It sounds like you are understanding exactly right. The sun will never go below the horizon. It will be blocked by all of the 'stuff' that has also made it's way to that level of your apparent horizon. Imagine 250 miles of clouds also collecting at the horizon. It would create a wall of clouds, ultimately. Even atmosphere will do this. I think you get the gist.
Change in daytime - The sun's position changes over time. You can google Gleason's flat earth map to see a general representation of how things are oriented. Now imagine a sun spiraling around the north pole's center, slowly creeping inward, reaching the tropic of cancer and then slowly spiraling outward to the other tropic. The sun's bias north or south of the equator still dictates the length of daylight.
Let me know if that makes it possible to visualize.
But the thing is it DOES go below the horizon. I’ve watched the sun set hundreds of times, on clear days, over water, etc. Nothing “blocking” it. So I’m not sure how you can explain that in a flat earth model.
So I don’t really understand the spiraling in and out visualization. I’m the North Pole, I get that, it makes sense. But for it to be daytime 24hrs in the South Pole in December, the sun has to be whipping around the outer perimeter of the earth, right?
Have you examined with a critical eye the myriad claims of the heliocentric model? Even the most fundamental? I'm not asserting that FE has 'all of the answers', and the heliocentric model attempts to explain away all kinds of phenomena in many laughable ways. This whole process is what lead me to feel much more confident in a flat, non-rotating model vs the spinning, twirling ball.
With that said, I'd put the question back to you: How are you proving that the sun is leaving your field of view via rotation, rather than through perspective as I've described? Whether it is 'rotation' or perspective, the sun will leave your vision the same way, from the bottom up. There's a reason why we think things are 'going over the curve', because things at long distance will go out of sight from the ground-up. Your vision is most obstructed at eye-level. Less obstructed slightly above eye level, less above that... etc.
If you think it's disappearing behind the curve, what have you done to attempt to measure the curve? We know water rests flat on it's surface and takes the shape of it's container, the Helio claim is that this water is perfectly spherical. Measurements don't suggest that. Why not? Etc, etc, etc.
The south pole - no one is allowed to travel there, so claiming you know what's going on down there is dubious at best. You'll say there are eye-witnesses that claim they've seen 24 hour sunlight, and I've seen books written by people who attempted to circumnavigate Antarctica and gave up due to travelling tens of thousands of miles further than they should have needed to. The short answer is - we have no idea.
I’m not here to prove you wrong. I’m only curious on how the flat earth model can work given objective observations.
I haven’t measured the curve, but if we assume there is no curve and the earth is flat I cannot imagine how the sun can appear to set below the horizon. Relative distance does change perspective, absolutely. But wouldn’t this put the sun incredibly close to the earth’s surface? Has there been anything that the flat earth has measured as far as size of the sun?
Secondly, there are videos of expeditions on Antarctica. There is a base set up there. There are also areas in that part of the ocean, at least, that can and have been traveled by general public, that will still experience similar daylight pattern.
You're right about the sun. On the FE side, it's assumed that the sun is small and close, rather than enormous and far. With a close sun, the sun could 'set' exactly as you've seen it with the naked eye. The measurements on either side of the debate are assumptions, and aren't that interesting to me.
You mention objective observations - to me, objective observation related to the sun would cause me to conclude it behaves much more like a local heat-lamp rather than a star 100,000,000 miles away.
With Antarctica, all that either of us can say with certainty is that for some reason, we're not allowed to go there. We're perfectly free to visit the arctic, yet Antarctica is totally off-limits. I don't agree that there's any reasonable explanation for that. Token tourism via one umbrella company isn't enough.
It sounds like you are understanding exactly right. The sun will never go below the horizon. It will be blocked by all of the 'stuff' that has also made it's way to that level of your apparent horizon. Imagine 250 miles of clouds also collecting at the horizon. It would create a wall of clouds, ultimately. Even atmosphere will do this. I think you get the gist.
Change in daytime - The sun's position changes over time. You can google Gleason's flat earth map to see a general representation of how things are oriented. Now imagine a sun spiraling around the north pole's center, slowly creeping inward, reaching the tropic of cancer and then slowly spiraling outward to the other tropic. The sun's bias north or south of the equator still dictates the length of daylight.
Let me know if that makes it possible to visualize.
But the thing is it DOES go below the horizon. I’ve watched the sun set hundreds of times, on clear days, over water, etc. Nothing “blocking” it. So I’m not sure how you can explain that in a flat earth model.
So I don’t really understand the spiraling in and out visualization. I’m the North Pole, I get that, it makes sense. But for it to be daytime 24hrs in the South Pole in December, the sun has to be whipping around the outer perimeter of the earth, right?
Keep in mind as you ask these questions:
Have you examined with a critical eye the myriad claims of the heliocentric model? Even the most fundamental? I'm not asserting that FE has 'all of the answers', and the heliocentric model attempts to explain away all kinds of phenomena in many laughable ways. This whole process is what lead me to feel much more confident in a flat, non-rotating model vs the spinning, twirling ball.
With that said, I'd put the question back to you: How are you proving that the sun is leaving your field of view via rotation, rather than through perspective as I've described? Whether it is 'rotation' or perspective, the sun will leave your vision the same way, from the bottom up. There's a reason why we think things are 'going over the curve', because things at long distance will go out of sight from the ground-up. Your vision is most obstructed at eye-level. Less obstructed slightly above eye level, less above that... etc.
If you think it's disappearing behind the curve, what have you done to attempt to measure the curve? We know water rests flat on it's surface and takes the shape of it's container, the Helio claim is that this water is perfectly spherical. Measurements don't suggest that. Why not? Etc, etc, etc.
The south pole - no one is allowed to travel there, so claiming you know what's going on down there is dubious at best. You'll say there are eye-witnesses that claim they've seen 24 hour sunlight, and I've seen books written by people who attempted to circumnavigate Antarctica and gave up due to travelling tens of thousands of miles further than they should have needed to. The short answer is - we have no idea.
I’m not here to prove you wrong. I’m only curious on how the flat earth model can work given objective observations.
I haven’t measured the curve, but if we assume there is no curve and the earth is flat I cannot imagine how the sun can appear to set below the horizon. Relative distance does change perspective, absolutely. But wouldn’t this put the sun incredibly close to the earth’s surface? Has there been anything that the flat earth has measured as far as size of the sun?
Secondly, there are videos of expeditions on Antarctica. There is a base set up there. There are also areas in that part of the ocean, at least, that can and have been traveled by general public, that will still experience similar daylight pattern.
You're right about the sun. On the FE side, it's assumed that the sun is small and close, rather than enormous and far. With a close sun, the sun could 'set' exactly as you've seen it with the naked eye. The measurements on either side of the debate are assumptions, and aren't that interesting to me.
You mention objective observations - to me, objective observation related to the sun would cause me to conclude it behaves much more like a local heat-lamp rather than a star 100,000,000 miles away.
With Antarctica, all that either of us can say with certainty is that for some reason, we're not allowed to go there. We're perfectly free to visit the arctic, yet Antarctica is totally off-limits. I don't agree that there's any reasonable explanation for that. Token tourism via one umbrella company isn't enough.