Sun

Ok, so can someone please explain to me what causes the sun to fluctuate to create the seasons in this model?

If we all agree on the same basic aspects of physics, then there should be something that both keeps the sun in it's relative "orbit", and also from flying off due to Centripetal Force.

Also, due to Centripetal Force, the Sun shouldn't be able to fluctuate towards the north pole.

So, someone (other than Tom) please explain the mechanism which holds the sun in place, and also allows it to move towards the Northern Pole during the year.

Ok, so can someone please explain to me what causes the sun to fluctuate to create the seasons in this model?

The sun slowly wobbles in place while the flat earth spins one rotation every 24 hours. This spin can be detected with a Foucault pendulum.

From our point of view the sun is circling the earth.

If we all agree on the same basic aspects of physics, then there should be something that both keeps the sun in it's relative "orbit", and also from flying off due to Centripetal Force.

The sun is accelerating with the earth via the Universal Accelerator.

Also, due to Centripetal Force, the Sun shouldn't be able to fluctuate towards the north pole.

Centripetal force does not exist.

Please explain the mechanism which holds the sun in place, and also allows it to move towards the Northern Pole during the year.

The Universal Accelerator holds the sun in place from our viewpoint. The sun slowly wobbles towards and away from North Pole during the year due to instability.

that doesnt make sense, in that picture, it works because the sun has that little cicle where it "shines down", but if that were real, the whole earth would be illuminated at least in part, and the sun would be visiable at all times everywhere, just in different parts of the sky. You loose.

that doesnt make sense, in that picture, it works because the sun has that little cicle where it "shines down", but if that were real, the whole earth would be illuminated at least in part, and the sun would be visiable at all times everywhere, just in different parts of the sky. You loose.

Hold a penlight one foot over a circular dinner table. Notice how the entire dinner table does not light up.

yeah, good job, but you're missing two things. 1. anywhere on the table, no matter the size of the table, the light would be visable. 2. The sun doesnt shine down. Its a ball. It shines everywhere. Also, its not right down against the earth like that. Its kind of far away, plus its bigger than the earth, so its not really an accurate way to test that at all. How about you take dime (the earth) get about 100 feet away, then shine a 10,000,000 candle power spot light on it. Thats a much better test of what it would be like. Go look at the quarter. The whole thing is lit up believe it or not. Then replace the quarter with a marble (or anything round). Turn it in a circle. Wow, look! thats kind of what reality is like.

1. anywhere on the table, no matter the size of the table, the light would be visable.

The flat earth is a pretty big. And the sun is rather small.

2. The sun doesn't shine down. Its a ball. It shines everywhere.

That's debatable. Light may be affected by the sun's relativistic acceleration in such a way to limit its spread.

Also, its not right down against the earth like that.

I say it is.

Tom, you missed the argument. Again.

I'm not asking what keeps it up there, I'm asking what keeps it from flying off due to centripetal force, which is a real force. Don't confuse yourself with "centrifugal".

I'm also asking that due to centripetal force, how can it move towards the northern pole?

Neither question you answered.

I've already told you, the sun isn't spinning around the earth. The sun stays in place while the earth spins.

The sun stays in place and slowly wobbles back and fourth, simulating the seasons.

Gee well, that's certainly not how it looks according to the model.

So is that the 34th or the 35th time you changed your story?

Of course from the viewpoint of someone on earth, the sun would seem to circumnavigate the equator.

It works both ways. The FE model still holds.

The map you posted simply charts the sun's path across the sky from a terrestrial viewpoint.

Quote

Also, due to Centripetal Force, the Sun shouldn't be able to fluctuate towards the north pole.

Centripetal force does not exist.

Had you read that article to which you linked, you would have realized that it said (in inertial reference frames) Centrifugal force doesn't exist.  Centripetal force does (in inertial reference frames).

(Don't kill me, Erasmus!  I'm not framist, I swear!)

It doesnt matter. Say that the light is not powerful enough to shine all over the whole earth, thats acceptable to a point, but it would still be visable everywhere. Its not. Why? Becasue it sets. If your theory were correct, what would happen would be you would see a tiny dot, coming toward you from the north east, it would pass over, then you would see it get smaller into the north west, and inbetween that cycle, you would be able to see it all the way between, straight north. Infact, if you were in the north pole, you would be able to watch the sun do circles forever. Is that what you are saying? please explain your nonsense

You're the only one who has said that the sun doesn't go "around" in it's "orbit".

And it only works if the earth rotates and the sun is stationary. If it's actually the other way (which has been pretty much stated by many FE's), then the model falls apart.

But then, what about the moon? The question remains for it as well.

Had you read that article to which you linked, you would have realized that it said (in inertial reference frames) Centrifugal force doesn't exist. Centripetal force does (in inertial reference frames).

(Don't kill me, Erasmus! I'm not framist, I swear!)

You're correct, I got the two mixed up. My mistake.

It doesnt matter. Say that the light is not powerful enough to shine all over the whole earth, thats acceptable to a point, but it would still be visable everywhere. Its not. Why?

The Sun's relativistic speed affects the spread of its light. In effect it acts as a spotlight on the earth.

if you were in the north pole, you would be able to watch the sun do circles forever

That's correct. At the north pole daylight can actually persists for many months until the sun wobbles back towards the southern hemidisk. Thereafter the north pole exists in perpetual night for many months. This effect is well documented.

You're the only one who has said that the sun doesn't go "around" in it's "orbit".

It's a matter of perception. The sun is circling us and we're circling the sun.

(which has been pretty much stated by many FE's)

Incorrect.

But then, what about the moon? The question remains for it as well.

The moon moves in a different fashion. But that's for another thread.

as a serious FE believer, I'd have to say because the moon and the sun aren't real.

and I love how you still havent answered the question of why the sun acts as it does. It should, according to this model, act as I have stated in my previous post (not the N. Pole part, the watching it go around, never "setting" from where you are). If the sun is above the earth as insisted here, the sun would never set.

The Sun's relativistic speed affects the spread of its light. In effect it acts as a spotlight on the earth.

Relativity doesn't affect light. It's light that defines relativity.

It's a matter of perception. The sun is circling around us and we're circling around the sun.

My perception from the models given is that the earth is in fact stationary, and the sun is the one that does the moving.

The moon moves in a different fashion. But that's for another thread.

I'd prefer it be explained in this thread.

and I love how you still havent answered the question of why the sun acts as it does. It should, according to this model, act as I have stated in my previous post (not the N. Pole part, the watching it go around, never "setting" from where you are). If the sun is above the earth as insisted here, the sun would never set.

Again. The light is warped due to the sun's acceleration. This creates the spotlight effect.

Relativity doesn't affect light.

If one were to take a picture of a plane traveling at a speed close to the speed of light, the plane would look warped across the picture. Don't you agree? If you were to take a picture from behind the plane might look like a pinprick of light.

My perception from the models given is that the earth is in fact stationary, and the sun is the one that does the moving.

The earth must be spinning. Take a trip to your local museum and watch a Foucault Pendulum sometime. Only the spinning of the earth could describe its movements.

I'd prefer it be explained in this thread.

Lets try not to go off topic.

The earth must be spinning. Take a trip to your local museum and watch a Foucault pendulum sometime.

The explain how it works the closer to the ice wall you get. Due to the earth spinning faster at the edge then the pole, the distortion of it's own cycle will be greater. Yet it is less. Explain.

Look here, if you are lost: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6189

Lets try not to go off topic.

It isn't. It's completely relevant.

The explain how it works the closer to the ice wall you get. Due to the earth spinning faster at the edge then the pole, the distortion of it's own cycle will be greater. Yet it is less. Explain.

Distortion of the pendulum would indeed be greater at Antarctica. But at which Antarctic museum could we verify this?

It isn't. It's completely relevant.

The path of the moon across the sky from a terrestrial viewpoint is exactly as it is in the map you've linked.

Distortion of the pendulum would indeed be greater at Antarctica.

But it isn't in reality.

But which Antarctic museum could we verify this at?

Who said that you needed a museum to do it? Make your own, or have one of our aussie friends here on the forums verify the results of the expiriment, and then compare at the similar latitude in the north. If they match, then the earth isn't flat. Simple.

The path of the moon across the sky from a terrestrial viewpoint is exactly as it is in the FE maps.

So then answer the question. What keeps it in that motion and not from flying off due to centripetal force?

But it isn't in reality.

I'm not a fan of fiction.

Who said that you needed a museum to do it? Make your own, or have one of our aussie friends here on the forums verify the results of the expiriment, and then compare at the similar latitude in the north. If they match, then the earth isn't flat. Simple.

I already know that they won't match. I don't require further proof of a flat earth. I've already ran my own observations, proofs, and experiments.

So then answer the question. What keeps it in that motion and not from flying off due to centripetal force?

It's exactly like the sun. The moon is stationary, but it also wobbles. Only this time it wobbles in a different direction. Sometimes it wobbles into the light, which is why you can often see the moon during the day.

I'm not a fan of fiction.

You're just afraid to be wrong.

The moon is stationary, but it also wobbles. Sometimes it wobbles into the light, which is why you can often see the moon during the day.

Um, really? Model how that works, please.

Quote

But it isn't in reality.

I'm not a fan of fiction.

LOL
FLAT EARTH IS FICTION

So, someone (other than Tom) please explain the mechanism which holds the sun in place, and also allows it to move towards the Northern Pole during the year.

Nothing like the mechanism Tom explained is illustrated in the image in my first post, so using the model shown, which has become a standard map in FE, someone SANE please explain my dilemma outlined in the first post.

About the Foucault Pendulum...

On a spheroid Earth, wouldn't the pendulum rotate clockwise in one hemisphere, and counter-clockwise in the other? Or am I missing something? Seems to me that if this were the case, it would be easy enough to verify by having someone north of the equator and someone south of the equator visit local museums and observe the pendulums.

If this is found to be the case, how can FET explain this phenomenon?

Tom, what do you believe the speed of light to be?
Explain what you mean that the suns speed (or is it movement) doesn't allow all persons of the earth to see the sun at once.

don't argue with tom, just ignore him please. I just hope there are other FErs willing to answer BESIDES TOM

if the earth is rotating as Tom suggests, then there is no possibility for life on th outer surfaces.  centripetal force=M*V^2/R.  V being tangential velocity.  This means that the centripetal force needed to remain stationary on earth would be SIGNIFICANT.  for ANY model witha  24 hour day and a reasonably sized earth, the equator (FE velocities will vary) has to be traveling at just around 1000 mi/h.  (I'm using 24k miles, a reasonable circumnavigation by airplane, it's slightly smaller on the ground but you do get the point).  This means that standing here on earth we would readily be able to feel which way south is because we would constantly be pulled that way.  The only livable place on earth would be the north pole.

I figure the response you would give, barring this bit is that 'centripetal force doesn't exist in an inertial frame' or that I'm talking about centrifugal force not centripetal force, so I'll address the problem first.  A centripetal force would be needed to remain stationary on a spinning disk, because of the radial acceleration (acceleration due to a change in direction as supposed to a change in speed).  I can also prove that centripetal force exists in the reference frame of earth, inertial or not.  when a car corners too fast, it either slides out, flips, or simply understeers, not taking the path desired.  This is absolutely due to centripetal force induced by changing the direction of travel.

And one more thing.  Relativity is irrelevant between the sun and Earth in the FE model.  This is because they are in the same reference frame, and have no velocity relative to one another (in the vertical sense).  Hence light would propagate as normal between the sun and earth.  if this were not the case, EVERY LIGHTSOURCE ON EARTH would be 'limited' the way Tom explains the sun to be.

Of course, maybe every lightsource on earth is limited relativistically in a manner only consistent with the ether theory of EM propogation.  and, if Tom or any other FE'r believes in the ETHER moving to cause the effect he describes, it can be quickly disproved with a michelson interferometer test.  ONE OF WHICH I DID ON MY OWN.  Any body taking E&M in college would do this test, and everyone always gets the same result, either the ether isn't moving, or there is no ether.  FE THEORY DISPROVED.  DONE (original FE theory is based on the existence of an ether)