If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.

  • 99 Replies
  • 14546 Views
If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« on: November 25, 2023, 01:25:43 AM »
The sun would have to turn relative north and travel roughly parallel to the west coast of the North America after passing over flat earth California.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2023, 01:27:15 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2023, 04:54:03 AM »
The sun never has to turn from its path. You look at the flat Earth map, and you misunderstand it.



You think that at some point, the sun would have to adjust or it would go backwards (or something). Let's do a quick hands on exercise. Actually, quite literally in this case.



I ignore the word Antarctica. No such place exists. But we're gonna put our finger on the Tropic of Cancer. You see it? Using your finger, move it across the line as the sun would travel.

Good? Good. Now put you finger on the circle closest to Tropic of Cancer in the flat Earth map (hint: it crosses Mexico, northern Africa, and southern China), and circle it around as the sun should travel. It never goes north, it never goes backwards. It moves around a flat disc.

 North involves crossing the North Pole. This is not what happens.

« Last Edit: November 25, 2023, 06:26:00 PM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2023, 05:35:46 AM »
The sun never has to turn from its path. You look at the flat Earth map, and you misunderstand it.



What do you not get for a FE the sun would have to turn north and parallel the west coast of North America.

Itís pretty obvious.


Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2023, 09:25:45 AM »
I miss good old Stash that has the common sense to not waste time on bulmabriefs144.

Anyway..
 


The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.



*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2023, 02:03:15 PM »
The sun never has to turn from its path. You look at the flat Earth map, and you misunderstand it.
Yes, look at it, and consider a simple path the sun takes, such as the one on the equinox. Consider how it moves when it is mid day for the UK.
If it continues straight, it will deviate from a path over the equator, and instead start going further and further south. So it needs to turn to the north.

This is also observed during the northern summer for those in the north, where the sun rises north of east, travels to the south and then sets north of west.

But there are big problems with this.
During the southern summer, we see the opposite. The sun rises south of east, goes to the north and sets south of west, as if it is turning to the south.

And on the equinox, those on the equator see it rise due east, pass overhead and set due west, with no turning north or south.

\Let's do a quick hands on exercise. Actually, quite literally in this case.
Why not try it with the FE map you used above?
Why use the Mercator projection of a RE?
Are you suggesting the continents are laid out as per that projection, and that the north pole is not the centre?

We see the massive dishonesty of yours by considering sunrise for an observer on the equator during the equinox.
Using the Mercator projection, we see that it should appear due east.
Using the NP centred map, it should appear north east.

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2023, 06:29:17 PM »
The sun never has to turn from its path. You look at the flat Earth map, and you misunderstand it.



What do you not get for a FE the sun would have to turn north and parallel the west coast of North America.

Itís pretty obvious.



Lovely. So it turns out you not only cannot listen enough to follow directions (I can immediately tell that is not the right line), but you cannot draw a proper circle.



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2023, 06:45:07 PM »
The sun never has to turn from its path. You look at the flat Earth map, and you misunderstand it.
Yes, look at it, and consider a simple path the sun takes, such as the one on the equinox. Consider how it moves when it is mid day for the UK.
If it continues straight, it will deviate from a path over the equator, and instead start going further and further south. So it needs to turn to the north.

This is also observed during the northern summer for those in the north, where the sun rises north of east, travels to the south and then sets north of west.

But there are big problems with this.
During the southern summer, we see the opposite. The sun rises south of east, goes to the north and sets south of west, as if it is turning to the south.

And on the equinox, those on the equator see it rise due east, pass overhead and set due west, with no turning north or south.

\Let's do a quick hands on exercise. Actually, quite literally in this case.
Why not try it with the FE map you used above?
Why use the Mercator projection of a RE?
Are you suggesting the continents are laid out as per that projection, and that the north pole is not the centre?

We see the massive dishonesty of yours by considering sunrise for an observer on the equator during the equinox.
Using the Mercator projection, we see that it should appear due east.
Using the NP centred map, it should appear north east.

Goodness. How many times must I explain this?

East and west appear clockwise or counterclockwise on a flat Earth.

I use Mercator projection because it correctly displays ice covering the entire south. This is identical to what you would see in an arctic rim model.

If you were to cut a Mercator into 36 long sections, it would loosely (with distortion) be able to be laid in a circle, as a flat Earth map. You'd have gaps problably, but by taping everything to a board, you can easily see that no such northeast motion occurs.

I did try it. With both maps. For every horizontal motion on a line (this time 30įN) on Mercator, the flat Earth map cicles the 30įN line. Northeast would involve the sun moving off this line. You have yet to explain why the hell it should do that! Unless I didn't read a post.

Looks like you've got a video/GIF that shows an absurd upward arc. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. The sun is overhead, not in front of us. At all times. So, during this overhead arc, it swings in and out of the angle that is vanishing point, entering and exiting the horizon. Roundheads think that it must move around something or dip below something. Actually, you are looking at an object that is above you, yet appears below you due to angle disparity.

Explaining using a simple picture.

Has the height to the roof of this house reduced? The height to the middle of the widow? The length of this house? Its width? No. Nothing except the angle changed, due to distance.

The sun is above you at the same distance and the same height all day. But when it arcs out, you are not able to see it.

Btw, I was able to replicate this exact motion. I have a kindle, and it casts light on the ceiling. With said kindle, I started to my left, and arced to the front of me. Despite facing straight up, and me trying my best to keep a level height, as I arc around, the light eventually descends to directly in front of me, as the kindle (still facing up) meets a point where the kindle is directly ahead of me.  As I continue to arc right, it hits a low point, the travels up. It went from level with the ceiling to in front of a door despite facing up. Exactly as should happen in reverse for an overhead object! Up-down-up when facing up in an arc, then down-up-down for an overhead object.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2023, 07:26:55 PM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2023, 07:11:35 PM »
Goodness. How many times must I explain this?

East and west appear clockwise or counterclockwise on a flat Earth.

I use Mercator projection because it correctly displays ice covering the entire south. This is identical to what you would see in an arctic rim model.

If you were to cut a Mercator into 36 long sections, it would loosely (with distortion) be able to be laid in a circle, as a flat Earth map. You'd have gaps problably, but by taping everything to a board, you can easily see that no such northeast motion occurs.

I did try it. With both maps. For every horizontal motion on a line (this time 30įN) on Mercator, the flat Earth map cicles the 30įN line. Northeast would involve the sun moving off this line. You have yet to explain why the hell it should do that! Unless I didn't read a post.

Looks like you've got a video/GIF that shows an absurd upward arc. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. The sun is overhead, not in front of us. At all times. So, during this overhead arc, it swings in and out of the angle that is vanishing point, entering and exiting the horizon. Roundheads think that it must move around something or dip below something. Actually, you are looking at an object that is above you, yet appears below yow due to angle disparity.

Explaining using a simple picture.

Has the height to the roof of this house reduced? The height to the middle of the widow? The length of this house? Its width? No. Nothing except the angle changed.

The sun is above you at the same distance and the same height all day. But when it arcs out, you are not able to see it.
Skip the crap, you use a Mercator projection to blatantly lie.
You happily switch between models whenever it suits you to to try to prop up your failed BS.

There is no reason at all for you to use the Mercator projection for this discussion.
Your "reason" to show the ice is entirely irrelevant.
Especially given the NP centred one also shows that ice. So you have no honest reason to use it.
Instead, you use it to dishonestly pretend it doesn't have to curve.

Notice how you entirely ignore the actual issues?
This issue has nothing to do with why the sun rises or sets, which you still have no answer for and all the evidence shows Earth obstructs the view.
This is about the apparent direction to the sun.

There are several problems for your delusional nonsense.
Firstly, again, for the equinox, the sun is observed to rise due east, and set due west. And for an observer on the equator it passes overhead.
For an entire line of longitude, the sun appears due east, while 180 degrees away, it appears due west.
This is incompatible with your delusional BS.
This is what your FE fantasy needs:

The sun is shown in red above the equator. And then 90 degrees east and west, all see the sun north of due east/west. But again, in reality, they see it due east/west.

Your model fails.

Likewise, for the southern summer, people in Australia see the sun rise south of east, pass north of them at mid day and set south of west.
This again is impossible in your model.
It doesn't matter where you want to have the sun be when it appears to set for those in Australia, it shouldn't appear south. If your BS was true it would appear NORTH.

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2023, 01:35:46 AM »
The sun never has to turn from its path. You look at the flat Earth map, and you misunderstand it.



What do you not get for a FE the sun would have to turn north and parallel the west coast of North America.

Itís pretty obvious.



Lovely. So it turns out you not only cannot listen enough to follow directions (I can immediately tell that is not the right line), but you cannot draw a proper circle.

That your pissed a simple observation debunks flat earth. 

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2023, 05:16:24 AM »

Skip the crap, you use a Mercator projection to blatantly lie.
You happily switch between models whenever it suits you to to try to prop up your failed BS.
Mercator doesn't form an opinion, one way or the other. On a Gleason flat Earth map they show how the same number degrees can actually widen out on the bottom. Yes, I happily switch between models, because I truly does not matter. You're the one calling all this a lie.

Quote
There is no reason at all for you to use the Mercator projection for this discussion.
Your "reason" to show the ice is entirely irrelevant.
Especially given the NP centred one also shows that ice. So you have no honest reason to use it.
Instead, you use it to dishonestly pretend it doesn't have to curve.
Oh honestly. The fact that I use this map is inconvenient to you. So you tell everyone there is no reason for it, even though I just gave a reason. I like the way it represents the south part. But here, have a second reason. The reason is that when you convert flat space across to overhead circles, it can either be turn into expanding concentric circles (a flat disc) or circles that expand up to the equator then contract towards two poles (a sphere) or equal lengths (a cube). Mercator has no opinion at all, it simply creates the latitude and longitude and leaves it at that.

Quote
Notice how you entirely ignore the actual issues?
This issue has nothing to do with why the sun rises or sets, which you still have no answer for and all the evidence shows Earth obstructs the view.
This is about the apparent direction to the sun.

There are several problems for your delusional nonsense.
Firstly, again, for the equinox, the sun is observed to rise due east, and set due west. And for an observer on the equator it passes overhead.
For an entire line of longitude, the sun appears due east, while 180 degrees away, it appears due west.
This is incompatible with your delusional BS.
This is what your FE fantasy needs:

The sun is shown in red above the equator. And then 90 degrees east and west, all see the sun north of due east/west. But again, in reality, they see it due east/west.

Your model fails.

Likewise, for the southern summer, people in Australia see the sun rise south of east, pass north of them at mid day and set south of west.
This again is impossible in your model.
It doesn't matter where you want to have the sun be when it appears to set for those in Australia, it shouldn't appear south. If your BS was true it would appear NORTH.
So you're basically showing that the sun casts light on multiple latitudes, and you think I'm supposed to be impressed. Congratulations, you just described the long sun paradox. The exact reason that I say the sky is a holographic dome. However, this does not change the fact that the sun centers around a specific path, and this not some supposed tilt (which should slant tides so that one side of Earth has no water for half the year) decides seasons. When the sun is closer to the equator,you have spring or fall, when it's closer to the tropics, you get summer or winter. The sun's light always crosses the equator, and hits north pole or south edge depending on which tropic it's at, giving partial light and heat beyond that.



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2023, 06:52:53 AM »

]There is no reason at all for you to use the Mercator projection for this discussion.


Why are you changing the subject.  Flat Earth fails. On a flat earth, over California the sun would have to turn north and travel along the North American coast.



For a flat earth, the sun would visibly turn overhead like this.


The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.



If the earth was flat instead of spherical, there would be no need of the numerous map projections such as the Mercator projection.  Thanks for driving home flat earth is the lie, and the problems of trying to imagine a spherical earth on a flat map. 

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2023, 06:58:10 AM »

 The exact reason that I say the sky is a holographic dome.

Your changing the subject doesnít get you out of..

One, the sun for a flat earth would visible turn overhead.

Two, the sun is a single physical body that radiates light, charged particles, and radiation.

Three, the moon is a physical body that blocks the radiation, charge particles, and light of the single point source of the sun during the solar eclipse. 

Corrected typo
« Last Edit: November 29, 2023, 01:18:02 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2023, 01:45:30 PM »
Mercator doesn't form an opinion, one way or the other.
It really is quite simple:
If Earth is flat, then there is one flat representation of it, with a particular layout of the continents, etc.

If Earth is round (like a sphere), then any flat representation of it will naturally cause something to distort, so there are many representation of it.

So If you think Earth is flat, you pick one map, and stick to it.
You might have different styles, e.g. one using satellite data to colour the map, one just using lines, one showing topography and so on, but the layout of the contents remains the same.

Switching back and forth between different projections of a globe to try to argue about how something should appear on a FE is dishonest BS.

This is shown by asking a simple question (or any countless similar questions) of what should be the direction to the sun for an observer on the equator at sunrise, on the equinox?
You also don't need this specific detail, and instead can just ask in what direction is a straight line from a point at 0 degrees longitude, 0 degrees latitude, to 90 degrees east, 0 degrees latitude?

Here is the common FE BS with the North pole at the centre:

Here it is for the other projection you used:


Notice how in one case it is east, and in the other it is north east.

These are NOT compatible.
So it DOES matter which one you use.

Especially when the topic of the discussion is what way the sun should appear to move.

I happily switch between models, because I truly does not matter. You're the one calling all this a lie.
You happily switch because you don't care about the truth.
As shown above, IT DOES MATTER.
Yes, I'm the one pointing out that it is dishonest BS from you.
You are using a projection which you do not believe shows the position of the continents correctly to blatantly lie about a hypothetical FE.

If you were honest, you would stick to the NP centred map, or whatever you believe correctly shows the locations of the continents.

Oh honestly. The fact that I use this map is inconvenient to you.
No, it isn't inconvenient to me. It is blatant dishonesty on your part.

even though I just gave a reason.
And I explained why your reason makes no sense.
It is just dishonest BS to pretend the issue raised magically doesn't apply to your fantasy.

The reason is that when you convert flat space across to overhead circles, it can either be turn into expanding concentric circles (a flat disc) or circles that expand up to the equator then contract towards two poles (a sphere) or equal lengths (a cube). Mercator has no opinion at all, it simply creates the latitude and longitude and leaves it at that.
What are you trying to talk about here?
If you convert a flat space, like a hypothetical flat Earth, into a representation on a flat surface (like the map above) without distortion, you get 1 map, and ONLY 1 map.

There are only 2 ways for you to honestly use the Mercator projection; you either claim that it shows the actual layout of the continents, or you accept that it massively distorts the layout of the continents and thus also also distorts directions. The latter makes it useless for this discussion.

So you're basically showing that the sun casts light on multiple latitudes, and you think I'm supposed to be impressed.
Can you be honest for once in your life?
I am showing what is expected for your fantasy.
The sun, on the equinox should rise north of east and set north of west.
For that particular point in time, the sun should be observed at those angles.

Instead of your fantasy, in reality we see the sun rise due east and set due west. At that point in time, they see it due east and due west.

I am demonstrating how your model fails to match reality.
How the sun should appear north of where it does appear.

Congratulations, you just described the long sun paradox.
You have no paradox, just dishonest BS where you need to blatantly lie about how vision works.

The sun, being far away, can be seen by roughly half of Earth at a time, as nothing is blocking the view to it for that half, and Earth is blocking the view from the other half.
This does not need a magical long sun, nor does it need a magical holographic dome.

which should slant tides so that one side of Earth has no water for half the year
No, it shouldn't. That is just more dishonest BS from you where you want to magically pretend there is a magical universal down, or where you want to pretend Earth is a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.


Now again, care to address the issue?

Again, the simple one to consider is the equinox.
For the equinox, with your BS model, the sun should rise north of east and set north of west. Instead it is observed to rise due east and set due west.
For someone on the equator, it is observed to rise due east, pass overhead, and set due west.

If you don't want to discuss that, then discuss the southern summer for a place directly on the tropic of Capricorn, like Rockhampton. For your BS the sun should rise north of east, pass directly overhead and set north of west.
Instead, it is observed to rise south of east, pass directly overhead and set south of west.

Your model predicts it should turn to the north to set north of west after passing directly overhead. But in reality, it doesn't. For the equinox for the observer on the equator it only appears to turn down. For the observer in Rockhampton during the southern summer, it appears to turn south.

All of this makes perfect sense for a RE, and shows the FE model is pure BS.

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2023, 03:00:04 PM »
Meeeercator!!!!!!!!

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2023, 07:56:19 PM »

 The exact reason that I say the sky is a holographic dome.

Your changing the subject doesnít get you out of..

One, the sun for a flat earth would visible turn overhead.

Two, the sun is a single physical body that radiates light, charged particles, and radiation.

Three, the moon is a physical body that blocks the radiation, charge particles, and light of the single point source of the sun during the lunar eclipse.

No it is the Earth that blocks the. light on to the moon , lunar eclipse; and the moon that blocks the light on to the earth, solar eclipse.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2023, 01:17:11 AM »

 The exact reason that I say the sky is a holographic dome.

Your changing the subject doesnít get you out of..

One, the sun for a flat earth would visible turn overhead.

Two, the sun is a single physical body that radiates light, charged particles, and radiation.

Three, the moon is a physical body that blocks the radiation, charge particles, and light of the single point source of the sun during the lunar eclipse.

No it is the Earth that blocks the. light on to the moon , lunar eclipse; and the moon that blocks the light on to the earth, solar eclipse.


Yeap. Your right.  I will correct it.  Just a typo.

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2023, 09:42:15 AM »






Are you in the regular habit of posting gifs depicting animation that is not to scale in order to demonstrate your stupidity, or do you sometimes just come right out and overtly write the words indicating such?

Asking for a friend.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2023, 09:59:20 AM by WISHTOLAUGH »

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2023, 11:57:43 AM »
Are you in the regular habit of posting gifs depicting animation that is not to scale in order to demonstrate your stupidity, or do you sometimes just come right out and overtly write the words indicating such?

Asking for a friend.
You mean asking for yourself, because of all the stupid things you say, like that right there?

You cannot come up with a rational objection so you just proclaim that it isn't too scale.

With the way the FE sun is meant to move, you would expect something at least quite close to that.
The distance to it would vary dramatically throughout the day, so the apparent size and brightness would change dramatically.
And there is no way for it to get hidden from view.

Can you post anything to address the topic to try to save the FE? Or just throw out cheap insults?

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2023, 12:36:37 PM »






Are you in the regular habit of posting gifs depicting animation that is not to scale in order to demonstrate your stupidity, or do you sometimes just come right out and overtly write the words indicating such?

Asking for a friend.

Hey, I happen to like that little GIF! Unless you have a better GIF representing the sky on Flattened Earth, maybe you should reconsider posting, before you've taken your meds?

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2023, 01:05:26 PM »
Are you in the regular habit of posting gifs depicting animation that is not to scale in order to demonstrate your stupidity, or do you sometimes just come right out and overtly write the words indicating such?

Asking for a friend.


You cannot come up with a rational objection so you just FACTUALLY proclaim that it isn't too scale.


Fixed that for you Jack.

I have always understood that facts =/= rational discourse in your view, so there is that.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2023, 01:15:21 PM by WISHTOLAUGH »

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2023, 01:09:34 PM »


Hey, I happen to like that little GIF!
Everyone understands your fantasy fetishes. No need to endlessly repeat them.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2023, 01:17:27 PM by WISHTOLAUGH »

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2023, 01:49:37 PM »
Fixed that for you Jack.
No, you didn't.
On what basis do you claim it is not too scale?
Is it because it doesn't match reality? Because guess what, a FE does not match reality.

Even if it isn't perfectly too scale, that objection in no way deals with the argument.
Especially not the argument of this thread.

Again, the FACT is that for the common FE fantasy with the sun circling above a FE, at an altitude of 5000 km; where for example on the equinox it moves around a circle with a radius of 10 000 km.
That means for someone on the equator, when the sun is directly overhead it is 5000 km away.
Then at the time of sun set, it is above a point roughly 14 000 km away, making it a total of 15 000 km away. That means it is roughly 3 times the distance, and should appear much smaller and much dimmer. And it should have an angle of elevation of 19.5 degrees
At midnight it would be above a point 20 000 km away, making it a total distance of 20600 km away, and an angle of elevation of 14 degrees.

Importantly for this topic, it would also appear to have turned to the north. Instead of rising due east, passing overhead and setting due west as it is observed to in reality, it should rise north of east, pass overhead and set north of west.

FE does not match reality.

I have always understood that facts =/= rational discourse in your view, so there is that.
Because you don't understand what facts are.
Facts are a key part of rational discourse, but FEers don't like them, because it shows Earth isn't flat.

So I'll ask again, can you post anything to address the topic to try to save the FE?

Or do you realise FE is DOA and there is no hope to save it honestly so you need to deflect?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2023, 01:56:20 PM by JackBlack »

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2023, 01:51:38 PM »


Hey, I happen to like that little GIF!
Everyone understands your fantasy fetishes. No need to endlessly repeat them.

Which has nothing to do with the fact on a flat earth the sun would visibly curve as depicted in the gif.

Is clear as day for the orbit of the sun on a flat earth.

The sun never has to turn from its path. You look at the flat Earth map, and you misunderstand it.



What do you not get for a FE the sun would have to turn north and parallel the west coast of North America.

Itís pretty obvious.




Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2023, 03:42:57 PM »


Hey, I happen to like that little GIF!
Everyone understands your fantasy fetishes. No need to endlessly repeat them.

Well, you're half right, that little GIF does illustrate flat earth fantasy. Maybe you need to be watching an Eric Dubay video in future, when you pop your blue pill.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2023, 03:45:12 PM by Smoke Machine »

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2023, 08:55:23 PM »
This thread in a nutshell:

Data posts a depiction of a scene not to scale.

Jack and Smoke cosign.

Make no mistake...there is no way any of these three are capable of presenting any visual rendering of an environment they vehemently deny exists.

The earth is flat and that is why it looks like it looks.
 

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2023, 10:04:30 PM »
This thread in a nutshell:

Data posts a depiction of a scene not to scale.

Jack and Smoke cosign.

Make no mistake...there is no way any of these three are capable of presenting any visual rendering of an environment they vehemently deny exists.

The earth is flat and that is why it looks like it looks.

Why do you have to open old wounds? I've already proven a scale model of the flat earth is impossible. Thus, the scene of a flat earth looking up at the sky, as depicted by Data, can never ever be to scale. Ever!

But it is a good imagining of what the sky might look like if Earth were actually flat, and the sun was doing circle work in the sky 24/7.

Look how stupid it looks, WISHTOLACTATE.


Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2023, 01:52:05 AM »


Data posts a depiction of a scene not to scale.




The opening post.

The sun would have to turn relative north and travel roughly parallel to the west coast of the North America after passing over flat earth California.

. What is not to scale by what factor? 

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2023, 03:41:15 AM »
This thread in a nutshell:

Data posts a depiction of a scene not to scale.

Jack and Smoke cosign.

Make no mistake...there is no way any of these three are capable of presenting any visual rendering of an environment they vehemently deny exists.

The earth is flat and that is why it looks like it looks.
Now try it honestly:
Data posts a massive problem for the FE. The FACT that the observed path of the sun is nothing like what it should be based upon the common FE model.
This FACT is that this common FE model has the sun circle the north pole, so it appear to circle the north pole all the time, or as data puts it "turn to the north".

Bumble objects, by dishonestly switching to a projection of the RE which does not apply to the FE model to pretend the sun should go in a straight line and not turn to the north.
Data objected, and provided a gif demonstrating the problem. (Your later claim about it can be brought up later).
I expanded on it, providing the examples of the southern summer and the equinox, clearly marking a difference between the turning to the north expected of the FE, and reality where this does not happen. I also called out the dishonesty of using a projection of the RE rather than an alleged FE map to pretend it doesn't turn.

Bumble then dishonestly deflected away from the issue, refusing to address the actual problems raised.

I again responded, pointing out why the FE fails, and why they didn't address anything; with them responding with more dishonest deflection.
And so on, until you come in.
And what is your contribution? More dishonest deflection.
Do you attempt to address the issue of the path of the sun? No. Instead you just assert that the gif (which is supplementary to the argument and not needed for it at all) is not to scale.
But you are yet to explain in what way it is not to scale.
Do you think the sun is too small or too big? Do you think it goes too far away or not far enough?
Or is it just that it doesn't match reality because Earth isn't flat.
And when called out on that, you just throw out insults and continue with the deflection, refusing to explain just how a FE could ever match reality.

Or if you want a shorter summary:
Someone posts a massive problem for the FE, which FEers cannot explain and which clearly demonstrates the common FE model is wrong.
FEers dishonestly attempt to deflect away from this problem, because they know it kills their fantasy.
REers call them out on this and further expand on the problem, showing just how broken the FE fantasy is.

So I'll ask again:
Can you post anything to address the topic to try to save the FE?

Some key things for you to explain for the FE:
On the equinox, the sun is observed to rise due east and set due west, for everyone who isn't at the extreme north or south.
For an observer on the equator, it is observe to rise due east, pass directly overhead, and set due west.
For the common FE model, it should rise NORTH of east and set NORTH of west.

During the southern summer, the sun is observed to rise SOUTH of east and set SOUTH of west. This includes passing to the north of people south of the sub-solar point (e.g. those south of the tropics.
For those people south of the equator, it should certainly appear to rise NORTH of east, and set NORTH of west. And this will continue a considerable way up into the northern hemisphere.

And then the only time it does seem to work (superficially, ignoring the fact that FE can't explain why it appears to rise and set) is it rises north of east and sets south of west.

If you can't address these massive problems for the FE, then don't just lie and claim Earth is flat. As a flat Earth is fundamentally incompatible with what is observed.

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2023, 03:52:29 AM »
Why do you have to open old wounds? I've already proven a scale model of the flat earth is impossible. Thus, the scene of a flat earth looking up at the sky, as depicted by Data, can never ever be to scale. Ever!
You have only proven the depth of your inadequacy.
But it is a good imagining of what the sky might look like if Earth were actually flat, and the sun was doing circle work in the sky 24/7.
Except you left out the sun is located on the celestial sphere above our heads and want to represent the sun circling at a consistent height.
Look how stupid it looks, WISHTOLACTATE.
Yeah, imaginary evidence is always stupid. I am glad you can call the gif stupid and thus solidify for everyone your favorite things are stupid.

Re: If the Earth was flat, the sun would have to turn north.
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2023, 03:56:44 AM »
blah, blah, blah
I already stated the way things look is precisely because the earth is flat.

Data's stupid gif is not to scale.

He presented it and he can state exactly what parameters were set in place to assemble it.

Fun fact, it won't write the parameters because that information will show it isn't to scale.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2023, 12:21:52 PM by WISHTOLAUGH »