Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 09, 2022, 01:11:38 PM

and how does the earth and its solar system not break the speed of light when viewed from its point of origin.

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 12:40:15 PM

You seem hung up on what someone in a different FoR would observe. One that was, presumably, stationary with respect to the surface of this not-real-Earth at some time t. But they wouldn't see what you're describing at all. They'd invariably end up watching this disc accelerate away from them at a velocity at asymptotically approaches c as t approaches infinity, but never surpasses it.

At least read the things I have already explained. Please. I'm not writing just for the sake of writing words. If you are googling for more info here, which is a good thing, you want to be googling time dilation.

And if your model was correct.  Wouldn’t it throw seeing the planets off?  They would “appear” way below the earth in your model? 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 09, 2022, 10:38:31 AM

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 10:17:26 AM

What I said had nothing to do with refraction. It's like you didn't even read, you just reacted.

Did you your read what I posted. 

What you have posted has no evidence of being true.

There's no evidence that light travels at a constant velocity and in a straight line in a vacuum? Please cite your source for this wild claim.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 09, 2022, 10:43:05 AM

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 10:17:26 AM

AND if there were to be a flat disc accelerating upwards at 1G

The sun would also have to be accelerating in the same direction at 1G.  When the photo is emitted, it’s already accelerating at the same rate as the earth in your model.

What? I spoke of viewing an object on the horizon. A ship, just crossing over and disappearing from the bottom up. You're fighting against a strawman. The light is accelerating?!! Lol

In addition to trying to figure out why the gravity is stronger on Jupiter, and strong enough in the sun to cause fusion by gravity if gravity is from accelerating when the whole solar system should be accelerating at the same rate as earth.

Would your model make the North Star as a navigation aid useless.  And there would be a discrepancy between distances figured by celestial navigation and nautical charts? 

I'm not sure it proves that.

Your argument relies upon the sun being so far away that moving around Earth will have no significant change in the distance.

All it proves is that the sun is not something you can spatially move towards. This doesn't mean it's distant though.

Unless you want to try claiming you are magically fixed in place and unable to move, or that the sun is magically tied to you so as you move around the sun has to move with you, then it does.

Morever, I have been as far east as China and as far south as South Africa. And you know what? No matter where I was, the sun was the same size. Oh yeah, it's easy to say you are just too far away from the sun.

Again, all you are doing is showing that the sun is really far away, with the distance to the sun being much larger than the size of Earth.

The thing is, can we really even see objects that far away? No, it apoears we cannot.

Do you mean objects on Earth? If so, no, as Earth blocks the view.
But objects in the sky can be seen from that far away if they are large enough or bright enough.
If you wish to assert we magically can't see after some distance, please explain what happens to the light form the object or what other magic stops us from seeing it.

When the sun is up, you know how far we can see? I do because I've looked it up.

Yet you can provide no reference nor justification. Instead all you can do is pull a number from no where.
And are you really trying to claim that the sun and moon are within 11 miles, yet their distances doesn't appear to change?

No matter how big the sun supposedly is, this view is more consistent with an object being projected.

And that view is entirely inconsistent with reality.

Why do I say that? Because the sun actually being "up" massively distorts vision. That can't happen from a distant object. Remember the two-way mirror example? This only works if light is cast from within a mirrored surface. If light is on the other side, you can see the two-way mirror for what it is.

And we can add analogies to the growing list of things you either fail to understand or intentionally lie about.
That only needs a mirror to get a mirror effect.
But the light doesn't need to be cast from within that.
You could even theoretically have a very bright spotlight inside the dark room pointing directly into the bright room, as the only light source for that bright room.
You would then be able to see that light source, but nothing else from the dark room.

This effect is quite simple to understand, you are in a bright environment so your eyes adjust to that level of brightness so dark things can't be seen.
If something is bright enough, you will see it, if it is too dark, you wont.

You can even get the same effect at night by having someone in a dark area shine a flashlight in your face.
All you will see is the flashlight and a few things illuminated by it.
No need for any mirror.

A similar perspective problem happens here, stars only show up when the sun is gone, and while it's near, distance is very distorted.

Again, pure nonsense.
Distance is not magically distorted by the sun.
Instead it is bright (and light scattering from the atmosphere is also fairly bright), making it much harder to see darker objects.

What we observe is just what you would expect with the RE model of a very distant and large sun.
It is nothing like what you would expect for a FE with a close sun.

Either we have basically a column of light effect (what you'd really see if a massive distant object cast light, not a tiny version of it)

In order to have a column of light effect you need a thin column of light surrounded by regions which aren't as well illuminated.
Just what makes you think the sun should produce a column of light all on its own?

it is a normal sized cat that nonetheless trolls you by always keeping pace whether you are running or walking and even if you are moving away.

So what you are saying is that the sun magically follows you? Maintaining your distance?

The one time I got the sun's position to change, we were moving around a curved road that had hairpin turns, and somehow my parents, while driving got the sun to set twice.

And you have had that addressed.
It in no way helps support a FE.

So what are we talking about here? We are talking about Occam's Razor in this case favoring the weird. The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

And the simplest explanation is that the sun doesn't appear to change size because of how far away it is. That the distance you move is tiny compared to the distance to the sun.
That it appears to set because Earth blocks the view.

No need for any FE magic.

You kinda just disproved your point with the first picture. You're the one focused on the ground, actually.

And you can lift your head up and see it, with nothing blocking the view.

As for second, you mind if I borrow your picture?

So we can add optics in general to the growing list of things you fail to understand or intentionally misrepresent.
Moving the person to show the parallel lines appear at a different angle doesn't mean it is slanted.

But more importantly, how does the sky magically block the view?
And why does this magically cause an object to disappear from the bottom up?
With your diagram, the top of the object should vanish first.

Laser finders are accurate and reliable because they do not travel in a curved line. They travel in a straight line. In any globed Earth, a laser finder would be totally botched, as light must travel around a curved horizon and earth. You're crazy if you think that disproves anything.

No, on the round Earth we all live on, laser range finders rely upon line of sight. This means Earth can block the view.

We only see as far as about 11 miles on a good, non-misty day.

Again, pure BS.
We can see plenty of objects much further, such as tall mountains in the distance, or the view from a tall mountain.
We can see clouds well above that height.

Instead, the troposhere continues, making  it either a long fixed dome or an unfixed dome

Or not a dome at all.

Now let's look at Data's silly first drawing. Trying to look "over the hill" of the horizon means that object such as a distant mountain doesn't show up. Cross the curvature threshold, no mountain, not even Everest, can be visible.

Only if it is too short to be able to see.
Compare your nonsense to the RE model.
With your nonsense, as soon as that distance threshold is reached, an object should not be visible, and the object should disappear from the top down, and should simply disappear
If you increase your elevation, then some parts may disappear from the bottom up, but any object higher than you should still disappear from the top down.
Also importantly, as you increase your elevation, the distance to an object should decrease.

None of this matches what is actually observed in reality.
Instead, objects disappear from the bottom up, and they don't simply disappear, instead they appear to sink with Earth apparently blocking the view.
The higher or taller an object is, the further it can be seen.
The higher you go the further you can see.

Now compare this to the RE model:
As the distance (along the surface of Earth) to an object increases, it will appear to sink due to the curvature of Earth (compared to a flat reference). This will eventually result in it being hidden by Earth as it goes over the curve, with the lower portions being hidden first (with the object appearing to sink into Earth) and higher portions requiring greater distance to hide. This means the ability to see an object will depend upon how far away it is and how tall it is.
As you get higher, the line tangent to Earth passing through your eyes gets further away meaning you can see further.

This matches what is observed.

The RE model matches reality, the FE model does not.

As I was just sitting here reading the thread and thinking about horizons and FE... something occurred to me that I hadn't given much thought to before. In a UA kind of model, I think you might actually have the potential to see a horizon. I mean, assuming all the usual stuff we already know about light remains constant - that it travels in a straight line in a vacuum at a finite constant velocity, etc.

I haven't worked out what the rate of curvature it would be, but it would be directly tied to the rate of upwards acceleration. Since light doesn't move infinitely fast, during the time it takes to move from a source to an observer, the Earth will have moved upwards. That means a 6' tall observer watching a ship sailing away at the coast would see it disappear from the bottom up as it got further away.

I have a feeling this would yield a horizon much farther away than what we see in reality, but again, I haven't done the math on this yet, it's just something that struck me a few minutes ago. It's also, admittedly, a bit off topic from the OP but still seemed relevant to the discussion and where it is right now.

It would actually work the other way. (and could also just be considered as gravitational bending of light)

For example, consider light initially travelling horizontally w.r.t. Earth.
This means that lights vertical velocity is equal to that of Earth.
But after a short period of time Earth's vertical velocity would have increased. That means that the light would be travelling slower in the vertical direction and appear to be heading downwards.

Now, you can do some simple calculations (which I assume you have done, but putting the full working for everyone, and to change later), where I will use your numbers, and for simplicity I will ignore relativity, and treating as gravity which is equivalent.
So we know that y=y0+vy0*t+0.5*a*t^2.
So putting in y=0 (for light hitting the ground) we get the quadratic equation:
0.5*a*t^2+vy0*t+y0=0
which gives us the answers:
t=(-yv0 +- sqrt(yv0^2-4*0.5*a*y0))/(2*0.5*a)
=(-yv0 +- sqrt(yv0^2-2*a*y0))/a

Putting in y0=10, and vyo=0 (for a horizontal beam of light), we get t=1.4 seconds from g=9.8 m/s^2
Putting in vx0=2.998*10^8 m/s, this gives us a distance of 428 Mm.
(If instead I use your numbers of 10 m/s^2 and 3e8 m/s for light I get 424 Mm, so I think you may have done something wrong in your calculation, unless relativity makes that large a difference.)

But this doesn't mean there is a horizon at that distance. As that is just light initially moving horizontally hits the ground there.
If instead we angle the light upwards, it will arc downwards and travel a further distance.
e.g if we start it at 45 degrees (where now I probably shouldn't ignore relativity, but I will anyway), it will instead take roughly 500 days to hit the ground, and will have travelled a distance of 9 Pm. (9*10^15 m).
This non-relativistic approach has a limit on how far it can travel, based upon roughly that 45 degree angle, and that would produce a horizon roughly 9 Pm away.
However I think relativity will change that, and may allow any arbitrary distance.

This also has the effect of producing the opposite of what is observed on Earth. On Earth, the horizon appears at an angle of dip, and the further away the horizon is, the larger that angle of dip.
But with UA, as light appears to be arcing downwards, the more distance light actually appears to be coming from above, meaning this would appear like an inverted sphere, where you could look up and see the far away world appear above you.
e.g. that 9 Pm distant land would appear at an angle of elevation of roughly 45 degrees.

What you need to get a horizon like that on Earth is to have light accelerate upwards faster than Earth is.

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 11:34:00 AM

There's no evidence that light travels at a constant velocity and in a straight line in a vacuum? Please cite your source for this wild claim.

So in your model where the earth can accelerate to an impossible speed?  Indefinitely? 

Seconds in a year.  31,536,000 seconds.  And 1G is 9.8 m/s^2.

Acceleration = change in velocity/ change in time. 

The earth and solar system would be traveling faster than the speed of light in one year if the earth constantly accelerated upward at one 1 G? 

How is that possible?

It would be the proper acceleration of this hypothetical Earth that is 9.8 m/s^2.
The acceleration an outside observer in an inertial reference frame would see may initially be 9.8 m/s^2, but it would appear to slow down as Earth approached the speed of light.
This means the observers on that Earth would feel as if Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 forever, while outside observers would never see them exceed the speed of light.

Answer the question.  What can cause the earth to accelerate past the speed of light in less than a year, and keep accelerating to make your model work?

Why?
Should they make up a ridiculous with nothing to do with your position and demand you answer it?

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 11:34:00 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 09, 2022, 10:38:31 AM

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 10:17:26 AM

What I said had nothing to do with refraction. It's like you didn't even read, you just reacted.

Did you your read what I posted. 

What you have posted has no evidence of being true.

There's no evidence that light travels at a constant velocity and in a straight line in a vacuum? Please cite your source for this wild claim.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 09, 2022, 10:43:05 AM

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 10:17:26 AM

AND if there were to be a flat disc accelerating upwards at 1G

The sun would also have to be accelerating in the same direction at 1G.  When the photo is emitted, it’s already accelerating at the same rate as the earth in your model.

What? I spoke of viewing an object on the horizon. A ship, just crossing over and disappearing from the bottom up. You're fighting against a strawman. The light is accelerating?!! Lol

In addition to trying to figure out why the gravity is stronger on Jupiter, and strong enough in the sun to cause fusion by gravity if gravity is from accelerating when the whole solar system should be accelerating at the same rate as earth.

Would your model make the North Star as a navigation aid useless.  And there would be a discrepancy between distances figured by celestial navigation and nautical charts?

You are being ridiculously adversarial over this. This isn't my model. I don't have to explain gravity on Jupiter or anywhere else. I literally only said that a UA FE would have a well defined horizon, and I described why and how. I'm not going to sit here and dance for you by trying to make a working FE model, and if you had spent any time lurking around these boards before giving me this kind of ridiculous homework.

I explained how I thought a flat disc undergoing constant upward acceleration could have a very clear and visible horizon. That's it. That's the whole story. There is no deeper assault on your precious globe model happening here, you can still sleep soundly. OK?


@JackBlack I hadn't considered light bouncing off at various angles and then sloping back down, that does take away from what I had mentally sort of envisioned. And I used 300k m/s for c, which is off by a few orders of magnitude now that I look back so that very much changes the distances involved.

You are being ridiculously adversarial over this.

Oh.  No.  The model should explain what is witnessed.

And its not “science” if you invoked part of science and choose to ignore other parts.

This isn't my model. I don't have to explain gravity on Jupiter or anywhere else.

If you want to be take serious, the model should be able to explain gravity throughout the solar system.

I literally only said that a UA FE would have a well defined horizon,

In a real world practical manner that fits why objects are physically blocked from view once they are over the horizon, why GPS works, why laser range finders are reliable when used as the line of sight devices that they are, why visually navigation by using stars works with and doesn’t contract distances and courses on nautical charts?

and I described why and how.

Doesn’t mean it’s practical as in a working model, and Doesn’t mean it explains or predicts our physical world in a reliable way.  Like tides and tidal bores.  Or why a spring scale works in accordance with Hooke’s law?

 

I'm not going to sit here and dance for you by trying to make a working FE model,

I thought that was the purpose of debate. 

and if you had spent any time lurking around these boards before giving me this kind of ridiculous homework.

That a model of gravity should be able to explain all aspects of gravity?

I explained how I thought a flat disc undergoing constant upward acceleration could have a very clear and visible horizon.

I can explain god pokes each photon with his finger. Doesn’t make it true.

And you still have this thing, where does all the power and force come from at increasing magnitudes to make the earth never stop accelerating?

That's it. That's the whole story.

.

 A incomplete model is not a story.

There is no deeper assault on your precious globe model happening here, you can still sleep soundly. OK?

Shrugs.  How would you “assault” a more complete, practical, and demonstrably true spherical earth model with an incomplete model?

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 03:51:50 PM

You are being ridiculously adversarial over this.

Oh.  No.  The model should explain what is witnessed.

And its not “science” if you invoked part of science and choose to ignore other parts.

Quote

This isn't my model. I don't have to explain gravity on Jupiter or anywhere else.

If you want to be take serious, the model should be able to explain gravity throughout the solar system.

Quote

I literally only said that a UA FE would have a well defined horizon,

In a real world practical manner that fits why objects are physically blocked from view once they are over the horizon, why GPS works, why laser range finders are reliable when used as the line of sight devices that they are, why visually navigation by using stars works with and doesn’t contract distances and courses on nautical charts?

Quote

and I described why and how.

Doesn’t mean it’s practical as in a working model, and Doesn’t mean it explains or predicts our physical world in a reliable way.  Like tides and tidal bores.  Or why a spring scale works in accordance with Hooke’s law?

 

Quote

I'm not going to sit here and dance for you by trying to make a working FE model,

I thought that was the purpose of debate. 

Quote

and if you had spent any time lurking around these boards before giving me this kind of ridiculous homework.

That a model of gravity should be able to explain all aspects of gravity?

Quote

I explained how I thought a flat disc undergoing constant upward acceleration could have a very clear and visible horizon.

I can explain god pokes each photon with his finger. Doesn’t make it true.

And you still have this thing, where does all the power and force come from at increasing magnitudes to make the earth never stop accelerating?

Quote

That's it. That's the whole story.

.

 A incomplete model is not a story.

Quote

There is no deeper assault on your precious globe model happening here, you can still sleep soundly. OK?

Shrugs.  How would you “assault” a more complete, practical, and demonstrably true spherical earth model with an incomplete model?

Again, I didn't even post under the pretense of presenting a complete model of the universe as we know it in any way at all. You're demanding something of me that I never even began to offer. And now I can see you are completely unwilling to engage in a thought experiment in an honest fashion, so I'm not really interested in carrying this any further with you. Have a nice day, or evening, or whatever time it is for you.

Quote

Aside from the outright lies of not seeing other distant objects, which we clearly do see, why is the Sun not an actual object? So no the simplest explanation doesn't require that the Sun is some magical thing, sorry, cat, is not a magical object that you can never get closer to and magically stays the same distance from each individual regardless of their location.

By "distant objects" I don't mean mountains and clouds. I mean such things as stars and planets. We only see as far as about 11 miles on a good, non-misty day. Why is this number significant? Well let's go back to what I said earlier, maybe on this thread but maybe not. The troposphere extends 9 to 11 miles high. You can see clouds about that distance away. If the troposphere were a perfect fixed dome, you would be able to pass clouds and be immediately outside the troposhere with a simple 11 mile drive. Instead, the troposhere continues, making  it either a long fixed dome or an unfixed dome (e.g. it follows our perspective). What we know about fixed objects on Earth is that we can eventually reach them. We can drive from when we first see that mountain all the way on top of it and past it. The clouds themselves are fairly fixed (though it turns out some are much farther than they appear). The point being that this is a dome that continues to move as we push forward. As we  reach a higher elevation, we can see farther.

Now let's look at Data's silly first drawing. Trying to look "over the hill" of the horizon means that object such as a distant mountain doesn't show up. Cross the curvature threshold, no mountain, not even Everest, can be visible. And more importantly, I drew these lines centered with Stickfigure A at ground level, then moved a Stickfigure B (sorry, I'm messing up the lines of the paper) at a decent hill. The hill arches up centered on Stickfigure B. Consistent with what a person on a mountain can actually see, Stickfigure A cannot see a distant boat, but Stickfigure B can, even standing behind him. This is what I have noticed from standing on vantage points.



Higher elevation, more vantage. The dome moves with you.

Where did I say mountains, or anything on Earth at all?  We were talking about the distance to the Sun.  Misrepresent people much?
Other stars, planets, galaxies etc.  Measured to be further from us than the Sun.  Your claim was a lie, you were called out, so you predictably setup a strawman.  Do you have anything other than dishonesty to offer?  Or are you so completely brainwashed and closed minded that you can't do anything but to resort to nothing but lying?

If you want to be take serious, the model should be able to explain gravity throughout the solar system.

Considering FEers tend to reject things like the solar system in its current form, just what do you think there is to explain?

And you still have this thing, where does all the power and force come from at increasing magnitudes to make the earth never stop accelerating?

And the same can be asked of the current model which appeals to dark energy.

And the same can be asked of the current model which appeals to dark energy.

An observation of reality that is actively acknowledged and is being scientifically debated to come to the best scientific theory?   

Quote from: JackBlack on September 10, 2022, 03:34:55 AM

And the same can be asked of the current model which appeals to dark energy.

An observation of reality that is actively acknowledged and is being scientifically debated to come to the best scientific theory?   

Notice the double standard?
On one hand, you are happy to accept that science doesn't know what is causing the acceleration, but then on the other hand you practically demand to know what is causing the acceleration.

And does this mean you now accept that the speed of light isn't a problem like you initially claimed?

Notice the double standard?

What did I accept.

An observation of reality that is actively acknowledged and is being scientifically debated to come to the best scientific theory

And my really concern with the persons argument.

“So.  What force is acting on the earth and its solar system to cause acceleration.  And how can the earth and its solar system still be accelerating from the reference point for your model that gives everything the reference of 1 G when it would only take one year to hit the speed of light accelerating from the origin point. “

I was more concerned how the earth and our solar system could accelerate past the speed of light and continue to accelerate.

In this context of my cited material

Cosmic Speed Limit

It's impossible to accelerate any material object up to the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/light/cosmic-speed-limit

I am sorry I did not make clear my main concern was accelerating past the speed of light. And that I don’t buy into earths gravity is solely from the earth accelerating in 3 dimensional space. 






Please get back with me once the Milky Way Galaxy is speeding through the universe faster than the speed of light from the origins point of the Big Bang.  Which I’m sure all the theories invoked will continue to evolve.   


Note, added:  I also didn’t convey very well the poster wanted to invoke the speed of light as seen in relativity but wanted to ignore relatively and that mass cannot go faster than the speed of light. 


 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 09, 2022, 10:41:08 AM

Quote

Aside from the outright lies of not seeing other distant objects, which we clearly do see, why is the Sun not an actual object? So no the simplest explanation doesn't require that the Sun is some magical thing, sorry, cat, is not a magical object that you can never get closer to and magically stays the same distance from each individual regardless of their location.

By "distant objects" I don't mean mountains and clouds. I mean such things as stars and planets. We only see as far as about 11 miles on a good, non-misty day. Why is this number significant? Well let's go back to what I said earlier, maybe on this thread but maybe not. The troposphere extends 9 to 11 miles high. You can see clouds about that distance away. If the troposphere were a perfect fixed dome, you would be able to pass clouds and be immediately outside the troposhere with a simple 11 mile drive. Instead, the troposhere continues, making  it either a long fixed dome or an unfixed dome (e.g. it follows our perspective). What we know about fixed objects on Earth is that we can eventually reach them. We can drive from when we first see that mountain all the way on top of it and past it. The clouds themselves are fairly fixed (though it turns out some are much farther than they appear). The point being that this is a dome that continues to move as we push forward. As we  reach a higher elevation, we can see farther.

Now let's look at Data's silly first drawing. Trying to look "over the hill" of the horizon means that object such as a distant mountain doesn't show up. Cross the curvature threshold, no mountain, not even Everest, can be visible. And more importantly, I drew these lines centered with Stickfigure A at ground level, then moved a Stickfigure B (sorry, I'm messing up the lines of the paper) at a decent hill. The hill arches up centered on Stickfigure B. Consistent with what a person on a mountain can actually see, Stickfigure A cannot see a distant boat, but Stickfigure B can, even standing behind him. This is what I have noticed from standing on vantage points.



Higher elevation, more vantage. The dome moves with you.

Where did I say mountains, or anything on Earth at all?  We were talking about the distance to the Sun.  Misrepresent people much?
Other stars, planets, galaxies etc.  Measured to be further from us than the Sun.  Your claim was a lie, you were called out, so you predictably setup a strawman.  Do you have anything other than dishonesty to offer?  Or are you so completely brainwashed and closed minded that you can't do anything but to resort to nothing but lying?

Actually, he (you?) was talking about the optics of seeing a boat and how only with curvature of the earth would the be any obstruction, and how flat Earthers only look at the ground. This mechanism of perception is identical if you want to see the sunset. You can see it a better for longer at a mountaintop with no obstruction. Meanwhile, the person at a valley gets on the view of it setting into a mountain. Why is that? Because your zone of perception (your "sphere") moves with you.

I'm afraid I've probably proved my theory with this diagram and the fact that things actually play out this way, but yeas I suppose saving face is important, so yeah you can tell me how numbers, numbers, numbers, and that is wht I am wrong.

Actually, he (you?) was talking about the optics of seeing a boat and how only with curvature of the earth would the be any obstruction,

Which is demonstrably true.  Please see thread, “Horizon did not block duck from view”
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

and how flat Earthers only look at the ground.

Something like this?



See thread “Horizon did not block duck from view” for complete context.

This mechanism of perception is identical if you want to see the sunset.

Something that should be line of sight on a flat earth where the flat earth would never block the sun from view where it couldn’t be brought back into view with something like a telescope.

You can see it a better for longer at a mountaintop with no obstruction.

Or why I could see the sun set while flying around the pacific?

Meanwhile, the person at a valley gets on the view of it setting into a mountain.

Very good.  But the sun would never be out of line of sight on a flat earth unless you are too close to a wall, under a tree, too close to a mountain, and so on. Which has nothing to do with night which is the shadow of the earth’s curvature as the sun goes below the horizon.  Which is impossible on a flat earth. 

Why is that? Because your zone of perception (your "sphere") moves with you.

No.  You positioned yourself at a point where the sun was physically blocked by an obstacle.  Where no telescope or pair of binoculars could bring it back into view.

I'm afraid I've probably proved my theory with this diagram and the fact that things actually play out this way,

No.  You have not explained how the sun would ever be out of the line of sight on a flat earth.

but yeas I suppose saving face is important, so yeah you can tell me how numbers, numbers, numbers, and that is wht I am wrong.

I think you were asked  first….

For the drawn model below…



Now.  For your delusion.  What is the mathematical formula for how much the boat will be blocked from view vs distance by the flat plane it’s sitting on when viewed from above the plane the boat is sitting on?

A sun set is a property of a spherical earth.  Not a flat earth.


?why do you have to evade answering the question, and try to change the subject to intellectually dishonest distractions? 

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 09, 2022, 06:34:13 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 09, 2022, 10:41:08 AM

Quote

Aside from the outright lies of not seeing other distant objects, which we clearly do see, why is the Sun not an actual object? So no the simplest explanation doesn't require that the Sun is some magical thing, sorry, cat, is not a magical object that you can never get closer to and magically stays the same distance from each individual regardless of their location.

By "distant objects" I don't mean mountains and clouds. I mean such things as stars and planets. We only see as far as about 11 miles on a good, non-misty day. Why is this number significant? Well let's go back to what I said earlier, maybe on this thread but maybe not. The troposphere extends 9 to 11 miles high. You can see clouds about that distance away. If the troposphere were a perfect fixed dome, you would be able to pass clouds and be immediately outside the troposhere with a simple 11 mile drive. Instead, the troposhere continues, making  it either a long fixed dome or an unfixed dome (e.g. it follows our perspective). What we know about fixed objects on Earth is that we can eventually reach them. We can drive from when we first see that mountain all the way on top of it and past it. The clouds themselves are fairly fixed (though it turns out some are much farther than they appear). The point being that this is a dome that continues to move as we push forward. As we  reach a higher elevation, we can see farther.

Now let's look at Data's silly first drawing. Trying to look "over the hill" of the horizon means that object such as a distant mountain doesn't show up. Cross the curvature threshold, no mountain, not even Everest, can be visible. And more importantly, I drew these lines centered with Stickfigure A at ground level, then moved a Stickfigure B (sorry, I'm messing up the lines of the paper) at a decent hill. The hill arches up centered on Stickfigure B. Consistent with what a person on a mountain can actually see, Stickfigure A cannot see a distant boat, but Stickfigure B can, even standing behind him. This is what I have noticed from standing on vantage points.



Higher elevation, more vantage. The dome moves with you.

Where did I say mountains, or anything on Earth at all?  We were talking about the distance to the Sun.  Misrepresent people much?
Other stars, planets, galaxies etc.  Measured to be further from us than the Sun.  Your claim was a lie, you were called out, so you predictably setup a strawman.  Do you have anything other than dishonesty to offer?  Or are you so completely brainwashed and closed minded that you can't do anything but to resort to nothing but lying?

Actually, he (you?) was talking about the optics of seeing a boat and how only with curvature of the earth would the be any obstruction, and how flat Earthers only look at the ground. This mechanism of perception is identical if you want to see the sunset. You can see it a better for longer at a mountaintop with no obstruction. Meanwhile, the person at a valley gets on the view of it setting into a mountain. Why is that? Because your zone of perception (your "sphere") moves with you.

I'm afraid I've probably proved my theory with this diagram and the fact that things actually play out this way, but yeas I suppose saving face is important, so yeah you can tell me how numbers, numbers, numbers, and that is wht I am wrong.

You claimed that we can't see things that are farther away than the Sun.  A lie.  You then claimed the Sun, or cat, would magically never move away from each individual so it would never appear to decrease in size to the individual.  I responded to that, you quoted me in a messy ass response to multiple people at once.  You left out what I was responding to and then proceeded to try to misrepresent what it was about.  A clear sign of yet more dishonesty from you.  So you are now trying to describe a magical personal dome, but don't want to use the word magic because it shows how much of a con artist you are.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 09, 2022, 07:35:52 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 08, 2022, 08:58:49 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 08, 2022, 07:58:44 PM

Quote

What if I'm standing here:

You're not. It is always Cat o'Clock.

Just as the cat is not going to move any closer (until it pounces from behind), you won't be able to stand closer to the sun. I have walked a few long hikes, one of which was a 6+ mile hike toward a mountain in Tucumcari. I never at any point walked so that I saw I was closer to the sun. Nor have any of my road trips made shown the car to get any closer to the sun. This after traveling for 8+ hours. Zeno's Law in action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Paradoxes_of_motion

The OP is correct that the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry. But they work.

Thanks for proving a very distant sun. Approximately 93.637 million miles away. Occam's Razor - Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

I'm not sure it proves that. All it proves is that the sun is not something you can spatially move towards. This doesn't mean it's distant though. A simple distant object you could actually move so that it is more distant and shrinks out of sight. That doesn't seem to be happening either.  I've also driven back from said 8 hour trip, even driving back as far as a 3000 miles trip. Neither towards nor away moves you any closer or further. Morever, I have been as far east as China and as far south as South Africa. And you know what? No matter where I was, the sun was the same size. Oh yeah, it's easy to say you are just too far away from the sun. But...

Quote

...north/south meridional circumference of the Earth is 24,860 miles (40,008 km). Therefore the furthest that two places could be apart would be 12,430 miles or 20,004 km.

12,430 miles ought to make a difference, except for the freakishly large distance. It's almost like someone went out of their way to make a big number. The thing is, can we really even see objects that far away? No, it apoears we cannot. When the sun is up, you know how far we can see? I do because I've looked it up. 11 miles if there are no clouds or obstructions. We can see significantly farther when the sun is down, but the difference in distance between the dun and other objects is too great.
No matter how big the sun supposedly is, this view is more consistent with an object being projected. Why do I say that? Because the sun actually being "up" massively distorts vision. That can't happen from a distant object. Remember the two-way mirror example? This only works if light is cast from within a mirrored surface. If light is on the other side, you can see the two-way mirror for what it is. A similar perspective problem happens here, stars only show up when the sun is gone, and while it's near, distance is very distorted. So no, it's not a very big very distant object. Either we have basically a column of light effect (what you'd really see if a massive distant object cast light, not a tiny version of it), or we are talking about an object that casts glare because it is in our atmosphere.

Rather, I compare it to a kitty, because kitties are cute, and able to do tracking maneuvers like follow at the same distance for hours. It isn't really a very big cat that is miles off, it is a normal sized cat that nonetheless trolls you by always keeping pace whether you are running or walking and even if you are moving away.

The one time I got the sun's position to change, we were moving around a curved road that had hairpin turns, and somehow my parents, while driving got the sun to set twice. This seems to verify the curved path of the sun, and also that it is possible to accelerate the perception of sunset (it never got bigger though), then revert it to normal. Basically because of the winding road, we suddenly hit a right angle, then switched position. I don't think we could keep that up forever, because time is still a factor. Distance never changed.

So what are we talking about here? We are talking about Occam's Razor in this case favoring the weird. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. The simplest explanation here is not that we are seeing an impossibly big object that is impossibly far away when it is impossible to see other distant objects because the sun is causing glare. "When you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not zebras..." but there are some places zebras live. The simplest explanation is either that the sun is projected through a screen or that it is within our atmosphere but sufficiently above us and in just the right perspective that we can't get any closer. Of the two, the idea that the sun is projected by something is alot easier of a theory. We are inside a screen.

 It is always cat o'clock.

Aside from the outright lies of not seeing other distant objects, which we clearly do see, why is the Sun not an actual object? 
So no the simplest explanation doesn't require that the Sun is some magical thing, sorry, cat, is not a magical object that you can never get closer to and magically stays the same distance from each individual regardless of their location.

For reference, here is where I responded and you changed it to remove what I responded to. I see nothing about a boat. 

This mechanism of perception is identical if you want to see the sunset. You can see it a better for longer at a mountaintop with no obstruction. Meanwhile, the person at a valley gets on the view of it setting into a mountain. Why is that? Because your zone of perception (your "sphere") moves with you.

There's no magical sphere that moves with you. The much simpler explanation is that you can simply see farther the higher up you go.

Actually, he (you?) was talking about the optics of seeing a boat and how only with curvature of the earth would the be any obstruction, and how flat Earthers only look at the ground. This mechanism of perception is identical if you want to see the sunset. You can see it a better for longer at a mountaintop with no obstruction. Meanwhile, the person at a valley gets on the view of it setting into a mountain. Why is that? Because your zone of perception (your "sphere") moves with you.

No, it’s because there’s a mountain in the way.

Sometimes the simple answers really are the best.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 10, 2022, 04:59:41 AM

Notice the double standard?

What did I accept.

You accept that science does not know why the galaxies are accelerating away from each other.
It does not know what is causing it or where the energy is coming from.

I was more concerned how the earth and our solar system could accelerate past the speed of light and continue to accelerate.

So you are concerned with a strawman which is not part of the argument you objected to.
And I see that with that you still don't seem to understand where you went wrong.

Note, added:  I also didn’t convey very well the poster wanted to invoke the speed of light as seen in relativity but wanted to ignore relatively and that mass cannot go faster than the speed of light.

But the actual issue is that YOU wanted to invoke relativity to put in a speed limit of the speed of light, while ignoring the implications that has for an object with a constant proper acceleration.
An object with a constant proper acceleration will NEVER exceed the speed of light in any reference frame.

An observer moving with this object will observe/perceive a constant proper acceleration, but to an outside observer, the acceleration will approach 0 as the velocity approaches c.

Actually, he (you?) was talking about the optics of seeing a boat and how only with curvature of the earth would the be any obstruction, and how flat Earthers only look at the ground. This mechanism of perception is identical if you want to see the sunset. You can see it a better for longer at a mountaintop with no obstruction. Meanwhile, the person at a valley gets on the view of it setting into a mountain. Why is that?

Because the person in the valley observes it being blocked by mountains.
The person in on the mountain can see further due to their elevation and the curvature of Earth.

This all makes sense on a RE, but not at all on a FE.

Because your zone of perception (your "sphere") moves with you.

There is no magic zone of perception.
And even if there was, it doesn't explain why the sun appears to be obstructed by Earth.
If you can see the sun at all with that extremely limited "zone of perception", then it should be cut off from the top down as it leaves your zone, and vanish while still very high in the sky.

I'm afraid I've probably proved my theory with this diagram and the fact that things actually play out this way

You have proven nothing, especially given what would be expected with your nonsense doesn't match reality at all, and you are yet to explain what causes this magical limitation.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 05:52:42 AM

Actually, he (you?) was talking about the optics of seeing a boat and how only with curvature of the earth would the be any obstruction, and how flat Earthers only look at the ground. This mechanism of perception is identical if you want to see the sunset. You can see it a better for longer at a mountaintop with no obstruction. Meanwhile, the person at a valley gets on the view of it setting into a mountain. Why is that?

Because the person in the valley observes it being blocked by mountains.
The person in on the mountain can see further due to their elevation and the curvature of Earth.

This all makes sense on a RE, but not at all on a FE.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 05:52:42 AM

Because your zone of perception (your "sphere") moves with you.

There is no magic zone of perception.
And even if there was, it doesn't explain why the sun appears to be obstructed by Earth.
If you can see the sun at all with that extremely limited "zone of perception", then it should be cut off from the top down as it leaves your zone, and vanish while still very high in the sky.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 05:52:42 AM

I'm afraid I've probably proved my theory with this diagram and the fact that things actually play out this way

You have proven nothing, especially given what would be expected with your nonsense doesn't match reality at all, and you are yet to explain what causes this magical limitation.

Your little hissy fit has nothing to do with my point of argument was the poster was picking one aspect of relativity and throwing out and ignoring other aspects of relativity.

But the actual issue is that YOU wanted to invoke relativity

The poster posted this?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 09, 2022, 10:38:31 AM

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 10:17:26 AM

What I said had nothing to do with refraction. It's like you didn't even read, you just reacted.

Did you your read what I posted. 

What you have posted has no evidence of being true.

There's no evidence that light travels at a constant velocity and in a straight line in a vacuum? Please cite your source for this wild claim.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 09, 2022, 10:43:05 AM

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 10:17:26 AM

AND if there were to be a flat disc accelerating upwards at 1G

The sun would also have to be accelerating in the same direction at 1G.  When the photo is emitted, it’s already accelerating at the same rate as the earth in your model.

What? I spoke of viewing an object on the horizon. A ship, just crossing over and disappearing from the bottom up. You're fighting against a strawman. The light is accelerating?!! Lol

So I posted this.

Quote from: boydster on September 09, 2022, 11:34:00 AM

There's no evidence that light travels at a constant velocity and in a straight line in a vacuum? Please cite your source for this wild claim.

So in your model where the earth can accelerate to an impossible speed?  Indefinitely? 

Seconds in a year.  31,536,000 seconds.  And 1G is 9.8 m/s^2.

Acceleration = change in velocity/ change in time. 

The earth and solar system would be traveling faster than the speed of light in one year if the earth constantly accelerated upward at one 1 G? 

How is that possible?

I did not invoke relatively until boydster wanted to pick and choose aspects of relativity.

Nice try.  Are you really this lonely you don’t have anything else better to do.  Even turbo takes a break. 

Your little hissy fit has nothing to do with my point of argument was the poster was picking one aspect of relativity and throwing out and ignoring other aspects of relativity.

No, that is what you are doing.

You take a simple non-relativistic idea, completely ignoring relativity, to say the hypothetic flat Earth would need to accelerate to beyond the speed of light, and then invoke relativity to say it isn't possible.

If you didn't ignore relativity you would understand that an object can experience a constant proper acceleration for an infinite period of time without ever exceeding the speed of light for any observer.

Boydster was not ignoring other parts of special relativity. Just what part do you think is being ignored? The speed of light being the limiting velocity any object can obtain?

You invoked relativity when you appealed to the speed of light.
But you ignored it when you wanted to say the constant acceleration would make it go beyond the speed of light.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 05:52:42 AM

Actually, he (you?) was talking about the optics of seeing a boat and how only with curvature of the earth would the be any obstruction, and how flat Earthers only look at the ground. This mechanism of perception is identical if you want to see the sunset. You can see it a better for longer at a mountaintop with no obstruction. Meanwhile, the person at a valley gets on the view of it setting into a mountain. Why is that?

Because the person in the valley observes it being blocked by mountains.
The person in on the mountain can see further due to their elevation and the curvature of Earth.

This all makes sense on a RE, but not at all on a FE.

Because you can't understand FE has  nothing nothing whatsoever we me understanding it. It makes perfect sense as shown in the model.

That you have to imposed a curved ground wherever there is none is due to a disease in your brain.

But lemme explain something. Many of these same geometry experts like Pythagoras who theorized that if the  moon must be round, the Earth must be round also, had a few problems.
1. First, false analogy. Why must the Earth be round because something else is round?
2. By round, he in no way necessarily meant the Earth was a "sphere". The Greeks (and I) did accept the Earth was round, but most these weren't stupid enough to call it three-dimensionally round. They depicted it as round like a plate with three continents: Europe, Asia, and "Libya" (Africa).

3. Without exception, every math problem up to college deals in measurements using flat surfaces. If our Earth is really round like a sphere, why aren't we taught how to manage constant adjustments for curvature from preschool onward? Why isn't Pythagoras's measurement of a triangle always depicted on a curve? Why doesn't this come up as a math problem that we have to solve?

Shouldn't it be (a2 + b2 = c2) + curvature or something?

Or could it be that it isn't a math problem in Pythagorean math because contrary to the notion that he said Earth was round, he didn't actually believe what he was selling?



This is sometimes used to "prove" there is math otherwise. But this is a circle not a sphere, is the radius is inside it, not sitting on its surface.

2. By round, he in no way necessarily meant the Earth was a "sphere". The Greeks (and I) did accept the Earth was round, but most these weren't stupid enough to call it three-dimensionally round. They depicted it as round like a plate with three continents: Europe, Asia, and "Libya" (Africa).

Eratosthenes (276–194 BC), fixed all that a few centuries after your map - Actually, Hecataeus of Miletus’ (550-476 BC) Map, to be precise. Amazing what we can discover, learn & create in 200+ years.

Eratosthenes:

Because you can't understand FE has  nothing nothing whatsoever we me understanding it. It makes perfect sense as shown in the model.

I do understand it, as shown by pointing out the problems with your model, which you have yet again ignored.
Again, your nonsense fails to explain why the sun does not appear to change size at all.
Your nonsense with a magical zone of perception wouldn't even be able to see the sun or moon, even with the distances used in the FE model, as it is too far away.
Your nonsense, with a magical zone of perception, has no explanation at all for what causes this magical zone, nor why it should increase as you get higher.
Your nonsense, with a magical zone of perception, in no way explains why objects appear to be obstructed by the horizon, disappearing from the bottom up. In fact, your nonsense would indicate objects disappear from the top down, as the top will leave your zone of perception first.
This also means it can't account for why tall enough objects can be seen when far away.

But lemme explain something.

You mean, after being refuted repeatedly, and entirely unable to defend your nonsense, you will switch topics to attack an argument that none of us here made, to pretend to be smart and pretend to refute the RE.

How about instead of fleeing from your total failure, you try defending your delusional BS?

2. By round, he in no way necessarily meant the Earth was a "sphere".

No, that is exactly what they meant.
They knew it was a sphere, because that is what the evidence shows.

But they didn't know what was over the entire Earth, so they couldn't produce a map of all of Earth.

Without exception, every math problem up to college deals in measurements using flat surfaces.

You mean simple math problems. Not all.
Some involve hyperbolic geometry, some involve spherical geometry.
The fact you need to ignore 2 entire classes of geometry shows just how desperate your argument is.
Some involve the surface of other 3D shapes, like the surface of a cube.

If our Earth is really round like a sphere, why aren't we taught how to manage constant adjustments for curvature from preschool onward?

Already explained, for the most part, you don't need them.
Just what adjustments do you expect most people to make?
And the math is quite complex for pre-school. At that point they don't even know there are numbers between 1 and 2.

Why isn't Pythagoras's measurement of a triangle always depicted on a curve?

What way should the curve be?
Should this be a triangle situated on the surface of Earth?
Should this be a triangle where one line is on the surface, and others are perpendicular to Earth?
Should this be a triangle where one line tangent to Earth, and a point is at the centre of Earth?
All different options.

The simple reality is this triangle is used in some calculations involving Earth's curve. But that doesn't require the triangle itself to be curved. And the relationship holds for Euclidean geometry.

3. Without exception, every math problem up to college deals in measurements using flat surfaces. If our Earth is really round like a sphere, why aren't we taught how to manage constant adjustments for curvature from preschool onward?

Why.  Most people do not sail the seas.  Most people use maps and atlases for road trips that give distance by established roads.

What Happens When The Grid Meets The Curvature of The Earth?

https://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/12/what-happens-when-grid-meets-curvature.html?m=1

In the late 18th century, when American land surveyors were laying down the grid system —the network of perpendicularly intersecting streets that divide towns and cities into square-shaped parcels of land— they faced the same problems cartographers face when making maps. The grid design is two-dimensional and flat, while the earth is three-dimensional and spherical. Wrapping the rectilinear planning scheme onto the surface of the spherical planet will always result in distortions of angles, distance, direction and area. For instance, all north-south running streets will not be parallel but gradually taper resulting in land areas that continually decrease in width as one proceeds north. To prevent this from happening, the longitudinally running roads were reset every twenty-four miles to counter the diminishing widths. This resulted in roads that make doglegs and abrupt zigzags in the middle of nowhere.

Geodetic Surveying

Geodetic surveying is another branch of surveying in which the curvature of the earth is considered when taking measurements on earth’s surface. When survey extends over a large areas more than 250 sq. km. and degree of accuracy is also great. Geodetic survey is used to provide control points to which small surveys can be connected.

The earth surface is considered as curved surface
The Curvature of the earth is taken into account
Survey accuracy is high
The line joining any station is considered as spherical
The triangle formed by any three points is considered as spherical
Carried out for area of >250 km
Geodetic surveying uses more precise instruments and modern technology like GPS.

https://wecivilengineers.wordpress.com/2018/09/17/difference-between-plane-surveying-and-geodetic-surveying/

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 10, 2022, 05:52:42 AM

Actually, he (you?) was talking about the optics of seeing a boat and how only with curvature of the earth would the be any obstruction, and how flat Earthers only look at the ground. This mechanism of perception is identical if you want to see the sunset. You can see it a better for longer at a mountaintop with no obstruction. Meanwhile, the person at a valley gets on the view of it setting into a mountain. Why is that? Because your zone of perception (your "sphere") moves with you.

No, it’s because there’s a mountain in the way.

Sometimes the simple answers really are the best.

Golly, you're so smart!

It's too bad you didn't both to actually examine the picture. The first stickfigure is in front of a mountain, the second stickfigure is on top of the mountain.

It is only if I talked about someone behind the mountain that this would be relevant. You kinda ignored the rest of the idea to focus on the last part of the mountain being in the way when you face the sunset.

What way should the curve be?

Oh, I dunno. We should al be made to slope a portion of the Earth's circumference divided by the amount of curvature there should be in that number of feet, causing us to perpetually draw dlightly leaning triangles and measure for decimal points of curve. Doesn't that sound fun? Or wait, neither Pythagoras nor any other mathematician advised this added into the curriculum. Something about have a half-baked curvature system added into every geometric problem, when there is only an irrational way to square a circle.