Sunrise, Sunset: A Question for Flat-Earthers

[SeventyOne]

Perhaps, but I have seen flat earthers use that argument.

They should know better as well. I'm sure some have figured it out since.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We get - in addition to not understanding evolution or genetics, you are also a flat earther...

I saw a youtube video with "evidence" that the sun is actually so close to the earth that it is sometimes in front of clouds. It was all very serious and sciency, with the host interviewing someone claiming to have worked at some kind of tech firm or something.
They truly believed that optical illusions proved their 'woke' fantasy.

You see, that's what assumptions get you. Nowhere.

As I stated from the very first post I do not consider FE valid, and firmly believe in a globe.

So where does that leave you now? Completely and utterly in limbo with nothing to show for your assumption except bigotry.....

But unlike those that can't think outside of the box, I am also not for people that actually think they can prove it is a globe, because one simply cannot. There are inferences that imply a globe, just as there are inferences that imply a flat earth. But yes, I have "FAITH" it is a globe.......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL!

Wow...

What causes us to stay on the earth in a flat earth fantasy?

I have read that flat earthers claim that it is because the flat earth is constantly accelerating at 1g up.

Hmm, and I believe it was Einstein that also said one can not tell the difference between gravity and acceleration, that in effect they are the same, hence his principle of equivalence....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

"In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is any of several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

Or is acceleration the true force and gravity the pseudo-force????? Since there is no such thing as an inertial frame, we will never know.

Granted, gravity is a force, not bent nothing, and can not be distinguished between acceleration, but some incorrectly apply acceleration to the actual force of gravity. Take that as you will.....

 

[Dirk1540]

Notice the shadow cast onto a flat moon from a circular object match, while one cast onto a globe do not....... This is one everybody can test in their own homes.... I suggest people do so.....

Ok thanks. I think the guy really needs to make the dimensions accurate though. He would need a relatively sized ball of round light called the sun, at a relative distance to a relatively sized and placed earth and moon in order to be accurate about shadow formations.

 

[Dirk1540]

So does FE deny that 4 friends who live in New Jersey, Chicago, Colorado, and San Fran can be group texting each other about how the sun is disappearing over the horizon at different times?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok thanks. I think the guy really needs to make the dimensions accurate though. He would need a relatively sized ball of round light called the sun, at a relative distance to a relatively sized and placed earth and moon in order to be accurate about shadow formations.

Agreed, until someone does this the question is open....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So does FE deny that 4 friends who live in New Jersey, Chicago, Colorado, and San Fran can be group texting each other about how the sun is disappearing over the horizon at different times?

Why would they, according to the theory each persons "horizon" is a matter of perspective.

But they have texted while on opposite sides of the earth, Australia, England and I forget the third (Alaska I believe) and the sun was visible at all three locations.....

But since I don't have my astronomy software installed on my new computer I haven't yet checked their claims.... that it shouldn't be visible...

 

[Dirk1540]

Why would they, according to the theory each persons "horizon" is a matter of perspective.

But they have texted while on opposite sides of the earth, Australia, England and I forget the third (Alaska I believe) and the sun was visible at all three locations.....

But since I don't have my astronomy software installed on my new computer I haven't yet checked their claims.... that it shouldn't be visible...

Well I had in mind the people who say that your ‘Perspective’ is that a boat lowers out of sight, but that if you look through a telescope at it it comes back into view. Maybe there’s some optical illusion over distant water, idk, but this telescope solution is not going to bring a sun back into view after it falls below the horizon.

 

[46AND2]

But they have texted while on opposite sides of the earth, Australia, England and I forget the third (Alaska I believe) and the sun was visible at all three locations.....

Why is this significant? Sunset in Fairbanks Alaska is 10:28 pm. Sunrise in London is 5:39 am. Sunset in Sydney is 5:22 pm.

At 10 pm in Alaska, the sun is already out in London, as Alaska is 9 hours behind, making it 7 am in London. Australia is 9 hours ahead of London, making it 4 pm. Sunshine for all.

 

[46AND2]

Well I had in mind the people who say that your ‘Perspective’ is that a boat lowers out of sight, but that if you look through a telescope at it it comes back into view. Maybe there’s some optical illusion over distant water, idk, but this telescope solution is not going to bring a sun back into view after it falls below the horizon.

Such a thing has never been demonstrated. Surprise, you can see small things from far away with a telescope that you can't with the naked eye.

 

[Dirk1540]

Such a thing has never been demonstrated. Surprise, you can see small things from far away with a telescope that you can't with the naked eye.

It’s the ‘lowering’ out of sight that FE claims is an optical illusion, as opposed to just getting too small to see. But I don’t understand that argument, boats clearly lower out of sight when I’m on a beach, huge boats too, very gradually, I don’t buy the argument that a telescope will bring back into sight 30 feet of ship that lowered out of sight.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well I had in mind the people who say that your ‘Perspective’ is that a boat lowers out of sight, but that if you look through a telescope at it it comes back into view. Maybe there’s some optical illusion over distant water, idk, but this telescope solution is not going to bring a sun back into view after it falls below the horizon.

Good point, is there such a video???

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It’s the ‘lowering’ out of sight that FE claims is an optical illusion, as opposed to just getting too small to see. But I don’t understand that argument, boats clearly lower out of sight when I’m on a beach, huge boats too, very gradually, I don’t buy the argument that a telescope will bring back into sight 30 feet of ship that lowered out of sight.

 

[Dirk1540]

Good point, is there such a video???

I wish I could freeze time for a year to read all the books and videos I have on my plate lol

 

[46AND2]

It’s the ‘lowering’ out of sight that FE claims is an optical illusion, as opposed to just getting too small to see. But I don’t understand that argument, boats clearly lower out of sight when I’m on a beach, huge boats too, very gradually, I don’t buy the argument that a telescope will bring back into sight 30 feet of ship that lowered out of sight.

That is correct. SOME of it may come back into sight because of resolution, but if it is ACTUALLY partly over the horizon, there will still be some "missing" no matter how high the magnification.

 

[46AND2]

Wow. Congrats. You just demonstrated that you can see things better with magnification than you can without. I particularly liked the one where you could clearly see the horizon BEHIND the boat.

 

[46AND2]

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wow. Congrats. You just demonstrated that you can see things better with magnification than you can without. I particularly liked the one where you could clearly see the horizon BEHIND the boat.

Ahh, but you also just demonstrated the "Horizon" moved with the ability to see further......... of course you didn't think it through so I forgive you.....

 

[46AND2]

Ahh, but you also just demonstrated the "Horizon" moved with the ability to see further.........

No I didn't. With magnification, you can see the space between the boat and the horizon, without magnification, the relative distance is too small to see.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

View attachment 237526

Which shows that regardless of height, the "horizon" is always level with your eyes......