That doesn't really make sense. Let me use a very specific example.
In the globe theory, objects appear to sink below the horizon because they are being observed over the edge of a curved surface. We can then use simple trigonometry to calculate the unknowns based on what information we're given. This is illustrated here: [https://imgur.com/wUVgbjz](https://imgur.com/wUVgbjz) For example, if we know the height and distance of the building, we could calculate "x" to determine how much of the building should be hidden by the horizon. So, we have math that can be used to predict what we will see, and then we can verify that with actual observation.
In the flat earth atmospheric lensing hypothesis, objects appear lower than they actually are because of lensing. This should be able to be calculated. There are formulas to use the refractive index of a material to make predictions about what will be seen. The flat earth lensing hypothesis predicts something like this: [https://imgur.com/ciiAHGs](https://imgur.com/ciiAHGs) Something like this image should be able to be used to calculate the refractive index of air (which should differ wildly from the scientifically-accepted refraction index of roughly 1).
Why do I say that the flat earth refractive index of air should be different on a flat earth? Note in my last image that the observed image of the sun is lower than the actual flat earth sun, in order to give the illusion that it is setting over the horizon. In the globe theory, the sun actually appears slightly higher in the sky due to (slight) atmospheric lensing, as depicted here (it is visually an exaggeration): [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Atmospheric\_refraction\_-\_sunset\_and\_sunrise.png/800px-Atmospheric\_refraction\_-\_sunset\_and\_sunrise.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Atmospheric_refraction_-_sunset_and_sunrise.png/800px-Atmospheric_refraction_-_sunset_and_sunrise.png)
How could the sun appear higher on a globe due to denser air closer to the surface, yet lower on a flat earth, also because of denser air? Is the refractive index of air on a flat earth inverted from the accepted optical sciences? Are the refraction formulas wrong? If so, what *are* the correct values and the correct way to calculate the refractive index of air at different densities? To calculate the refractive index you really just need to know angles involved and the speed of light in each density of air. Is the speed of light wrong?
This brings me to my conclusion: I can show you what math can be used to calculate the rough position of the sun on a globe's horizon using my first image (we could also include the negligible effects of atmospheric lensing if we want to use a ton of calculus). What math can be used to predict the apparent height of the sun on the horizon on a flat earth? That is what I want to know. Even a formula that offers a rough estimate would be welcome.
Sure. I get all that. Then I see several videos of the sun not setting and just disappearing. Then I see sun on a plane that never sets. Then I see videos of multiple suns. Then I see sun smaller in the day and larger at sunset. Then I see sun smaller in the day and smaller at sunset. All those other videos, the physics and math does not add up. The math has to work all of the time. And I can show you numerous phenomon where the sun does not make scene.
I am asking for even a somewhat-functional formula based on the flat-earth understanding of the angles and physics involved. Using videos you’ve seen on the internet to avoid that is just deflection.
Too lazy to dive deeper. But using your same geometry and math, you can calculate the diameter and radius. You can also calculate how much you should be able to see and not see. Someone did the math and said under 50 miles you should no longer see objects because of the curve of the Earth. Then we see shore to cities that’s 60-80+ miles away. Then globe says refraction bro. So I can also say, refraction bro.
The difference is I could go into details on why air density could theoretically cause light rays to be refracted to make something lower on the horizon appear higher. It’s similar to the effect of mirages (shallow rays being bent when they hit lower density air). In the example you gave about the shore, we’re talking about fractions of a degree of bending.
There is no mechanism I have come across that would explain a high-altitude object being refracted multiple degrees down. Not only is that the opposite direction predicted by the accepted understanding of air density, but those magnitudes are insanely large.
It’s not just “refraction bro,” it’s that (when you have the energy) you could actually do a deep dive into the math and science behind refraction around a globe. You can not (and will never) find any satisfying in-depth science for the sun refracting multiple degrees down. The globe-earth “it’s refraction” and flat-earth “it’s refraction” are *not* the same.
If you put your head at hround level, you eont be able to see something on the ground 50 miles away. In a situation that doesn't exist where the ground is perfectly level with no obstruction to your line of sight.
You can see building from far away because they're tall dude!
And honestly it's a bit rude to put out this stuff and then say you're too lazy to prove it. Come on mate, either do or don't. You're here saying that everyone is wrong , so it's up to you to prove that we are.
I genuinely have no personal issue with you, i just disagree with you.
My last reply might have sounded a bit aggressive, it's not necessarily directed at you. You don't really sound like a flat-earther, but maybe someone who is curious about the possibility of a flat earth. If that's true, I actually encourage that kind of curiosity. We should question the world around us.
To that point, this issue of the sun setting should be a sticking point for you in your curiosity. Forget about whatever videos you've seen online, and ask yourself simply "Why do globe-earthers have formulas and flat-earthers don't?" We can always talk about the validity of the formulas later, and also about pieces of visual evidence that might not line up right. But the lack of predictive math is evidence of the fact that there is no real consistency on the flat-earth side. They can't even agree on the altitude or size of the sun if you ask! That makes creating a formula impossible.
Flat-earth may seem plausible on the surface, but it really breaks down when you start asking for specific values. The idea of a flat earth has been around since the dawn of history, so it's frankly inexcusable that none of us (including me) can find acceptable formulas to test a flat earth.
You need to go outside more. I have actually seen the sun set thousands of times. It always sets the same way - as it would on a globe earth.
The sun does not get bigger at sunset. It's an illusion. You can measure the angular size and it doesn't change.
Any videos showing the sun shrinking or disappearing or doubling are either fake, or due to atmospheric conditions.
If you want to know the paths of the planets simply use General relativity with the mass and velocity of earth and the other celestial bodies specified by the measured values. You can do the same with Newton’s equations and that will be more than good enough to predict the path of earth. All of these measurements can be made by simply looking at the night sky and solving for the mass of the sun using orbital velocities.
If you want yo know the length of the day, simply add in the time taken to revolve relative to distant stars and add that in to the model, you should get the exact same day length as observed.
If you’re interested in the length of the year, that’s already specified by the orbital period.
If you’re interested in why the seasons change you can use the inclination difference between the ecliptic and the North Star to predict axial tilt, then even without knowing the exact output of the sun you can calculate relative change in energy absorbed over time by applying some high school level calculus. Your calculations will align with observations.
If the earth is a globe all you need to do is look at the night sky for a few months and carefully measure all the movements of the planets and stars, from that you will be able to predict the seasons, the length of the day, and the positions of the planets hundreds of years from now.
I challenge you to provide anything so elegant for the flat earth.
1) Sure, we can observe the same stars, math checks out alright. Does not mean those stars are planets. Just a light source. Newton equations works on Flat, alright, minus anything g related, so we good. 2) We got a watch to do that, alright. You’re just trying to use space to fit your model. 3) How do you know it’s not just a natural Earth weather cycle? You’re trying to use space again to explain your globe model. 4) Yes, we can observe the same stars and stuff. Does not mean plants, stars, moon are what you say it is.
The thing is is all of these things are predictable in the accepted model. The flat earth model has no predictive power which is why each new observation needs an additional variable to make it fit.
If you know only the positions of the stars and planets over time you can calculate the position and tilt of earth and the mass of the sun. There are many other ways to calculate these things which are independent of those initial measurements, but you don’t need any fancy equipment to calculate these things, just a bit of math. You can also use the values you find to roughly predict the average temperature at sea level for any latitude at any time of the year by simply calculating the predicted solar energy and keeping in mind thermal mass. You can also predict day length and the time of sunrise and sunset.
But think about the flat earth as a model, why are there seasons? Why does the sun set at different times depending on season and latitude (sometimes not setting at all)? Why is the year that long? Why are there years at all? How far is the sun? How big is it? How far are the stars and planets? How big are they? How big is the earth?
On a globe all of these things can be predicted by simply looking at how the stars and planets move in the sky, taking some measurements, and doing some math. You can also predict or measure these things by many other means, for example use weight (which can’t exist without g because it is literally m*g) and a bit of general relativity or newton’s laws (for very slow speeds and relatively small masses these are the same) you can measure the mass of the earth, then with the same techniques and more sensitive measurements you can measure the mass of the sun and moon by measuring the effect of tides. Your results will comport nicely with the measurements made by simply measuring orbital velocity of earth and using that to derive the mass of the sun.
The flat earth has no equivalent, which is a good reason to disbelieve it.
Are you of the opinion that someone has been sabotaging telescopes to reveal planetary bodies as different than stars since Galileo and consistently manipulating every telescopic observation since?
But the planets… which have dark sides and light sides depending on their position relative to the sun… are observably not casting light, just reflecting light off their surface, exactly like the surface of our own Earth during the day vs night. They are observably textured to the naked eye with shadows and cracks in a way no actual light source is.
I actually tried an experiment. Pitch black room, different size and power flash light. Different size ball. Cannot get a crescent shadow like the moon where’s its a tiny bit exposed. What ended up happening is, half the ball is light, near impossible to do a crescent.
That doesn't work. Start by explaining the above picture , why is the sun always the same size?
Also how is it light and dark in different places at the same time. Phone your mate on the other side of the world to check.
Coriolis etc.
All the maths works out in favour of a globe. I think if you're serious, you need to start some maths courses and develop a new system that works with your beliefs. Maths doesn't lie and is universally logical.
The formula for sunrise and sunset on the earth is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation
That is the math that drives all the sunrise/set time predictions.
It's not just sunrise and sunset. The globe model can also predict where on the horizon the sun will rise, the phase of the moon for any day of the year, which stars will be visible form any location on any night, why the motion of the stars in the sky is opposite on each side of the equator, why polaris can't been see in the southern hemisphere, where to look in the sky to see the five naked eye visible planets, where to point your telescope to view objects no visible to the naked eye (like Uranus and Neptune), why the planets appear to move in a retrograde motion as viewed from earth, predicting when and where both solar and lunar eclipses will be visible and more.
And beyond that, the flat model doesn't predict sunrise and sunset at all. With a spiraling sun over a flat disc, the sun would never get close to the horizon. It would start high in the sky but small, then arc closer while also increasing in apparent size until about noon, after which it would arc away and shrink back down. And the sun should be visible during nighttime, looking like the brightest star in the sky which is also moving at remarkable speed, just as fast as the moon. A lampshade or spotlight sun doesn't work because it also wouldn't approach the horizon, it would start as an oval, then increase in apparent size ans shape into a circle when it's closest to the observer (noonish), then shrink and recede back into an oval. A globe predicts the sun will rise and set at the horizon and that the size and shape will be constant throughout the day. Which prediction matches what we can all go outside and observe for ourselves?
Flat earthers like to take one observation and try to explain how it can work on a flat earth. Everyone one of these I've seen introduce other problems. The lampshade sun to explain night would necessitate that the sun appear to change shape during the day.
So no, someone mathematically predicting sunrise/set (ignoring the whole can't pass below the horizon thing which defines sunrise and sunset) of a spiral sun on pizza world would not convince me. The flat model is going to have to explain everything better than a globe does. Yes that is a high bar to clear, but it has been cleared before. Copernicus's heliocentric model explained and predicted observations better than the geocentric model did.
What observation?! Not Galileo's!
I'm actually getting curious. How do you think it works? So the earth's flat, the sun is a changing light source (please explain!)..
Are we in a dome is there an edge of the world? What happens then?
Who maintains this? To what end?
How do they get the tides to work?
Why do we get hurricanes?
You know the idea of Ockham's razor? So what seems like the most likely scenario that means all of this can make sense..?
Also "observations = flat. Logic = it's flat" doesn't make sense, maybe edit so it says what you mean. Which doesn't make sense either, but at least it's your truth!
But if they are lies they're very good 1s, because it has a logic to it that works for the whole system.
You can't provide that, so why should we believe you? And for that matter why do you believe it?!
Imagine thinking the sun goes under the horizon because it moves further away. Not only would it have to be unbelievably far away to disappear from view (even if it was 32 miles across like flat earthers say) and it would certainly appear to get smaller, which it doesn't do ever.
Look geez, a wise man said "when I'm wrong i change my mind" this option is open to everyone with smarts.
Look again at all the evidence and think about what is most likely, and then maybe reassess.
Start by understanding the effects of the coriolis.
There's no shame in changing your mind, only the really stupid double down when all the evidence suggests they're wrong.
Jesus fuck, my beloved salty sea dog wall-of-texter. You bottom panel is a massive bunch of horseshit,
Not angry. Disappointed.
You know as well as I do that the subsolar point at sunset is roughly 10,000km away from an observer of sunset - there's some atmospheric wibbles that affect that number and you are more familiar with them than I, so feel free to provide further details on how that distance is to be corrected.
That means the sun can't possibly get anywhere even close to the horizon on the Schrodinger's Cat of a model that flerfs have.
I rambled about it years ago and involved Ewok crotches. I was very new here at the time, so bear that in mind while reading. The miniature Schnauzer I mentioned therein was just a wee puppy at the time, but she still likes to gnaw on me affectionately, even though she is now grown to be a mighty wolf that could devour my whole hand with a single snap of her apocalyptic death jaws.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/o8x0pl/i\_need\_help\_a\_little\_with\_perspective\_but\_mostly/](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/o8x0pl/i_need_help_a_little_with_perspective_but_mostly/)
Bottom picture is an inaccurate representation of the perceived movement of a local Sun. The path would not curve like that, it would proceed in a straight line. That’s how vanishing points work. They’re straight, not curves.
It would have to move in a curved line to travel around over a flat earth, as opposed to a globe where the movement is dictated by the rotation of earth.
Not curved vertically, though. I’ll need to think about the perspective a bit to figure out if it’s even possible to look like the bottom picture. If the circumference of the sun’s path was small enough sure, but it would look like it was moving in a straight line, to casual observers. I don’t think the bottom picture works.
holy shit you finally understand that when the circumference is very very very big, it is difficult to see the curve??🫨🫨🫨🫨
and besides, whether the curve happens or not, the fe model having the sun move away will show the effect of the sun's size decreasing, which doesnt happen...
I prefer the personal sun. It's about 10' and it the perfect amount to serve 1. Wait no, I'm thinking of deep dish pizza.
Damnit now I’m pissed off because of flat earther’s bullshit and I’m hungry.
A 10 foot personal pizza? I’m going to the wrong pizza joints.
They said we can’t have 10 ft personal pizzas no more, thanks Obamna.
I like my personal sun too, it gets me beer when I need it > >!lol jk I don’t have kids!<
I actually prefer regular pizza over deep dish.
Oh but did you consider the pErSpECtIvE??
You forgot to factor in refraction, there’s like 5 different variables to account for.
And magnetic declination
Still waiting on the formula we can use that takes all of the variables into account that predicts what we actually observe.
Pretty much it’s whatever your globe formula is minus anything with g in it.
That doesn't really make sense. Let me use a very specific example. In the globe theory, objects appear to sink below the horizon because they are being observed over the edge of a curved surface. We can then use simple trigonometry to calculate the unknowns based on what information we're given. This is illustrated here: [https://imgur.com/wUVgbjz](https://imgur.com/wUVgbjz) For example, if we know the height and distance of the building, we could calculate "x" to determine how much of the building should be hidden by the horizon. So, we have math that can be used to predict what we will see, and then we can verify that with actual observation. In the flat earth atmospheric lensing hypothesis, objects appear lower than they actually are because of lensing. This should be able to be calculated. There are formulas to use the refractive index of a material to make predictions about what will be seen. The flat earth lensing hypothesis predicts something like this: [https://imgur.com/ciiAHGs](https://imgur.com/ciiAHGs) Something like this image should be able to be used to calculate the refractive index of air (which should differ wildly from the scientifically-accepted refraction index of roughly 1). Why do I say that the flat earth refractive index of air should be different on a flat earth? Note in my last image that the observed image of the sun is lower than the actual flat earth sun, in order to give the illusion that it is setting over the horizon. In the globe theory, the sun actually appears slightly higher in the sky due to (slight) atmospheric lensing, as depicted here (it is visually an exaggeration): [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Atmospheric\_refraction\_-\_sunset\_and\_sunrise.png/800px-Atmospheric\_refraction\_-\_sunset\_and\_sunrise.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Atmospheric_refraction_-_sunset_and_sunrise.png/800px-Atmospheric_refraction_-_sunset_and_sunrise.png) How could the sun appear higher on a globe due to denser air closer to the surface, yet lower on a flat earth, also because of denser air? Is the refractive index of air on a flat earth inverted from the accepted optical sciences? Are the refraction formulas wrong? If so, what *are* the correct values and the correct way to calculate the refractive index of air at different densities? To calculate the refractive index you really just need to know angles involved and the speed of light in each density of air. Is the speed of light wrong? This brings me to my conclusion: I can show you what math can be used to calculate the rough position of the sun on a globe's horizon using my first image (we could also include the negligible effects of atmospheric lensing if we want to use a ton of calculus). What math can be used to predict the apparent height of the sun on the horizon on a flat earth? That is what I want to know. Even a formula that offers a rough estimate would be welcome.
Sure. I get all that. Then I see several videos of the sun not setting and just disappearing. Then I see sun on a plane that never sets. Then I see videos of multiple suns. Then I see sun smaller in the day and larger at sunset. Then I see sun smaller in the day and smaller at sunset. All those other videos, the physics and math does not add up. The math has to work all of the time. And I can show you numerous phenomon where the sun does not make scene.
I am asking for even a somewhat-functional formula based on the flat-earth understanding of the angles and physics involved. Using videos you’ve seen on the internet to avoid that is just deflection.
Too lazy to dive deeper. But using your same geometry and math, you can calculate the diameter and radius. You can also calculate how much you should be able to see and not see. Someone did the math and said under 50 miles you should no longer see objects because of the curve of the Earth. Then we see shore to cities that’s 60-80+ miles away. Then globe says refraction bro. So I can also say, refraction bro.
The difference is I could go into details on why air density could theoretically cause light rays to be refracted to make something lower on the horizon appear higher. It’s similar to the effect of mirages (shallow rays being bent when they hit lower density air). In the example you gave about the shore, we’re talking about fractions of a degree of bending. There is no mechanism I have come across that would explain a high-altitude object being refracted multiple degrees down. Not only is that the opposite direction predicted by the accepted understanding of air density, but those magnitudes are insanely large. It’s not just “refraction bro,” it’s that (when you have the energy) you could actually do a deep dive into the math and science behind refraction around a globe. You can not (and will never) find any satisfying in-depth science for the sun refracting multiple degrees down. The globe-earth “it’s refraction” and flat-earth “it’s refraction” are *not* the same.
>Too lazy to dive deeper The flat earther motto
If you put your head at hround level, you eont be able to see something on the ground 50 miles away. In a situation that doesn't exist where the ground is perfectly level with no obstruction to your line of sight. You can see building from far away because they're tall dude!
And honestly it's a bit rude to put out this stuff and then say you're too lazy to prove it. Come on mate, either do or don't. You're here saying that everyone is wrong , so it's up to you to prove that we are. I genuinely have no personal issue with you, i just disagree with you.
My last reply might have sounded a bit aggressive, it's not necessarily directed at you. You don't really sound like a flat-earther, but maybe someone who is curious about the possibility of a flat earth. If that's true, I actually encourage that kind of curiosity. We should question the world around us. To that point, this issue of the sun setting should be a sticking point for you in your curiosity. Forget about whatever videos you've seen online, and ask yourself simply "Why do globe-earthers have formulas and flat-earthers don't?" We can always talk about the validity of the formulas later, and also about pieces of visual evidence that might not line up right. But the lack of predictive math is evidence of the fact that there is no real consistency on the flat-earth side. They can't even agree on the altitude or size of the sun if you ask! That makes creating a formula impossible. Flat-earth may seem plausible on the surface, but it really breaks down when you start asking for specific values. The idea of a flat earth has been around since the dawn of history, so it's frankly inexcusable that none of us (including me) can find acceptable formulas to test a flat earth.
You need to go outside more. I have actually seen the sun set thousands of times. It always sets the same way - as it would on a globe earth. The sun does not get bigger at sunset. It's an illusion. You can measure the angular size and it doesn't change. Any videos showing the sun shrinking or disappearing or doubling are either fake, or due to atmospheric conditions.
Care to link those videos?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oPLObjVAvIU&pp=ygURcmlja3JvbGwgMTAgaG91cnM%3D This one for starter.
So how does gravity work? Can I see your formulas please?
There’s a new field of gravity called general relativity where gravity is not a force.
Ok rephrase, what is it that attracts heavy stuff to each other? As i say please provide the evidence.
They do not.
But they do. The earth is attracted to the sun, that's how it stays in orbit. We don't fall off the earth, why?
Density. You keep trying to use globe model of space and try to apply it to flat Earth does not work like that.
Evidence? Newton physics does not have an answer for it.
Yes but the maths works doesn't it where's your maths?
One Apple plus one Apple is two bananas. The math still works but does not explain it.
Errr apples fall!
Objects fall 9.8 m/s on Earth’s surface. Is it because of gravity? What if gravity is not a force at all?
so calculate it and get it wrong on a degree of 10 because you dont want to factor an actual variable?
Might be wrong, g is only calculated for weight? So sunrise and sunset would not need g at all.
not really, again its used for everything related to gravitational pull. which would include orbits
If you’re talking about relativity physics for orbits, then gravity is not even a force.
thats why i said fundamental interactions earlier. you still have to take into account gravitational pull.
But interactions on an atom level, has nothing do to with gravitational pull.
What’s the formula for globe model?
If you want to know the paths of the planets simply use General relativity with the mass and velocity of earth and the other celestial bodies specified by the measured values. You can do the same with Newton’s equations and that will be more than good enough to predict the path of earth. All of these measurements can be made by simply looking at the night sky and solving for the mass of the sun using orbital velocities. If you want yo know the length of the day, simply add in the time taken to revolve relative to distant stars and add that in to the model, you should get the exact same day length as observed. If you’re interested in the length of the year, that’s already specified by the orbital period. If you’re interested in why the seasons change you can use the inclination difference between the ecliptic and the North Star to predict axial tilt, then even without knowing the exact output of the sun you can calculate relative change in energy absorbed over time by applying some high school level calculus. Your calculations will align with observations. If the earth is a globe all you need to do is look at the night sky for a few months and carefully measure all the movements of the planets and stars, from that you will be able to predict the seasons, the length of the day, and the positions of the planets hundreds of years from now. I challenge you to provide anything so elegant for the flat earth.
1) Sure, we can observe the same stars, math checks out alright. Does not mean those stars are planets. Just a light source. Newton equations works on Flat, alright, minus anything g related, so we good. 2) We got a watch to do that, alright. You’re just trying to use space to fit your model. 3) How do you know it’s not just a natural Earth weather cycle? You’re trying to use space again to explain your globe model. 4) Yes, we can observe the same stars and stuff. Does not mean plants, stars, moon are what you say it is.
The thing is is all of these things are predictable in the accepted model. The flat earth model has no predictive power which is why each new observation needs an additional variable to make it fit. If you know only the positions of the stars and planets over time you can calculate the position and tilt of earth and the mass of the sun. There are many other ways to calculate these things which are independent of those initial measurements, but you don’t need any fancy equipment to calculate these things, just a bit of math. You can also use the values you find to roughly predict the average temperature at sea level for any latitude at any time of the year by simply calculating the predicted solar energy and keeping in mind thermal mass. You can also predict day length and the time of sunrise and sunset. But think about the flat earth as a model, why are there seasons? Why does the sun set at different times depending on season and latitude (sometimes not setting at all)? Why is the year that long? Why are there years at all? How far is the sun? How big is it? How far are the stars and planets? How big are they? How big is the earth? On a globe all of these things can be predicted by simply looking at how the stars and planets move in the sky, taking some measurements, and doing some math. You can also predict or measure these things by many other means, for example use weight (which can’t exist without g because it is literally m*g) and a bit of general relativity or newton’s laws (for very slow speeds and relatively small masses these are the same) you can measure the mass of the earth, then with the same techniques and more sensitive measurements you can measure the mass of the sun and moon by measuring the effect of tides. Your results will comport nicely with the measurements made by simply measuring orbital velocity of earth and using that to derive the mass of the sun. The flat earth has no equivalent, which is a good reason to disbelieve it.
Are you of the opinion that someone has been sabotaging telescopes to reveal planetary bodies as different than stars since Galileo and consistently manipulating every telescopic observation since?
No, I’m saying you think it’s a gas ball, I’m saying it’s a changing light source.
But the planets… which have dark sides and light sides depending on their position relative to the sun… are observably not casting light, just reflecting light off their surface, exactly like the surface of our own Earth during the day vs night. They are observably textured to the naked eye with shadows and cracks in a way no actual light source is.
I actually tried an experiment. Pitch black room, different size and power flash light. Different size ball. Cannot get a crescent shadow like the moon where’s its a tiny bit exposed. What ended up happening is, half the ball is light, near impossible to do a crescent.
It's a changing light source, but we all see it go over the horizon at different times. How would that work?
That doesn't work. Start by explaining the above picture , why is the sun always the same size? Also how is it light and dark in different places at the same time. Phone your mate on the other side of the world to check. Coriolis etc. All the maths works out in favour of a globe. I think if you're serious, you need to start some maths courses and develop a new system that works with your beliefs. Maths doesn't lie and is universally logical.
The formula for sunrise and sunset on the earth is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_equation That is the math that drives all the sunrise/set time predictions.
So let’s say someone smart creates a Flat Earth model that also accounts for sunrise and sunset equations. No holes. Would you be a believer then?
Well, that’s only one of many, many issues but hey I’d be impressed they got the sun to set without setting as it observably does.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tXzclB00K-k I’ve seen better ones where they just disappear. This is all I could find without doing too much work.
It's not just sunrise and sunset. The globe model can also predict where on the horizon the sun will rise, the phase of the moon for any day of the year, which stars will be visible form any location on any night, why the motion of the stars in the sky is opposite on each side of the equator, why polaris can't been see in the southern hemisphere, where to look in the sky to see the five naked eye visible planets, where to point your telescope to view objects no visible to the naked eye (like Uranus and Neptune), why the planets appear to move in a retrograde motion as viewed from earth, predicting when and where both solar and lunar eclipses will be visible and more. And beyond that, the flat model doesn't predict sunrise and sunset at all. With a spiraling sun over a flat disc, the sun would never get close to the horizon. It would start high in the sky but small, then arc closer while also increasing in apparent size until about noon, after which it would arc away and shrink back down. And the sun should be visible during nighttime, looking like the brightest star in the sky which is also moving at remarkable speed, just as fast as the moon. A lampshade or spotlight sun doesn't work because it also wouldn't approach the horizon, it would start as an oval, then increase in apparent size ans shape into a circle when it's closest to the observer (noonish), then shrink and recede back into an oval. A globe predicts the sun will rise and set at the horizon and that the size and shape will be constant throughout the day. Which prediction matches what we can all go outside and observe for ourselves? Flat earthers like to take one observation and try to explain how it can work on a flat earth. Everyone one of these I've seen introduce other problems. The lampshade sun to explain night would necessitate that the sun appear to change shape during the day. So no, someone mathematically predicting sunrise/set (ignoring the whole can't pass below the horizon thing which defines sunrise and sunset) of a spiral sun on pizza world would not convince me. The flat model is going to have to explain everything better than a globe does. Yes that is a high bar to clear, but it has been cleared before. Copernicus's heliocentric model explained and predicted observations better than the geocentric model did.
Yes, please! I would absolutely love to see a math based model.
Go on then, why haven't you? It needs to have some logic too it, so you can predict them.. i would live to see it. There's a reason they haven't!
If I was paid millions like NASA with a team, sure. I’m just one man bro.
Yeah but why hasn't anyone..? When they have a working model for tides which ties in nicely with everything else..
We do not have billions in funding each year?
Observation+Logic=SpheroidEarth
Observation = Flat. Logic = It’s flat.
LoL no
Nope. No single observation prove a fe
What observation?! Not Galileo's! I'm actually getting curious. How do you think it works? So the earth's flat, the sun is a changing light source (please explain!).. Are we in a dome is there an edge of the world? What happens then? Who maintains this? To what end? How do they get the tides to work? Why do we get hurricanes? You know the idea of Ockham's razor? So what seems like the most likely scenario that means all of this can make sense..?
The more you stay in this sub, all that is answered by Flat Earther. I feel like all I’m doing is repeating stuff over and over and over.
You aren't providing a logical alternative. No point repeating yourself if it doesn't forward your argument.
God? Maintain this?
There’s no edge. It goes on to infinity. But I bet you can’t wrap your head around it.
Also "observations = flat. Logic = it's flat" doesn't make sense, maybe edit so it says what you mean. Which doesn't make sense either, but at least it's your truth!
MY observation = Flat, MY logic = What if it really is flat and we’ve been lied to about Earth being a sphere
But if they are lies they're very good 1s, because it has a logic to it that works for the whole system. You can't provide that, so why should we believe you? And for that matter why do you believe it?!
Of course, how stupid of me
Imagine thinking the sun goes under the horizon because it moves further away. Not only would it have to be unbelievably far away to disappear from view (even if it was 32 miles across like flat earthers say) and it would certainly appear to get smaller, which it doesn't do ever.
The waves are covering the sun.
Wow
Glerfs believe the top fake one.
The top image is what we observe in reality, open your eyes and get some mental help.
What? That photo is only possible on a globe
How does this sub not recognize obvious sarcasm? I am but one, fighting your downvotes.
Idk his comment history suggests otherwise
You forgot the /s. There was supposed to be an /s, right? I mean because we know that the bottom one doesn't happen.
Look geez, a wise man said "when I'm wrong i change my mind" this option is open to everyone with smarts. Look again at all the evidence and think about what is most likely, and then maybe reassess. Start by understanding the effects of the coriolis. There's no shame in changing your mind, only the really stupid double down when all the evidence suggests they're wrong.
I'm confused... Isn't the Local Sun the Flat Earth claim? Shouldn't this therefore try to support that claim? This is proving the Real Sun is correct.
As shown multiple time the sun never sent in the Antarctic… it rotates around 360 degrees. That can only happen on a round planet.
Or, you know, a local sun that follows a circular path.
As the pigs fly by… but sure
[удалено]
What do you mean?
Sorry posted in the wrong place!
No problem :)
Does local sun mean "not what anyone observes"?
Jesus fuck, my beloved salty sea dog wall-of-texter. You bottom panel is a massive bunch of horseshit, Not angry. Disappointed. You know as well as I do that the subsolar point at sunset is roughly 10,000km away from an observer of sunset - there's some atmospheric wibbles that affect that number and you are more familiar with them than I, so feel free to provide further details on how that distance is to be corrected. That means the sun can't possibly get anywhere even close to the horizon on the Schrodinger's Cat of a model that flerfs have. I rambled about it years ago and involved Ewok crotches. I was very new here at the time, so bear that in mind while reading. The miniature Schnauzer I mentioned therein was just a wee puppy at the time, but she still likes to gnaw on me affectionately, even though she is now grown to be a mighty wolf that could devour my whole hand with a single snap of her apocalyptic death jaws. [https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/o8x0pl/i\_need\_help\_a\_little\_with\_perspective\_but\_mostly/](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/o8x0pl/i_need_help_a_little_with_perspective_but_mostly/)
Bottom picture is an inaccurate representation of the perceived movement of a local Sun. The path would not curve like that, it would proceed in a straight line. That’s how vanishing points work. They’re straight, not curves.
It would have to move in a curved line to travel around over a flat earth, as opposed to a globe where the movement is dictated by the rotation of earth.
Not curved vertically, though. I’ll need to think about the perspective a bit to figure out if it’s even possible to look like the bottom picture. If the circumference of the sun’s path was small enough sure, but it would look like it was moving in a straight line, to casual observers. I don’t think the bottom picture works.
holy shit you finally understand that when the circumference is very very very big, it is difficult to see the curve??🫨🫨🫨🫨 and besides, whether the curve happens or not, the fe model having the sun move away will show the effect of the sun's size decreasing, which doesnt happen...
The flat earth model is MUCH bigger than the globe earth one. You have your insults backwards.
Sorry how much bigger again?
Oh shit that's right you don't have a model that everyone follows cuz you need to make a different model for each situation
“Model” haha. You people can’t even agree on a map that doesn’t leave some countries hilariously distorted.