Double standards

Sun vs rocket

Interwsting.
Why is it that the rocket go "down" but using the same atmoplanr physics, the sun approaches horizon due to "perspective" and then disappears bottom up due to "haze" and "reverse refraction".

Why isnt it that the rocket is simply flying farther away due to the same sun phenomena?

Sun vs rocket

Quote from: wise on November 04, 2019, 12:49:59 AM

Interwsting.
Why is it that the rocket go "down" but using the same atmoplanr physics, the sun approaches horizon due to "perspective" and then disappears bottom up due to "haze" and "reverse refraction".

Why isnt it that the rocket is simply flying farther away due to the same sun phenomena?

Point of origin

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 04, 2019, 07:50:05 AM

Sun vs rocket

Quote from: wise on November 04, 2019, 12:49:59 AM

Interwsting.
Why is it that the rocket go "down" but using the same atmoplanr physics, the sun approaches horizon due to "perspective" and then disappears bottom up due to "haze" and "reverse refraction".

Why isnt it that the rocket is simply flying farther away due to the same sun phenomena?

Point of origin

What about it?

It will go below the starting local horizontal,
but the distance from the center of the earth will keep increasing
and it will eventually exit the atmosphere.

I will go below the starting local horizontal,
but the distance from the center of the earth will keep increasing
and it will eventually exit the atmosphere.

What center? We're talking flat earth here. Maybe even infinite flat earth.

Quote from: Macarios on November 04, 2019, 05:53:21 PM

I will go below the starting local horizontal,
but the distance from the center of the earth will keep increasing
and it will eventually exit the atmosphere.

What center? We're talking flat earth here. Maybe even infinite flat earth.

Correct.
Assume the earth is flat.

Also
Lackless' point of origin has no bearing.
Atmoplanar physics should still apply to both.

Sun vs rocket

Quote from: wise on November 04, 2019, 12:49:59 AM

Interwsting.
Why is it that the rocket go "down" but using the same atmoplanr physics, the sun approaches horizon due to "perspective" and then disappears bottom up due to "haze" and "reverse refraction".

Why isnt it that the rocket is simply flying farther away due to the same sun phenomena?

So you agree how sun setting?

"Double standards".
What dont you get?

If the sun "sets" the way you think it does, then this rocket didnt fall "down".

Quote from: Macarios on November 04, 2019, 05:53:21 PM

I will go below the starting local horizontal,
but the distance from the center of the earth will keep increasing
and it will eventually exit the atmosphere.

What center? We're talking flat earth here. Maybe even infinite flat earth.

In Flat Earth is a different story.
Things we use in real world there don't exist.

So you agree how sun setting?

No, he is exposing a double standard.
You think that is how the sun sets, that it just magically appears to set even though it remains above your hypothetical plane.

But then when it comes to rockets, you use them appearing to go down to try and say they can't go to space, rather than applying the same standard you use for the sun.
If you were to apply the same standard you would say that there is no reason to think the rocket has gone down and instead it has just gone far away so it appears to have gone below the horizon.

Alternatively, if you were to use the standard you use for rockets on the sun you would say the sun goes up, then sideways then down, i.e. it doesn't remain the same height above a flat Earth.

With images like this it all comes down to that age old adage 'You see what you want to see'. 

In this case if you believe in the Earth being flat then your brain will interpret this image as showing the rocket heading upwards and then down again to the surface.  You see what you expect to see so that must prove the Earth is flat right?

However if you believe in a spherical rotating Earth then you would interpret this as the Earth rotating away from the point in space where the rocket (and hence the observer at the time) were located when the rocket was launched. The so-called Catherine wheel effect.  The path of the rocket would be seen as a spiral. The path of the rocket in this image is certainly that of the start of a spiral. This effect would be increased further if the rocket was put on a trajectory which sent in the opposite direction to the Earths rotation.  So the rocket continues on its way into space but disappears below the horizon.

As the Earth rotates and carries the observer back into the line of sight of the rocket, it will of course reappear but it will need a telescope to track by then.  The car launched into by Elon Musk is an example of that.  Flat Earthers will have a different interpretation of that of course but amateur astronomers across the world tracked the car for several days after it was launched.

With images like this it all comes down to that age old adage 'You see what you want to see'. 

In this case if you believe in the Earth being flat then your brain will interpret this image as showing the rocket heading upwards and then down again to the surface.  You see what you expect to see so that must prove the Earth is flat right?

However if you believe in a spherical rotating Earth then you would interpret this as the Earth rotating away from the point in space where the rocket (and hence the observer at the time) were located when the rocket was launched. The so-called Catherine wheel effect.  The path of the rocket would be seen as a spiral. The path of the rocket in this image is certainly that of the start of a spiral. This effect would be increased further if the rocket was put on a trajectory which sent in the opposite direction to the Earths rotation.  So the rocket continues on its way into space but disappears below the horizon.

As the Earth rotates and carries the observer back into the line of sight of the rocket, it will of course reappear but it will need a telescope to track by then.  The car launched into by Elon Musk is an example of that.  Flat Earthers will have a different interpretation of that of course but amateur astronomers across the world tracked the car for several days after it was launched.

Yes but incorrect to this.
This is regarding a double standard and not an isolated event.

In this case if you believe in the Earth being flat then your brain will interpret this image as showing the rocket heading upwards and then down again to the surface.  You see what you expect to see so that must prove the Earth is flat right?

The main issue is that they don't apply the same standard to the sun.
They see the same thing happening with the sun as merely perspective causing it to appear to set, rather than either treating both as perspective or both as the object actually going down.

However if you believe in a spherical rotating Earth then you would interpret this as the Earth rotating away from the point in space where the rocket (and hence the observer at the time) were located when the rocket was launched. The so-called Catherine wheel effect.  The path of the rocket would be seen as a spiral. The path of the rocket in this image is certainly that of the start of a spiral. This effect would be increased further if the rocket was put on a trajectory which sent in the opposite direction to the Earths rotation.  So the rocket continues on its way into space but disappears below the horizon.

As the Earth rotates and carries the observer back into the line of sight of the rocket, it will of course reappear but it will need a telescope to track by then.  The car launched into by Elon Musk is an example of that.  Flat Earthers will have a different interpretation of that of course but amateur astronomers across the world tracked the car for several days after it was launched.

While I can't be sure for this exact launch, in general, this is wrong.
Instead, the rockets typically do turn while still relatively low and start heading sideways (or at least curving to go sideways), and the direction they turn is typically forwards in terms of Earth's rotation. This is because a big part of getting into orbit is orbital velocity. So instead that actually reduces the apparent curve, not increases it.
So part of this arc is due to it actually curving and starting to follow a curved path, and technically it does keep following the curve and go down as it starts to orbit Earth, but it remains at roughly the same height above Earth.

I think Jack is right.  All (or at least the vast majority of) rockets go first into low earth orbit, which requires a velocity many times the Earth’s rotation.

They usually go in the direction of rotation and tend to be launched reasonably close to the equator, to make use of that 1000mph speed flat earthers keep banging on about.

I don’t think you’d see much difference if a rocket was launched in other direction though.

No one has seen a rocket enter space from the atmoplane of the flat earth.

No one has seen a rocket traveling at over 7,000 mph.

No one has seen a rocket enter space from the atmoplane of the flat earth.

No one has seen a rocket traveling at over 7,000 mph.

Dont care about hows or whys.

The question is in comparison to the flat earth, low orbit, small diameter sun, why is the rocket "down" and not just "far" away.

I have seen a satellite pass over travelling at 17,500mph.  Several times.   It's called the ISS

https://inventionsky.com/international-space-station-iss/

Irrelevant.

No one has seen a rocket enter space from the atmoplane of the flat earth.

That's right, because there is no flat Earth.

But perhaps you can address the double standard?

Do you agree with wise? If so, do you agree that that means the sun goes down rather than just cruising along at the same altitude?

Quote from: totallackey on November 06, 2019, 08:37:14 AM

No one has seen a rocket enter space from the atmoplane of the flat earth.

No one has seen a rocket traveling at over 7,000 mph.

Dont care about hows or whys.

The question is in comparison to the flat earth, low orbit, small diameter sun, why is the rocket "down" and not just "far" away.

Point of origin has everything to do with it.

Even RE admits rockets return to earth.

On the other hand, even RE admits the sun has never had a point of origin on the surface the flat earth plain.

Even RE admits rockets return to earth.

Of course they do.  But they don't deny that they go into orbit between taking off and returning to Earth which seems to be the assertion of FE.

Most of what you see as the 'rocket' at the point of take off is just fuel tanks. You see there is quite a bit of power needed to get something into orbit. By comparison the payload (most often a satellite) is small and needs relatively little power to steer it along its intended course.

Once spent the fuel tanks (both solid and liquid fuel tanks) either return to Earth soon after launch or in the case of larger rockets (Saturn V) they simply get left in orbit as space 'junk', burning up at a later time when they re-enter the atmosphere.  Some of the fainter 'satellites' you see passing across the night sky are actually just spent fuel tanks from rockets.

The Space X rockets are designed to return to Earth in a controlled (and even synchronised) way so they can be collected quickly and prepared for re-use.

Point of origin has nothing to do with this.

An object already in the sky movss away from you.
An object starting on earth goss into the sky and moves away from you.

If you care to explain why lets have it
In a purely flat earth POV, why dont sunset physics apply to rockets?

Point of origin has everything to do with it.

Nope, it has literally nothing to do with it.
What is the issue is the apparent direction to the object.
In both cases, the sun and the rocket, the object appears to move down towards the horizon and then past it.

Why apply the different standard for the rocket and the sun?

REers accept that that means that the object is in that direction, and thus relative to the observer, the object does go down. Of course, because Earth is round that doesn't mean it hits the Earth, instead it means it is above a different location on Earth.

But FEers claim that for the sun perspective just magically makes it look like it is in that direction while it is in some completely different direction.

Even RE admits rockets return to earth.

The first and second stages usually return to earth but the payload either stays in orbit or heads off on some other mission - say to the Moon, Mars or Pluto.

On the other hand, even RE admits the sun has never had a point of origin on the surface the flat earth plain.

What has the Sun never having "a point of origin on the surface the flat earth plain" got to do with anything.

The usual flat-Earth path of the sun is circling about 5000 km (a bit over 3000 miles) above "the flat earth plain".

The rocket in this photo is continuing to go up but because the distance down-range is increasing so rapidly path seems to head downwards.

Notice also that the width of the exhaust is also appears to be getting narrower but this is also simply perspective - a row of streetlights will appear to do the same.
Would you suggest that these streetlights are getting closer to the ground?

Obviously not! They appear lower because:

• of perspective and
• the road is curving slightly down.

Note that those lights appear to be getting smaller in size.

And the rocket appear to be getting lower because:

• of perspective and
• the Earth is curving slightly down - the Earth is a Globe!

Note that the exhaust trail appears to be getting narrower.

So why do flat-Earthers claim that rockets are coming down to earth but insist that the Sun and Moon are not? That's where the "Double standards" come in!

Flat-Earthers claim that the Sun and Moon, though always about 5000 km above the earth (far higher than that rocket) can appear to not only right down to the horizon but to appear to do below the horizon as in:

Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:02 EAST.

Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:29 EAST.

Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:57 EAST.

And note again that:
      the rocket exhaust trail and the streetlamps both appear to get smaller (narrower for the rocket exhaust trail) but
      neither the Sun nor the Moon appear to get smaller from overhead to setting - provided a suitable filter removes the glare from the Sun when it is extemely bright.

Look at those photos you provided. Would they differ if it passed due to Rowbotham's perspective laws? Nay.

Look at those photos you provided. Would they differ if it passed due to Rowbotham's perspective laws? Nay.

and why don't the perspective laws apply to rockets?

Look at those photos you provided. Would they differ if it passed due to Rowbotham's perspective laws? Nay.

Even "Rowbotham's perspective laws" cannot make an object, the Sun, appear lower than an object that is physically lower, the horizon.

And the Sun or Moon circling relatively close to the earth should change apparent size as they move from near overhead to near the horizon due to this same perspective.

But this does not happen in the real world. Both the Sun and Moon both stay the same apparent size from near overhead to setting.

Rowbotham in ENAG CHAPTER IX.CAUSE OF SUNRISE AND SUNSET says:

In a long row of lamps, the second--supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series---will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the .second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 63.

fig. 63

Note that he

• says "the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer" no mention of below the horizon as the Sun and Moon appear to go and
• carefully shows the street lamps getting smaller due to perspective.

Bearing in mind the above phenomena it will easily be seen how the sun, although always above and parallel to the earth's surface, must appear to ascend from the morning horizon to the noonday or meridian position; and thence to descend to the evening horizon.
In the diagram, fig. 64, let the line E, D, represent the

fig. 64

surface of the earth; H, H, the morning and evening horizon; and A, S, B, a portion of the true path of the sun.

So now with the Sun, and presumably the Moon, Rowbotham simply says:

• "must appear to ascend from the morning horizon . . . . . and thence to descend to the evening horizon" with no mention how close to the horizon his own "law of perspective" would make it appear and
• note that, unlike the correctly shrinking streetlamps, he does not not show a shrinking sun.

I wouldn't put any reliance on Rowbotham's explanations.

We have a new one from wise.


Jane/ slime attempts to estimate a dome height by using meteor data - estimated impact speeds and temrinal velocity and such.

Wise says that is impractical - the very famous wise who built a map using airplane flight times and back calc using averaged and estimated velocities to get a distance - because velocites are unknown.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 29, 2019, 10:45:34 AM

Quote from: wise on November 29, 2019, 10:34:23 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 29, 2019, 10:25:42 AM

Quote from: wise on November 29, 2019, 02:51:37 AM

nothing was measured carefully about meteors. you can't measure the distance of what you don't know the velocity, you can't calculate the velocity of something you don't know the distance. all the distance and speed claims made about meteorites are estimates. it is no different other than claiming otherwise to basing this claim on religious evidence. at least we know that God is more truthful than your so-called observers. at least that's what I get compared to you.

Did you just refute your own method of map making?

Nope. You are not a careful reader. The base of the map depends on distances in Europe being reliable. I've many times said it. You weak follower.

But you dont account fir wind speeds, actual plane speeds, and if you have european distances then why you nesd to make a map using plane flights?

This is not the issue, or you ara delibarety doing it to manipulate the issue and send it to A&R. I'll not be a part of your game. I've explanined it and case closed. Return to the issue, return to topic.

Note that those lights appear to be getting smaller in size.

Actually, the last six in that scene don't seem to be shrinking much, as compared to the first six.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 07, 2019, 04:48:13 PM

Note that those lights appear to be getting smaller in size.

Actually, the last six in that scene don't seem to be shrinking much, as compared to the first six.

So what? The sun and moon don't change noticably in angular size from near overhead till they meet the horizon.