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.
here's more 'stuff' down at the horizon level than there is at higher viewing angles. That's due to perspective. You've seen large moons, small moons, large suns, small suns, and those never actually change distance
But then why don’t we see this same effect when other things move further away in the sky? Why do planes get smaller but the sun gets bigger, for instance? Why do trees and mountains look smaller at the horizon level but not the sun and moon?
I'm not asserting anything about that specific flight. I searched for the flight and it certainly isn't one being flown with much frequency, assuming covid is getting in the way here. I'd heard that an FE or two flew on these flights, and their compass disagreed massively with what the flight path was showing.
Frequency is irrelevant. This specific flight is flown occasionally, but there are other flights between Australia and South America that are of similar times and patterns. Additionally, Australia to Africa would have to be much longer than what they are.
You talk a lot about the round earth model again, and I have to again say that you’ve said plenty to disprove the round earth model. What my objective here now is to understand the flat earth model and how events are observed on a flat earth
It gets larger and smaller because it is moving from overhead (near you) to far away. We discussed this before. This is also what sets the sun, you can experiment and prove this yourself.
But my point is when the sun sets that is when it is furthest away, right? But with my own eyes I see it and it appears to be bigger. What is the explanation for this in the flat earth model? Why do I observe this happening?
The flight, honestly I have no idea. I've never looked into that specific flight. A flight doesn't 'debunk' a flat earth. A curve would.
My point is on a flat earth a flight from Australia to South America taking 15 hours is impossible. However, we can observe a flight taking only 15 hours to make this journey. That's an objective observation we can all make. This is something we experience.
So, how is this able to happen? We know the fuel capacity of a plane and we know how long it takes for planes to get from point A to point B at various speeds. We can also note that between south america and australia there are huge tracts of land, and yet on the flight passengers will only see ocean. How is this possible?
Well, you should. You believe in it, and the only reason you believe in it is because you were told to believe in it. The model is so monumentally stupid, it is a blessing to be on the other side of it.
I think there is plenty out there to disprove the round earth theory. Currently what I'm doing is trying to see the other side of it and confirm the flat earth theory, and learn why we can observe these things happen on a flat earth.
So, the thing with your Circle in a magazine is silly. Yes, if you had me a picture and ask me to measure the exact size of the circle I wouldn't be able to do it, because I'd need to go to the actual canvas itself. But the thing is that you CAN go to the canvas and measure it. Someone drew it, someone's been there, so someone knows.
Now, with the sun, maybe we don't know exactly how big it is, BUT the fact is it HAS to have a diameter. It HAS to have a size. And, logically, it SHOULD remain consistent, at least relatively.
To your earlier point that I did skip - the sun does get larger and smaller. Heliocentrists say that's all due to refraction.
Okay, so what's the explanation in the flat earth model? I don't give a shit about the round earth model because that's not what we're talking about.
As far as the flight, planes wouldn't work if the earth was a rotating ball - but I know nothing of that flight. Yes, there are plenty of irrational excuses as to why it's possible that planes could fly, but they don't follow the laws of physics. I'll believe in God on faith, I won't believe in science on faith.
So, in the flat earth model, the distance between South America and Australia is about as far of a distance as you can get. This would, theoretically, be by far the longest flight you could take. However, it only takes about 15 hours. How is it possible for a flight from the two farthest points to be that short?
Present data aside, things have measurements. No matter what you want to say about current state of science as it is it doesn't change the fact that a foot is 12 inches. The sun must have a measurement in size, and I'm at a loss as to how big it would be to make the flat earth model work.
How do you figure we can't measure these things? is it impossible to measure force? I don't believe that to be true.
Based on my observation, there is nothing that can confirm that the earth is flat either. I wrote several reasons why in my last comment.
Another big one is a flight from the tip of south america to australia. If we are to assume the flat earth model to be true, then there is no way a flight could make that trip in one go. And yet it does, every single day. Objective observation means this cannot happen in a flat earth model, unless you've been able to find an explanation for that?
The image is being distorted by the atmosphere and your eyeballs. The sun appears 'smaller' when there's less in the air. The colder the better, the clearer the better. A cold, clear day + unobstructed horizon + solid zoom camera will produce the results you're looking for.
Not really making a ton of sense. How is the atmosphere distorting it? If the earth is a flat plane, and other objects appear smaller as they move further away, why is it that the sun appears larger? I also haven't seen differences on colder days vs warmer days. In both scenarios, a rising/setting sun appears larger at the horizon, and then when it goes below the horizon. How exaclty is it being distorted?
To keep it simple, the maps aren't representative of the Earth. We don't have a true picture of what the Earth looks like. These are all estimations at this point, and so all maps are different.
Well this is confusing to me. We at least have a general idea of where things are located. People fly, sail the coasts, and map terrain for a living. So, we still know relatively where things are located even if the maps aren't exactly the same. If you're going so far as to claim that maybe land masses and maps are inaccurate by a factor of hundreds of miles I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion.
This is the map I'm referencing. What about it, to you, seems so inaccurate that my flight question bears no further exploration?
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.
But then why don’t we see this same effect when other things move further away in the sky? Why do planes get smaller but the sun gets bigger, for instance? Why do trees and mountains look smaller at the horizon level but not the sun and moon?
Frequency is irrelevant. This specific flight is flown occasionally, but there are other flights between Australia and South America that are of similar times and patterns. Additionally, Australia to Africa would have to be much longer than what they are.
You talk a lot about the round earth model again, and I have to again say that you’ve said plenty to disprove the round earth model. What my objective here now is to understand the flat earth model and how events are observed on a flat earth
But my point is when the sun sets that is when it is furthest away, right? But with my own eyes I see it and it appears to be bigger. What is the explanation for this in the flat earth model? Why do I observe this happening?
My point is on a flat earth a flight from Australia to South America taking 15 hours is impossible. However, we can observe a flight taking only 15 hours to make this journey. That's an objective observation we can all make. This is something we experience.
So, how is this able to happen? We know the fuel capacity of a plane and we know how long it takes for planes to get from point A to point B at various speeds. We can also note that between south america and australia there are huge tracts of land, and yet on the flight passengers will only see ocean. How is this possible?
I think there is plenty out there to disprove the round earth theory. Currently what I'm doing is trying to see the other side of it and confirm the flat earth theory, and learn why we can observe these things happen on a flat earth.
So, the thing with your Circle in a magazine is silly. Yes, if you had me a picture and ask me to measure the exact size of the circle I wouldn't be able to do it, because I'd need to go to the actual canvas itself. But the thing is that you CAN go to the canvas and measure it. Someone drew it, someone's been there, so someone knows.
Now, with the sun, maybe we don't know exactly how big it is, BUT the fact is it HAS to have a diameter. It HAS to have a size. And, logically, it SHOULD remain consistent, at least relatively.
Okay, so what's the explanation in the flat earth model? I don't give a shit about the round earth model because that's not what we're talking about.
So, in the flat earth model, the distance between South America and Australia is about as far of a distance as you can get. This would, theoretically, be by far the longest flight you could take. However, it only takes about 15 hours. How is it possible for a flight from the two farthest points to be that short?
Present data aside, things have measurements. No matter what you want to say about current state of science as it is it doesn't change the fact that a foot is 12 inches. The sun must have a measurement in size, and I'm at a loss as to how big it would be to make the flat earth model work.
How do you figure we can't measure these things? is it impossible to measure force? I don't believe that to be true.
Based on my observation, there is nothing that can confirm that the earth is flat either. I wrote several reasons why in my last comment.
Another big one is a flight from the tip of south america to australia. If we are to assume the flat earth model to be true, then there is no way a flight could make that trip in one go. And yet it does, every single day. Objective observation means this cannot happen in a flat earth model, unless you've been able to find an explanation for that?
Not really making a ton of sense. How is the atmosphere distorting it? If the earth is a flat plane, and other objects appear smaller as they move further away, why is it that the sun appears larger? I also haven't seen differences on colder days vs warmer days. In both scenarios, a rising/setting sun appears larger at the horizon, and then when it goes below the horizon. How exaclty is it being distorted?
Well this is confusing to me. We at least have a general idea of where things are located. People fly, sail the coasts, and map terrain for a living. So, we still know relatively where things are located even if the maps aren't exactly the same. If you're going so far as to claim that maybe land masses and maps are inaccurate by a factor of hundreds of miles I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion.
This is the map I'm referencing. What about it, to you, seems so inaccurate that my flight question bears no further exploration?
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/uRpMCAmQo33CV4M2srWivf.jpg