Sun moves down during sunset and up during sunrise at the exact same time?

Hello flat earth people. I'm new to this group and I have a question that I've been trying to find an answer to from someone in your camp but have not been able to. Here's the break down.

1. At any given moment, the Sun is setting for observers at a particular spot on earth and the Sun is noticeably moving downwards.
2. At the exact same time, approximately half way around the world, the Sun is rising for observers it is moving upwards.
3. This can easily be verified by a person in one location calling another in the other location and sharing observations.
4. Now how can the same Sun be moving in different directions on a flat earth at the exact same time?

I'd love to hear how this can be resolved with a single Sun on a flat earth since everyone would be seeing the same Sun moving in a single direction.

The perspective gives such view. The more distance, the lower sun's position will be. The less distance, the higher sun's position will be.

I meant the sun with the same altitude.
The sun's altitude itself is different throught out the months in a year.

The perspective gives such view. The more distance, the lower sun's position will be. The less distance, the higher sun's position will be.

Perspective cannot explain how it gets so low, to the extent of appearing to cut into Earth.

The perspective gives such view. The more distance, the lower sun's position will be. The less distance, the higher sun's position will be.

Perspective would make it grow smaller and not sink below the horizon.

The perspective gives such view. The more distance, the lower sun's position will be. The less distance, the higher sun's position will be.

Perspective doesn't explain how the sun remains essentially the size as it travels from horizon to horizon. 

Perspective doesn't explain how the sun actually remains the same size as it appears/disappears above/below the horizon.

Mike

1. At any given moment, the Sun is setting for observers at a particular spot on earth and the Sun is noticeably moving downwards.
2. At the exact same time, approximately half way around the world, the Sun is rising for observers it is moving upwards.
3. This can easily be verified by a person in one location calling another in the other location and sharing observations.
4. Now how can the same Sun be moving in different directions on a flat earth at the exact same time?

Just because an object is *noticeably* or *apparently* moving downwards does not mean it is *actually* moving downwards.

The Falcon Heavy in this video:



at time 1:34 is "noticeably" moving up. A second later, for a different observer it is "noticeably" moving down. Did it change direction in one frame of the video?

For one observer it goes "up." For one observer it goes "down."

And then from that point to 2:30, it "noticeably" changes direction until it is going "straight down."

Is it really going straight down?

Quote from: Nidecker on February 13, 2018, 02:41:20 PM

1. At any given moment, the Sun is setting for observers at a particular spot on earth and the Sun is noticeably moving downwards.
2. At the exact same time, approximately half way around the world, the Sun is rising for observers it is moving upwards.
3. This can easily be verified by a person in one location calling another in the other location and sharing observations.
4. Now how can the same Sun be moving in different directions on a flat earth at the exact same time?

Just because an object is *noticeably* or *apparently* moving downwards does not mean it is *actually* moving downwards.

The Falcon Heavy in this video:



at time 1:34 is "noticeably" moving up. A second later, for a different observer it is "noticeably" moving down. Did it change direction in one frame of the video?

For one observer it goes "up." For one observer it goes "down."

And then from that point to 2:30, it "noticeably" changes direction until it is going "straight down."

Is it really going straight down?

The path of the sun is well documented for times and locations across the earth.

These guys failed about FE 101. Case closed.

They are showing how FE 101 doesn’t work.

Kinda like how the FE sun should move slower at the horizon, yet it moves faster.

So far the only person that actually tried to answer the question was Curiouser and Curiouser who said "just because anobject is *noticeably* or *apparently* moving downwards does not mean it is *actually* moving downwards", and used a video of the Space X launch to illustrate his point. But the problem with your illustration is you have no idea idea at what angel the camera recording the shot where the rocket appears to be pointed downward. Video illustrations for this reason are not adequate.

In the real world, if the observer is stationary, nothing that's moving downwards towards the horizon can actually be moving away from it.

Just think about it for a minute and you will see that a flat earth cannot explain the simultaneous setting and rising sun. Only a spherical earth can explain it by placing each each observer at opposite ends of the sphere where one side is rotating away from the sun (sunset), and the other observer is moving towards the sun (sunrise).

I somehow doubt I will be getting any more reasonable responses because physically speaking, there really is no way to explain it with a flat earth and a single sun.

We didn’t answer the OP because it’s been covered so many times. It is, indeed, impossible.

So you concede that it's impossible to explain how the sun can be setting and rising at the same time on a flat earth? In that case, how can you maintain a flat earth?

There are around 10 flat earthers on this site. The rest are fake.

But the problem with your illustration is you have no idea idea at what angel the camera recording the shot where the rocket appears to be pointed downward. Video illustrations for this reason are not adequate.

The problem with your reply is that now you are moving the goalposts. Your incredibly simplistic question was answered completely, with an appropriately simple video example ... designed to be simple enough that someone who can't see the answer can now visualize the "how" of your question. Now you berate the video example which answered your question of not being adequate? Of requiring the angles and locations? Where will you move the goalposts next?

Oh, and the rest of your post is full of faulty logic. No wonder you are having such trouble with geometry.

I'm not moving the goal posts at all. My case is strictly limited to actual observations of two people on opposite ends of the Earth and not video shots. Video angles are completely relevant to your example and that's why the rocket looks like it's pointed downwards when it's obviously moving upwards. That's the only way it's possible get that shot. How else can the rocket be pointing downwards when it's in fact moving upwards.

If you don't understand how it's literally impossible for the Sun to be moving both downwards during sunset and upwards during sunrise to two stationary observers on opposite ends of the Earth then I can see why you believe in a flat earth in the face of this unresolvable case. No argument or appeal to logic will convince you since you obviously don't have the capacity to grasp the impossibility of your position.

I'm not moving the goal posts at all. My case is strictly limited to actual observations of two people on opposite ends of the Earth and not video shots. Video angles are completely relevant to your example and that's why the rocket looks like it's pointed downwards when it's obviously moving upwards. That's the only way it's possible get that shot. How else can the rocket be pointing downwards when it's in fact moving upwards.

If you don't understand how it's literally impossible for the Sun to be moving both downwards during sunset and upwards during sunrise to two stationary observers on opposite ends of the Earth then I can see why you believe in a flat earth in the face of this unresolvable case. No argument or appeal to logic will convince you since you obviously don't have the capacity to grasp the impossibility of your position.

Incorrect assumptions, incorrect logic, incorrect conclusions.

Just saying things doesn't make it true. It should be relatively easy for you to point out exactly that about my assumptions and logic are incorrect. But I'm going to guess you're going to reply with much the same empty words.

Let me try to appeal to your reasoning one more time and please read this very carefully and with all your attention. My case is very simple. Two stationary observers viewing with their own eyes and not viewing video. One viewing the sunset where the sun is moving downwards below the horizon and the other viewing the sunrise where the sun is moving upwards coming over the horizon. In this case, because the observers are stationary and the sun is moving against the horizon as the frame of reference, you can be confident that the direction of the movement of the sun is the real direction. A flat earth cannot explain this case. Only a sphere can where one observer is on one side moving away from the earth (sunset) and the other observer is on the other side moving towards the sun (sunrise). There is no other physical model that can explain this case if you assume a single sun. Now if you still can't follow my logic then this explains why you are a flat earther. 

No reason to discuss this further unless you have some legitimate questions for me to help you understand this case.

Peace.

Just saying things doesn't make it true. It should be relatively easy for you to point out exactly that about my assumptions and logic are incorrect. But I'm going to guess you're going to reply with much the same empty words.

Let me try to appeal to your reasoning one more time and please read this very carefully and with all your attention. My case is very simple. Two stationary observers viewing with their own eyes and not viewing video. One viewing the sunset where the sun is moving downwards below the horizon and the other viewing the sunrise where the sun is moving upwards coming over the horizon. In this case, because the observers are stationary and the sun is moving against the horizon as the frame of reference, you can be confident that the direction of the movement of the sun is the real direction. A flat earth cannot explain this case. Only a sphere can where one observer is on one side moving away from the earth (sunset) and the other observer is on the other side moving towards the sun (sunrise). There is no other physical model that can explain this case if you assume a single sun. Now if you still can't follow my logic then this explains why you are a flat earther. 

No reason to discuss this further unless you have some legitimate questions for me to help you understand this case.

Peace.

I understand what you have written. I pay very careful attention to what people say and what they don't say in their posts. No need to include the admonition to pay attention and read carefully.

I also understand that you think the only explanation is the one you've given and that any other is "literally impossible."

Your first post asked a question. It was a question with very little detail, and as such I answered it with little detail - an example showing how an object can be appearing to move up and move down at the same time.

"Now how can the same Sun be moving in different directions on a flat earth at the exact same time?"

There was an example of an object "moving in different directions at the exact same time" due to the geometry of the situation.

This is not "literally impossible," it is a descriptive example.

So, you now want details of how it works with the sun. OK, take the hypothetical of a Sun 3000 miles in altitude over a flat earth. At noon it is directly overhead for Observer A. Can it be seen "on the other side of the Earth" by Observer B? You say it must. Why? You say because it's in a straight line to Observer B, therefore it must be able to be seen. Hmmm. That makes an assumption that light travels in a straight line. Of course it does, you say! Current teaching though is that the sun can be seen when its fully below the horizon because of the refraction of the atmosphere. (Someone claiming "It's literally impossible for you to see the sun when it's physically below the horizon!" would need to learn that there is an effect he had neglected to consider.)

So, is it *impossible* for Observer B to not be illuminated by sunlight? No. Remember, likelihood and probability are not an issue here.

In my hypothetical, as the sun moves from overhead Observer A to overhead Observer B it *appears* to be moving downward in the sky for Observer A. At some point when it is approaching Observer B it becomes visible to Observer B and appears to be moving upward in the sky.

This answers the question you posed. (Which may not be the question wanted or the one you think you asked.)

Only in the last post did you specify the sun going downward below the horizon and coming upward over the horizon. That does make the question a different one.

When you only ask one question, with the inherent assumptions that you make about the rest of the solution space, and claim anything else is "impossible" you open yourself to the criticism you've seen here.

If you don't understand how it's literally impossible for the Sun to be moving both downwards during sunset and upwards during sunrise to two stationary observers on opposite ends of the Earth then I can see why you believe in a flat earth in the face of this unresolvable case. No argument or appeal to logic will convince you since you obviously don't have the capacity to grasp the impossibility of your position.

Just saying things doesn't make it true. It should be relatively easy for you to point out exactly that about my assumptions and logic are incorrect. [snip] There is no other physical model that can explain this case if you assume a single sun. Now if you still can't follow my logic then this explains why you are a flat earther. 

I may answer a simple question with a simple answer. I may point out faulty logic and argumentative fallacies. I may challenge assumptions. I may counter poor arguments with obvious rebuttals.

But you have assumed that you know my belief, my position, and that I am a flat earther.

That's a very curious assumption.

Would you care to comment on why you made that assumption?

You're reading my writings to literally. You have to take my statements in context. The very limited context here is the case of two observers viewing the sunset and sunrise. So when I asked "Now how can the same Sun be moving in different directions on a flat earth at the exact same time?", it's within this context and not a general statement. This is why your video example doesn't apply.

Your hypothetical isn't relevant to the specific case I've outlined. I know there are cases when the sun is overhead where it can be moving in two different directions to two different observers. I don't care about when the sun is overhead. My case is strictly limited to when the sun is actually dipping below the horizon and rising up from below the horizon. At the right location, two observers will see both the rising sun and the setting sun at the exact same time. This is the case that can't be explained by any flat earth model.

If you want to keep the discussion going, then stick to this specific case.

The key element to my case is the horizon as the reference point. It allow the observer to clearly see the sun moving downward below the horizon and upwarda above the horizon. That's another reason your video and hypothetical doesn't apply - they don't have any reference points to base the direction off of.

So, you now want details of how it works with the sun. OK, take the hypothetical of a Sun 3000 miles in altitude over a flat earth. At noon it is directly overhead for Observer A. Can it be seen "on the other side of the Earth" by Observer B? You say it must. Why? You say because it's in a straight line to Observer B, therefore it must be able to be seen.

No. The light from the sun will be refracted downwards, resulting in the sun appearing slightly higher, meaning it should be seen by everyone on Earth.

So, is it *impossible* for Observer B to not be illuminated by sunlight? No. Remember, likelihood and probability are not an issue here.

Yes, assuming observer B is outside, above ground, etc, rather than inside, underground, etc.

In my hypothetical, as the sun moves from overhead Observer A to overhead Observer B it *appears* to be moving downward in the sky for Observer A. At some point when it is approaching Observer B it becomes visible to Observer B and appears to be moving upward in the sky.

Why?

Only in the last post did you specify the sun going downward below the horizon and coming upward over the horizon. That does make the question a different one.

i.e. you are being pedantic and completely ignoring the meaning of the post which simple everyday observations would easily help with.
Also, you are completely wrong.
He didn't simply say the sun is going downwards for one observer and upwards for another.
He said the sun is setting for one observer and rising for another.
The sun setting and rising describes 2 phenomena, the apparent position of the sun going downwards below the horizon and going upwards above the horizon.
So no, that was included in the first post.

When you only ask one question, with the inherent assumptions that you make about the rest of the solution space, and claim anything else is "impossible" you open yourself to the criticism you've seen here.

i.e. you open yourself to pathetic pedantics, which just further show he is correct and that FE models have no explanation.

You're reading my writings to literally.

Yes. Yes I am.

If you want to keep the discussion going, then stick to this specific case.

No thanks. I've had my entertainment.

No. The light from the sun will be refracted downwards, resulting in the sun appearing slightly higher, meaning it should be seen by everyone on Earth.

If you make certain assumptions.

i.e. you are being pedantic and completely ignoring the meaning of the post which simple everyday observations would easily help with.
Also, you are completely wrong.
He didn't simply say the sun is going downwards for one observer and upwards for another.
He said the sun is setting for one observer and rising for another.
The sun setting and rising describes 2 phenomena, the apparent position of the sun going downwards below the horizon and going upwards above the horizon.
So no, that was included in the first post.

Sun setting, sun rising. Colloqially this can mean sun going up, sun going down. Does not necessarily imply horizon crossing. Not mentioned in first post. And yes, I am being pedantic. You say that like it's a bad thing.

That's OK. I'm done having my entertainment with you as well.

When I said you're reading my writings too literally, I should have said you're cherry picking single statements and attacking them out of context. In any case, by now you should have a clear understanding of the case I'm describing which explains why you have nothing to say.

If you make certain assumptions.

Yes, that reality doesn't just throw the laws of physics out the window.

Sun setting, sun rising. Colloqially this can mean sun going up, sun going down. Does not necessarily imply horizon crossing. Not mentioned in first post. And yes, I am being pedantic. You say that like it's a bad thing.

The sun setting is the sun going past the horizon.
If it doesn't go past the horizon it doesn't set.
So yes, this does imply horizon crossing.
Try again.

And yes, being pedantic like this is a bad thing, as you are completely ignoring the argument.

That's OK. I'm done having my entertainment with you as well.

i.e. you are running away because I pointed out your failure?

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 01:13:55 PM

No. The light from the sun will be refracted downwards, resulting in the sun appearing slightly higher, meaning it should be seen by everyone on Earth.

If you make certain assumptions.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 01:13:55 PM

i.e. you are being pedantic and completely ignoring the meaning of the post which simple everyday observations would easily help with.
Also, you are completely wrong.
He didn't simply say the sun is going downwards for one observer and upwards for another.
He said the sun is setting for one observer and rising for another.
The sun setting and rising describes 2 phenomena, the apparent position of the sun going downwards below the horizon and going upwards above the horizon.
So no, that was included in the first post.

Sun setting, sun rising. Colloqially this can mean sun going up, sun going down. Does not necessarily imply horizon crossing. Not mentioned in first post. And yes, I am being pedantic. You say that like it's a bad thing.

That's OK. I'm done having my entertainment with you as well.

But saying that the sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon certainly does imply a horizon crossing and that is what we see:Not that I expect you to find anything curious about that.