able to make 2 of these lines straight in flat space, but the third would be curved.
In flat space, light would not follow that curve, but in spherical space, it would.

So no, you can't just ignore the curvature and pretend space is flat to determine how light would travel.
If you have to do that, that would mean space is flat.


The only actual attempts at maps I've seen have been Sandokhan's odd thing, a few of the more conspiracy minded believe the UN logo is 100% accurate rather than just a convenient placeholder, and that's pretty much it. I think Intikam was working on one, but I don't think it went anywhere. more often it's REers pushing for FEers to provide a map, until the FEer snaps and just gives a projection they like without actually believing it's meant to be accurate.
So you don't like Tom Bishop's attempt?
Sure, he doesn't start from scratch and instead tries to manipulate existing maps of Earth, but he tries claiming it is accurate.
Regardless, it isn't just the map, it is the model the map is based upon which doesn't work.

As for never going anywhere, yes, that is typically the case when you are dishonestly trying to manipulate reality to try and make it match a FE.
He tries, but fails, repeatedly with seriously flawed methods, sometimes just outright discarding data that doesn't match the model he wants.

Really? I would claim that pretending that the earth is flat, yet having no idea what the basic layout might be it totally ridiculous.
And still it's less ridiculous than expecting people to map out the entire world, even to just a rough continental layout. How would you do that?
Just like the people of the past did.

A simple way would be to start measuring bearings to numerous points and start making connected triangles from them.

Except I'm pretty sure Davis has been talking about retiring the Wiki so I doubt that's even meant to be a representative answer, and 'laid out' doesn't mean much more than 'North Pole in the centre,' and even that's contested. And in the forum's FAQ, that map gets prefaced by "Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth."
What I'm regarded as weak are these arguments that REers make. This whole map kerfuffle is beyond silly. It's possible to argue for the correct point of view poorly, and honestly I think RET has enough in support of it that you don't have to defend it with stupidity.
Again, it isn't just the map, it is that their model is fundamentally flawed and makes no sense at all.
You can try to have that model match various locations, but then other parts completely fail.

The non-Euclidean Earth is Davis' model, all I ever do is quote what FEers say, when talking about FET, sometimes with a bit more thought into it if it's a topic i like. Davis proposed the notion. If providing FE answers confuses you, I don't really know what to say.
The issue is that they are not answers. They are pathetic excuses to avoid answers. His arguments supporting it are also blatantly wrong.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2017, 04:07:50 AM »
And that is perfectly possible on a globe shaped earth.
Thank for confirming that the non-euclidean model of the earth is in fact the global earth.

Also your explanation fit for a global earth.
As you explained there is no absolut correct flat map possible from the global earth.

That means the the term non-euclidean model means global.
Uh, none of that even begins to follow. What we're doing is analogous to shifting reference frames; but just because you can do that under RET doesn't mean the Sun rotates around the Earth, just that it's possible to create a mathematical model for doing so.


How can there even be a "Flat Earth Model" without some idea of what it looks like and the paths of the sun, moon, planets and stars?
...I only mentioned the map. That doesn't touch the topics of Sun, moon, planets and stars. There's still a wealth of discussions to be had with respects to mechanisms of gravity, causes if the Coriolis effect, circumpolar stars etc... The problems with those aren't "Where is the equator?" but "How can there be any sort of dividing line?" You don't need to know how to get from the US and Australia to wonder about transits.
This is the kind of thing I argue against; nonsensical claims by REers.

Quote
It does appear pointless to try to claim that the existing Globe Earth is incorrect while having no viable alternative.

This "New Flat Earth Movement" started in the early 1800's. Surely in over 200 years one would expect that at least the basic layout would be known. Rowbotham already gave the most accepted layout (around 1881), then Zetetes gave an alternate one that included Antarctica (around 1918)
And your are suggesting that absolutely no progress in well over 100 years is acceptable?
It's just as pointless to declare it dead on arrival. If you don't want to discuss FET, get a new hobby.
There's been plenty of progress over even just the last ten years. There's more to FET than just the map. You've got DET, Davis's non-Euclidean Earth, denpressure... whatever your issues with them, they're all different to the FET Rowbotham held to. There's progress.
But as far as the map goes, it doesn't matter what you find acceptable, it matters what we have, and what we have is presumably a society way back when that had better things to do than give up their whole lives to sail the Earth and learn cartography, and a world which is not that easy to map and it remains stupid to ask.

Quote
Yes, as a mathematician it might, but John Davis never had the slightest basis for it other that the "Ferrari Effect" after Leo Ferrari, the "pretend flat earther".
Leo Ferrari came up with these ideas to teach his students about "why we believe that the earth is a Globe".
Which just isn't true, Ferrari seems to be some of his evidence for it but he spoke at length several times about Euclid's postulates. Besides, there's no reason for space to be Euclidean except for how it seems that way on small scales.


They can make a map the same way those supporting a RE did. They didn't have a map when they were making it.
Sure. Are you going to foot the bill for the fleet of ships?


Quote
A simple way would be to start measuring bearings to numerous points and start making connected triangles from them.
Or, ok, are you going to foot the bill for flights all around the Earth, and the studies to verify the properties of (presumably) light given that such observations as a ship on the horizon indicate it isn't that simple under FET?

Quote
No. My "massive problem" was a refusal to accept a baseless claim which reality contradicts. If you wish to assert it as a fact you need to be able to justify it, and no, linking to other places which just repeat the baseless claim is not a justification. So no, it isn't a scientific fact.
Once more, not getting into this again, suffice to say you're pretty clearly misrepresenting, well, everything. It was a waste of time to discuss this with you before, why would i want to get into it a second time?


Quote
Again, it isn't just the map, it is that their model is fundamentally flawed and makes no sense at all.
Then stop asking for a map. There are a few good arguments out there, while admittedly there are bad ones too, but here I'm just talking about the map. if you've got actually issues with FET, go right ahead and make them. Insisting someone map the world is not a good complaint.

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2017, 04:28:24 AM »
...
Again, it isn't just the map, it is that their model is fundamentally flawed and makes no sense at all.
Then stop asking for a map. There are a few good arguments out there, while admittedly there are bad ones too, but here I'm just talking about the map. if you've got actually issues with FET, go right ahead and make them. Insisting someone map the world is not a good complaint.
[/quote]

but does a 3d-model exist from that non-Euclidean model? with the computer programs that are available it should be possible to generate one.


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2017, 04:29:24 AM »
but does a 3d-model exist from that non-Euclidean model? with the computer programs that are available it should be possible to generate one.
Probably. if you're interested you can get right onto making it.

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2017, 04:36:46 AM »
but does a 3d-model exist from that non-Euclidean model? with the computer programs that are available it should be possible to generate one.
Probably. if you're interested you can get right onto making it.

with the scientific informations we have today its already done, it is called the heliocentric model of the solarsystem.
again your non-euclidean model ends up as the known global earth in a heliocentric system.

BTW even there is a model of a flat earth, it called Discworld  ;D

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2017, 05:15:41 AM »
with the scientific informations we have today its already done, it is called the heliocentric model of the solarsystem.
again your non-euclidean model ends up as the known global earth in a heliocentric system.
No, it doesn't. That remains just wrong. Sure, you can map it to the heliocentric system, just like you can map the heliocentric system to a geocentric. Why does this implication go only the one way, according to you?

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2017, 05:27:52 AM »
with the scientific informations we have today its already done, it is called the heliocentric model of the solarsystem.
again your non-euclidean model ends up as the known global earth in a heliocentric system.
No, it doesn't. That remains just wrong. Sure, you can map it to the heliocentric system, just like you can map the heliocentric system to a geocentric. Why does this implication go only the one way, according to you?

than you state it can be anything, you simply do not know.

what speaks against a global earth in a heliocentric system?
what are the explanations that shows that this is not the real system?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2017, 05:39:16 AM »
than you state it can be anything, you simply do not know.

what speaks against a global earth in a heliocentric system?
what are the explanations that shows that this is not the real system?
None of that makes sense.
I asked you a question. Why are you claiming the implication goes only one way? Why does non-Euclidean FET equal heliocentric RET, but heliocentric RET does not equal non-Euclidean FET?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39584
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2017, 06:15:29 AM »
how does a model of this non-euclidean system look like? does a model of that exist?
Non-Euclidean space allows for distances that wouldn't seem to be possible to exist on a flat surface to work just fine. You could make a triangle with three right angles, for example. The basic gist is that you get all the same distances and angles you'd otherwise get on a globe on a flat surface.
Umm...  You do realize that we already have a non-Euclidean model of the earth, don't you?  It's called a globe.  In fact, that's pretty much what non-Euclidean means.


Well, you are partially right. There is no FE map, because there is no FE and thus all maps of this Earth have been RE Maps.
There is no FE map because by the time humanity had advanced to the point of being capable to go sailing it generally accepted RET...
Incorrect.  One of the earliest observations that got people to start thinking that the earth might not be flat was the sinking ship phenomenon.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2017, 06:36:55 AM »
Umm...  You do realize that we already have a non-Euclidean model of the earth, don't you?  It's called a globe.  In fact, that's pretty much what non-Euclidean means.
No, non-Euclidean means 'not Euclidean space.' Sure, the surface of a globe is one example. So's a disc in non-Euclidean space.


Quote
Incorrect.  One of the earliest observations that got people to start thinking that the earth might not be flat was the sinking ship phenomenon.
Yes, so when civilizations started using ships they'd end up looking towards RET. When they develop enough to be able to sail all around the world, as I'd hope the context of my post would suggest, they'd be thinking in terms of RET.

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2017, 06:44:36 AM »
Umm...  You do realize that we already have a non-Euclidean model of the earth, don't you?  It's called a globe.  In fact, that's pretty much what non-Euclidean means.
No, non-Euclidean means 'not Euclidean space.' Sure, the surface of a globe is one example. So's a disc in non-Euclidean space.


Quote
Incorrect.  One of the earliest observations that got people to start thinking that the earth might not be flat was the sinking ship phenomenon.
Yes, so when civilizations started using ships they'd end up looking towards RET. When they develop enough to be able to sail all around the world, as I'd hope the context of my post would suggest, they'd be thinking in terms of RET.

and that is what we see, the non-euclidean space bends the disc earth into a globe.
and that is the reality we can see and measure.


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2017, 07:01:05 AM »
and that is what we see, the non-euclidean space bends the disc earth into a globe.
and that is the reality we can see and measure.
That isn't how anything works.

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2017, 07:50:18 AM »
and that is what we see, the non-euclidean space bends the disc earth into a globe.
and that is the reality we can see and measure.
That isn't how anything works.

than please explain how it works.

what is the shape of the earth.
how does the sun look like
and how do they work together?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2017, 08:11:06 AM »
and that is what we see, the non-euclidean space bends the disc earth into a globe.
and that is the reality we can see and measure.
That isn't how anything works.

than please explain how it works.

what is the shape of the earth.
how does the sun look like
and how do they work together?

I've already answered the OP question. Just because you've decided non Euclidean Earth equals RET but RET does not equal non-Euclidean flat Earth, and you're still not answering how on earth you make that distinction, isn't going to change that.
If you wonder why FEers don't bother answering you, it's ridiculousness like this. Why should someone have to repeat an answer?

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #26 on: June 14, 2017, 08:24:40 AM »
and that is what we see, the non-euclidean space bends the disc earth into a globe.
and that is the reality we can see and measure.
That isn't how anything works.

than please explain how it works.

what is the shape of the earth.
how does the sun look like
and how do they work together?

I've already answered the OP question. Just because you've decided non Euclidean Earth equals RET but RET does not equal non-Euclidean flat Earth, and you're still not answering how on earth you make that distinction, isn't going to change that.
If you wonder why FEers don't bother answering you, it's ridiculousness like this. Why should someone have to repeat an answer?

i ask a simple question that you explain to me the non-euclidean model.
your explanation till now also fits to a global earth.

please explain how the non-euclidean model is different from the global earth model.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #27 on: June 14, 2017, 08:39:40 AM »
i ask a simple question that you explain to me the non-euclidean model.
your explanation till now also fits to a global earth.

please explain how the non-euclidean model is different from the global earth model.
Is there any reason multiple models can't use similar explanations?
It's different from RET the same way heliocentrism is different from geocentrism.

Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #28 on: June 14, 2017, 08:47:39 AM »
i ask a simple question that you explain to me the non-euclidean model.
your explanation till now also fits to a global earth.

please explain how the non-euclidean model is different from the global earth model.
Is there any reason multiple models can't use similar explanations?
It's different from RET the same way heliocentrism is different from geocentrism.

than in the non-euclidean model the earth is the center of the universe.
where are the sun, moon, planets and stars located and how do they move?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: SunSet and SunRise Discussion
« Reply #29 on: June 14, 2017, 09:11:18 AM »
than in the non-euclidean model the earth is the center of the universe.
where are the sun, moon, planets and stars located and how do they move?
More than likely, yes, though that's hardly the key difference. Mostly it's, well, you know, the fact the Earth is modeled as flat.

This thread was about the direction the Sun seems to rise or set in. You are not going to expand it to cover the entirety of astronomy. Again, ridiculousness. "Explain the Sun, moon, planets and stars," is pages and pages of material and you just want it to be thrown in midway through a discussion on one specific question.
Besides, you can tell how they move. Just look up.