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.
That’s interesting you don’t find the measurements interesting. That’s exactly what I would want to find out. It’s similar to wondering how tall the tallest mountain is, or even just how high you climbed over a hike.
In any case, for the sun setting in a flat earth as I see it, I don’t really understand how it makes sense. I don’t exactly look at the sun, but it appears to stay the same size throughout the day, even seeming almost bigger at sunset. If we were experiencing that effect as you say where the distance between objects appears smaller at a greater distance, shouldn’t the sun also appear to grow smaller? Especially in a FE model.
Antarctica isn’t off limits. There are cruises that take you there, some get you to be close enough to the surrounding ice caps. There are several companies who offer this, not just one
You're missing a key point - the distance 'measurements' of the sun are assumptions. They aren't empirical. The entire Scientism religion is built upon 'evidence' like this. Heliocentrism and Catastrophic-Anthropogenic-climate-change are almost identical in this regard.
Science is NOT merely the combination of assumption and mathematics. Science has always been about experiments generating empirical evidence, drawing conclusions based upon the evidence which moves us closer and closer to an answer.
Heliocentrism is a mathematical religion. It is not based upon empirical findings. We can't measure the curve of the Earth. We can't observe curvature from high altitudes. We can't measure gravity on Earth. We can't measure any of the movements of the Earth. We can't measure the distance to the sun. We can't measure the rotation of the moon. This list goes on, and on.
Yet we've got this 'fancy' reverse-engineered math where some calculations line up with some observations. That's wonderful, but that's not science. Showing me that you can solve some trigonometric equation and it outputs the number you posit that it will proves exactly nothing empirically.
You should absolutely follow what you said earlier. Objective observation. There is no possible way, without your programming, that based upon your own objective observation that you would conclude the earth is a ball, spinning corkscrewing rocketing through space at millions of miles per hour in several directions at once. Nothing, absolutely nothing, suggests that.
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.
That’s interesting you don’t find the measurements interesting. That’s exactly what I would want to find out. It’s similar to wondering how tall the tallest mountain is, or even just how high you climbed over a hike.
In any case, for the sun setting in a flat earth as I see it, I don’t really understand how it makes sense. I don’t exactly look at the sun, but it appears to stay the same size throughout the day, even seeming almost bigger at sunset. If we were experiencing that effect as you say where the distance between objects appears smaller at a greater distance, shouldn’t the sun also appear to grow smaller? Especially in a FE model.
Antarctica isn’t off limits. There are cruises that take you there, some get you to be close enough to the surrounding ice caps. There are several companies who offer this, not just one
You're missing a key point - the distance 'measurements' of the sun are assumptions. They aren't empirical. The entire Scientism religion is built upon 'evidence' like this. Heliocentrism and Catastrophic-Anthropogenic-climate-change are almost identical in this regard.
Science is NOT merely the combination of assumption and mathematics. Science has always been about experiments generating empirical evidence, drawing conclusions based upon the evidence which moves us closer and closer to an answer.
Heliocentrism is a mathematical religion. It is not based upon empirical findings. We can't measure the curve of the Earth. We can't observe curvature from high altitudes. We can't measure gravity on Earth. We can't measure any of the movements of the Earth. We can't measure the distance to the sun. We can't measure the rotation of the moon. This list goes on, and on.
Yet we've got this 'fancy' reverse-engineered math where some calculations line up with some observations. That's wonderful, but that's not science. Showing me that you can solve some trigonometric equation and it outputs the number you posit that it will proves exactly nothing empirically.
You should absolutely follow what you said earlier. Objective observation. There is no possible way, without your programming, that based upon your own objective observation that you would conclude the earth is a ball, spinning corkscrewing rocketing through space at millions of miles per hour in several directions at once. Nothing, absolutely nothing, suggests that.