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?
The sun is still ultimately much bigger than those objects, and is a light source. I think the general consensus from the FE community is that we're talking around a hundred miles for the diameter of the sun, but don't quote me on that. So in reality, you're still seeing a massive object in the sky.
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.
I mean this is true about frequency, but as I said, apparently there had been a couple of trips where a FE'er brought a compass onboard the flight, wrote down his readings throughout the duration and then laid them out, and they lined up with the path you were talking about across the flat earth map. I don't understand how that would be possible, just letting you know what I had heard on that topic.
I'd recommend looking into the electrostatic atmosphere, what colors the ionized gasses produce when they're electrified / charged by the sun. You'll find the colors explain why sunrise/sunsets can be as beautiful as they are.
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?
I've touched on this before, long explanations are out there to search for - the gist is, there'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 in the helio model.
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 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. I have no proof either way.
The reason it's not really interesting to me is just the physics behind planes themselves. Plane radar. Planes wouldn't work on a spinning ball. Nor would their radar. Regardless of a sheep doing calculus on physics-stack-exchange, Earth, nor 'gravity', would cause the air to spin at the exact same speed at all altitudes along a perfect gradient as you go from the poles (0.25mph) to the equator (1100mph) on a spinning ball. The entire concept is something no one could ever reproduce empirically, and is ridiculous on its face. So whether or not a particular plane route happens isn't interesting - planes couldn't take off, land, or fly, if the earth was a spinning ball. To me, the fact that the flight takes place is simply a matter of our lack of understanding of the southern hemisphere. You should take a look at a 'flat map of the ball earth'. Look at where the equator is. Look at the land mass above the equator, and below it. 80% of livable 'Earth' is above the equator. Isn't that a bit odd in and of itself?
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
Worth noting - there is no funding for Flat Earth research. This science is done by passionate people who refuse to be shamed into silence. Not to say there aren't qualified people doing this work. There are plenty of smart people within the movement.
That said, there is no Flat Earth model. Ideas are slowly piecing themselves together to form something coherent, but not everything is covered yet. We've discovered tons.
Do you know the best current explanation for what you'd call gravity? What MIT teaches? Electrostatic charge. The ground has a measurably negative charge. The sky has a gradient of positive charge. Your body has a positive charge. This establishes a directional 'down' force, and density + buoyancy take care of the rest. All of that is measurable, empirical.
Once you break free of the heliocentric conditioning, you see just how incredibly absurd it all is. It's mind-boggling. And look at the globe-responses through this thread. They're all insipid, vacuous garbage. Don't be fooled by mathematics. I'd keep looking into it, search for these channels on youtube: DITRH, Flat Earth Sun, Moon & Zodiac Clock app, Taboo Conspiracy, Eric Dubay. That'll get you started. Not everything they say is gospel, but it's a great start.
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.
You're breaking through. Above is mostly correct. There's no 'maybe' involved, unless you know someone who travelled to the sun and back.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I don't give a shit about the round earth model because that's not what we're talking about.
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.
Look into gravity. Without gravity, heliocentrism doesn't exist. Try and define gravity as something separate from Buoyancy and Density.
Prove the curvature. Use an earth-curve calculator, find an object that you're able to see from too far away. You'll need a camera with good zoom, or a telescope.
Explain how gas exists next to a vacuum, ignoring the second law of thermodynamics.
When researching this above, look into how man-made objects react to vacuums that we're capable of reproducing on earth. Then consider the supposed vacuum of space is exponentially stronger than this. Then consider satellites.
There is so much, these are entertaining starts.
Hahaha, yes - things have measurements. A foot is twelve inches.
Let's briefly summarize why you and I agree that a foot is twelve inches. Humans created the unit called an inch. We decided on its specific size. This unit is the same worldwide. Every human can empirically test this measurement, and validate that 12 inches does indeed equal one foot.
Now I hand you an issue of Time magazine. They're celebrating how beautiful circles can be. One page shows a picture of a circle painted onto textureless white canvas. How big is the circle?
You can see it, right? You can measure it on the page of the magazine, right? Maybe put your thumb up to it, measure how many thumbs it is across, your thumb's distance to the page, etc. You can even write a formula about what you're seeing, and solve for X, right? That's all wonderful.
In reality, the only way we'll find out how big this specific circle is, is if we find the original painting and physically measure the circle on the canvas.
I'll say it once more - we cannot possibly measure the sun, in distance or diameter, without assumptions. This means we're taking a guess. Your guess is as good as mine. And if you factor in physics that involve empirical evidence, your guess isn't quite as good as mine, because the sun behaves like a heat lamp, planes wouldn't be able to operate on a rotating ball, we'd be able to measure the Earth's many simultaneous movements through space, we'd be able to measure the curve, gravity would be measurable, etc. Yet none of that is true. It is absolutely mindblowing when you dig, and you find out just how much of the Heliocentric model is founded on something measurable. Something empirical. Something repeatable. Absolutely none of it.
To your earlier point that I did skip - the sun does get larger and smaller. Heliocentrists say that's all due to refraction. Refraction and gravity magically solve nearly every problem in their model. It's like zoom->enhance in CSI Miami.
How do orbits work? Gravity. Wouldn't the planets pull on each other as distances between them change, and knock orbiting all out-of-whack? No. Why? Because gravity.
How do we not feel the orbiting of the Earth as we change speeds around an ellipse? Gravity. But, we're accelerating and decelerating; couldn't we measure that? No. Why? Gravity.
How does water stick to a rotating ball? Gravity.
How does gas near space ignore the second law of thermodynamics? Gravity.
How do planes catch up to the spinning earth? Gravity.
Why can we see so far? Refraction. But... refraction wouldn't work like that. Yes it would. No, it wouldn't - prove it! We can't.
Why do we see rays of light coming in at different angles all over the world, if all rays are supposedly parallel? Refraction.
How does radar work from 100 miles away on a sphere? No explanation, but we'll assume it's a combination of refraction and gravity.
Why don't submarines see curvature on the bottom of the ocean, as they're able to scan for hundreds of miles? Same as above.
How does the Earth cause an eclipse on the moon, when both the moon and the sun are visible in the same sky? Refraction.
How do we see the same set of stars in the sky at night in January and June, if we're facing 180 degrees in the opposite direction? Distance, probably gravity, maybe a dash of refraction.
How do wireless point-to-point communication systems work on a sphere? Gravity + refraction. But that's not possible!
There's so much else. And yes, there are silly formulas to solve for that attempt to explain much of this. But saying 5 unicorns - 3 unicorns = 2 unicorns doesn't prove unicorns.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He assumed that all sun rays come in parallel with one another. He assumed the sun was incredibly far away.
We know for certain that all sun rays do not come in parallel with one another. Heliocentrists argue that is 100% due to refraction. FE claims the sun is not 100,000,000 miles from Earth.
As I stated before, the experiment can be replicated with beer bottles and a flashlight. It doesn't prove curvature.
Math isn't some source of objective truth. Math is a tool for describing a set of circumstances. Those circumstances don't have to be reflective of reality. You can still solve for whatever variable you want to, in the end.
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.
That's simply false. When I use the word assumption, I'm talking about a number that does not come from empirical evidence.
Eratosthenes assumed the earth was spherical in his experiment. Without that assumption, his experiment proves nothing. That was an earlier point, and the claim is 100% true.
Gravity itself is an assumption.
And yes, our distance to the sun is calculated using assumptions.
Sure, that was just a relatable demonstration of how light doesn't necessarily illuminate an entire unobstructed area.
The reason you can't see the sun at all times is related to rules of perspective.
Everything as it moves farther away from you moves towards your 'apparent horizon'. A road on flat ground, as distance increases, moves up towards the horizon. A cloud, as distance increases, moves down towards the horizon.
Ultimately what that means is, there's exponentially more 'stuff' in the path of light near the horizon. So as the sun moves away from you, it also moves behind anything that is in-between your viewing angle and the sun. So that's clouds, mountains, buildings, or even just particles in the atmosphere itself.
If you own a drone, you can test this yourself. You can set an altitude on your drone over your head - then fly it 100 feet out in front of you at the same altitude. What's happened to your viewing angle? That change continues as you add distance, until the object is nearly sitting on top of the horizon itself.
So the short version is, the sun moves away from your location. As it moves away it also moves towards the horizon due the rules of perspective that you can test literally anywhere. Once it's far enough away, there is enough 'stuff' in between you and the sun at your viewing angle for it to disappear from view. As that happens, the sun appears to set behind whatever that stuff is. Usually clouds, mountains, trees, nearby buildings.
Earth's distance to the sun is based upon assumptions.
Logic dictates the earth is far closer to us than we're lead to believe. The original experiment 'proving' the globe relied on parallel sun-rays.
Anyone who has ever been outside to see sunlight shining through clouds would notice that rays of sunlight are certainly not always parallel to one another.
Does one light on the ceiling of a gymnasium light it entirely? The sun rotates above the earth, lighting it locally rather than globally.
When it comes to the science, I'd say the biggest thing that globers don't understand is that the science is applicable to both.
Today someone argued - planes don't have to nose down because of atmospheric pressure. (...) Well... they wouldn't have to nose-down in that case on a flat earth, either. So what are they proving?
Another person gave the 'dropping an object in a moving car' example. Okay... that idea would still work on a flat plane. So again, what does that prove?
The discussion always rockets straight into pseudoscience because the empirical evidence all points in one direction. There is no experiment that has ever measured curve, the rotation of the earth, or gravity. Nothing 'proves' the sphere. Many things only show a flat earth, many things work on both. Nothing, absolutely nothing, works exclusively on the globe model.
These devices have failed. Often.
There's no reason they'd ever not rotate, correct? The Earth's rotation is constant; and we're talking about the same physical device, after all.
There's no reason that they'd 'rotate' in the wrong direction, as the supposition is that their rotation is induced by the Earth. At the very least, the device would correct itself over time in both of these examples.
They don't. Anyway, the pendulum is silly.
Let's discuss the curvature measurement. The Earth's curve is a constant. You got very excited at your redundancy, changing the angle of observation changes the angle of observation. Well done. At least I know that you're aware of this.
I'm on the shoreline. This means I am at sea-level. I'm 6 feet tall. I can sit in a chair and witness this. We'll say in the chair that I'm 4 feet tall, when it's probably more like 3 feet tall in a beach chair. There should be a 9 foot wall of water in front of the boat. And yet... I can see the ocean behind the boat. The ocean should be 9 feet out-of-sight. Quite a lot of missing curvature. That's not possible on a ball.
You'll say refraction, I'll say to myself 'why does literally everyone think that refraction could ever possibly do this', and that'll probably be the end of this.
You should try this yourself since it's easy to do. See what you find.
Glad we ended with a movie quote. I'm pretty sure that if we dropped a piece of paper with the windows open on the freeway, the paper might be affected by the wind.
But yeah, momentum! Gravity! That solves everything I mentioned. Why? Because it does.
Sleep well.
You aren't arguing, you're just throwing out insults. I'm challenging your programming.
I knew what pendulum you were talking about, as there's only one type that behaves this way (for Scientific reasons, of course). I'm sure since you're so deeply read on the subject, that you know many of these exist all over the world, and have failed to rotate, or rotated in the opposite direction of our spin countless times. Can you imagine actually starting this pendulum and not giving it a bias in a horizontal direction...? I can't believe that this convinces you, aren't you supposed to be awake?
You didn't answer the obvious question, which is that if this pendulum gained momentum from the earth's rotation, why would it ever need to be started at all?
So is it only proof when it works? And then evidence of nothing when it fails?
Why don't we talk about the fundamental fact that we can't measure the Earth's supposed curvature? We know exactly what it's claimed to be, but we can't ever seem to measure it.
Is that because of gravity, too?
The car is a closed system. You're saying the Earth is now a closed system?
The air above Earth in Alaska would move close to 200mph to keep up with the surface below. The air around the equator would move at over 1000mph.
You're telling me that the reason we can feel precisely none of these forces on a flight from Alaska, southbound anywhere, is because of 'gravity'? The reason the plane doesn't need to speed up is because, apparently, gravity speeds the plane up on its own, yet you cannot detect the acceleration? Because...'gravity'?
Are you sure you're looking for proof?
I can see the ocean behind a ship that is six miles away from me.
This necessitates nearly 40 feet of drop, which should completely hide the ship and the coastline.
Yet... it's all visible. Impossible on a ball.
The Foucault pendulum, oh boy. Why would any pendulum be stationary on earth, if this pendulum gains momentum from earth's rotation? Why would this pendulum ever rotate in the opposite direction? Why wouldn't this pendulum be affected by all of earth's motion, rather than just it's axial rotation?
There's a reason you don't hear a lot of scientists worth listening to quoting this pendulum. It proves nothing. It's a show, for fools.
One of us needs to work on appearing more intelligent, that's for sure.
I said, they don't need to adjust. I didn't say - the operator adjusts for this.
That's the entire point. How are you missing that?
Ask a pilot - he doesn't adjust for anything, no matter the direction flown. How would this be possible if you need to make adjustments in a 2 second flight?
Listen, I completely agree that you'd need to make the adjustments if this were real. But you'd need to make the adjustments in any flown object.
Yet, we don't, because every empirical measurement tells us the earth is flat, and stationary.
Like I said, it's distortion from moisture / whatever else is in the air. It's also a light source. A bright flashlight looks a lot different from the front than it does from the battery-end. Just think of what a headlight looks like when you're staring straight at it at night. It certainly doesn't look like a hot filament inside a glass tube. It looks like a glowing ball with streaks coming out. That's not an accurate representation of the object itself. If you have appropriate optics that can filter out the intensity of the sunlight, you can see that the sun itself is still small. As far as a plane goes, a plane is not a light source, so even though it may get distorted somewhat, it won't distort to nearly the same degree as a light source does.
There's just so much. The first and foremost thing is to calculate the curve, and attempt to observe it. Zero curvature.
Do you own a drone? Set it to a particular altitude, and then fly it away from you slowly, watch the angle change, see how far you need to fly it to get it to nearly eye-level. It won't be nearly as far as you think. This proves sunrise / set / other rules related to perspective that make you feel like you're within a 'dome'.
Get a squishy foam ball for a pool full of water. Spin it as fast as you can. What does the water do? Okay, so what would you have to do to keep that water 'stuck' to the ball? Would literally anything be able to leave the surface of that ball, if you were generating enough force to stick that water to the ball to make it as flat as glass?
Take a popcorn bowl full of water on a drive with you, with no top on it. Go 5mph. Brake. What does the water do? Drive down the freeway at 70mph. Do whatever you want. You won't do it without a top on it? Of course not. Water proves so much, but try it anyway so you can see how silly it is.
Think of a merry-go-round that you may have gone on as a kid. Near the center - not much speed. Near the edge - incredible speed. That's a few feet. So how is it that the atmosphere, as things get higher, just magically speeds up to mirror the speed of the spinning ball beneath it? Impossible.
Space and the second law of thermodynamics. Impossible.
We spin on our axis, orbit the sun, rocket parallel to the sun, and our galaxy flies in yet another direction - and somehow the stars in our sky reset perfectly every. single. year.
There are so many things. The helio model is perhaps one of the dumbest things ever.
Go back through this thread, read every glober's reply. Let me know when you find literally anything substantive. You won't, they're fools on this subject. That in and of itself is a big hint.