How would it behave differently?
A 10-minute video summarizes this article: tinyurl.com/AFlatEarthModel A one-hour physics colloquium based on this article. 50-minuta versio tinyurl.com/PlataTero, kun partopreno de Derek Roff. In …
brucesherwood.net
1) The flat-earth model predicts that the visual diameter of the flat-earth Sun can, depending on your latitude, vary by more than a factor of 2 between noon and sunrise or sunset, which we do not observe. At sunrise or sunset the flat-earth Sun is much farther away from an observer than at noon, so it would look much larger at noon (and the sunlight would be over four times as intense at noon), whereas in reality the Sun is so very far away that its tiny change in angular size from sunrise to noon is undetectable. Also, the angular size of the flat-earth Sun is very different when viewed from different latitudes, which is not what is observed in the real world.
2) The flat-earth model predicts that the flat-earth Sun will never get anywhere near the horizon, despite the fact that we see sunrises and sunsets with the Sun at and even sinking below the horizon. Because the flat-earth Sun is about 3500 miles above the disk, an observer on such a flat Earth should always see lots of sky between the horizon and the Sun; at sunrise and sunset the flat-earth Sun is far above the horizon.
3) A closely related naked-eye observation is that at sunset one sometimes sees the bottoms of low-lying clouds lit by the setting Sun. The flat-earth model predicts that this cannot happen, since the flat-earth Sun is about 3500 miles above the Earth.
4) The flat-earth model predicts that the North Star will be visible even from Argentina, despite the fact that it is not visible from anywhere a few miles south of the equator (the North Star is a small angular distance from the point around which it seems to circle, so that at a short distance south of the equator you can see it some of the time). In fact, from the edge of the flat-earth disk, the North Star will be about 25 degrees above the northern horizon. Similarly the flat-earth model predicts that the angular height of the North Star should be about 60 degrees in Dallas Texas, but it’s actually only 33 degrees above the horizon, which is a huge naked-eye discrepancy. The latitude of Dallas is 33 degrees, and on a round Earth one predicts that the North Star will be 33 degrees above the horizon, as is observed.
5) The flat-earth model predicts that if you watch a constellation that is near the eastern horizon at nightfall, it will grow larger until midnight, as it comes closer to you, then smaller as it moves away from you toward the west. No such effect is in fact observed. Closely related is the prediction that as you move farther from the North Pole, the larger will be constellations in their closest approach to you. Moreover, in all cases the brightness of the flat-earth stars and flat-earth Sun will vary depending on how close or far you are from them, which is not observed in naked-eye observations. This implies that the stars and Sun are very far away, so that moving large distances on the Earth’s surface hardly changes the large distance to stars and the Sun. Also, except at the North Pole, a constellation in reality never moves parallel to the horizon during the night as it does in the flat-earth model.
There is no room for the well-known southern-hemisphere constellation, the Southern Cross! Just as the North Star should be well above the horizon even in Argentina, so should all the constellations of the southern hemisphere be well above the horizon in the US. Not only do we not see these constellations in the US, there isn’t room for all the southern-hemisphere constellations and all the northern-hemisphere constellations to be jammed into the single hemisphere that is the rotating flat-earth dome.
6) If you move away from the North Pole you’ll see that the tracks of the stars around the North Star are no longer circles but are now ellipses, which does not agree with long-exposure photos of the night sky.
Slightly further? Some examples are miles further and the objects should be thousands of feet below the curve.
All depends on the atmospheric conditions how much bending of light occurs.
Can you name some observations that don't agree with a flat earth? From my viewpoint... nothing from day to day life, getting up and taking a walk or car ride.... can give me any proof of a flat or ball earth.
See the above list of just a few.
IF you were to study the accepted FE model, these are explained quite well. So are the seasons and varying lengths of daylight.
Where can I find this mythical 'accepted FE model'?
In some cases, islands miles and miles away, are visible from the shore.
That's what I mean... we see too far. There are many examples of this.
Have these observations been repeated at different times of the day and during different seasons, or is it just a one off when conditions happened to be just right?
It has been shown over and over that when a ship goes "over the horizon"... simply zooming in with a telescope or high zoom camera.. bring them back into view.
This has never been shown. Flat Earthers always choose small boats as the subject of these 'proofs', which appear to disappear because their arc width is smaller than the human eye can discern. Zooming in with a camera brings the whole boat back into view because it is not beyond the horizon. The explanation of why they 'disappear' also fails to explain why far more distant aircraft are still visible.
Yes. It is.. always at eye level even on a airplane.
You fail to provide any images with instruments (such as a water level) to show where eye level is in relation to the horizon.
In other threads I have shown photos with a water level used to show eye level and the horizon is always below eye level, with the difference increasing as you go up in altitude.
There has been numerous discussions on this forum about the moon being it's own light source.
No proofs given, just bald assertions.
There are examples of lunar eclipses when the sun has already risen. People try to explain it away but if the sun is already up and I can see it... it's impossible for the shadow of the earth to still be on the moon.
That pesky atmospheric refraction again.
Also, when the sun goes behind the moon, the moon's shadow crosses the earth. A shadow is always larger than the object casting it.... so why is the moons shadow on the earth so small?
The sun is orders of magnitude larger than the moon. There are two areas of shadow cast by the moon, the penumbra and the umbra. The umbra is the cone shape corresponding to the different diameters of the sun and moon. If the moon was just a little further from the earth then the umbra would end just short of the earth's surface and we would never witness a total eclipse.
Explained by the accepted FE model. Check it out.
Again, where is this mythical model we keep hearing about?
