Sunrise, Sunset: A Question for Flat-Earthers

[46AND2]

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.

However, the horizon DOES move with the change in elevation, using EQUAL magnification. Funny how that is.

 

[46AND2]

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

um...wut?

 

[46AND2]

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

I THINK I know what you are talking about...but, it's hard to imagine you'd make the mistake of not realizing that he changed the angle of the camera (ever so slightly) to...you know, line up the picture.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

And hence the "horizon" with your naked eye is not the same "horizon" as under magnification.

The horizon shifts with perspective.

http://www.animationbrain.com/horizon-line-perspective-term.html

The horizon is where objects vanish due to perspective. It does not prove a curved earth.

It changes in distance as one can see further or less. It changes as one ascends in height or descends in height. It remains at all times at eye level of each individual and is not a set point in space.....

I agree the earth is round, I just don't accept Fairie Dust from any side.....

FE's biggest flaw is that they allow for a round sun and possibly round planets, but not a round earth...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

um...wut?

Research horizon line and perspective. Regardless of your height, the horizon is "ALWAYS" level with your eyes and is equal to the vanishing point....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I THINK I know what you are talking about...but, it's hard to imagine you'd make the mistake of not realizing that he changed the angle of the camera (ever so slightly) to...you know, line up the picture.

Because wherever your eyes look to the vanishing point, that is also where the eyes are level....

Look at a picture from a weather balloon, the horizon is level with the "eye" level....

And so in and of itself can not prove a round earth.... or a flat earth.....

 

[Freodin]

Because wherever your eyes look to the vanishing point, that is also where the eyes are level....

Look at a picture from a weather balloon, the horizon is level with the "eye" level....

View attachment 237527

And so in and of itself can not prove a round earth.... or a flat earth.....

Err... you are aware that a picture including a horizon doesn't say anything about the "eye level" of an observer, are you?

I can raise or lower this image, and the horizon line changes. In order to demonstrate an horizon that always is at eye level, you would need to measure the level and the line from eye to horizon.

In fact, this has been done quite a number of times. There are videos about it. And they all show that the horizon drops with height.

Heck, even if you go by "perspective" and "vanishing point" alone, the horizon must be below eye level. The only way it can be on eye level is when your view is exactly on the ground plane.

This isn't rocket surgery.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Distance to the horizon at various heights formula:
http://boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/distance.htm

Calculator

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

 

[46AND2]

Because wherever your eyes look to the vanishing point, that is also where the eyes are level....

Look at a picture from a weather balloon, the horizon is level with the "eye" level....

View attachment 237527

And so in and of itself can not prove a round earth.... or a flat earth.....

lol. I can look at a tree and keep it "at eye level" no matter how high I go. It's all in the neck.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

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

Yeah, but it's barking mad. No Flat-Earther in his right mind would use that argument.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Perspective is fine , same can be used for moon and it's craters upside down , you wouldn't see upside down craters in south if moon was such far away .

I agree with the globalists on this one. Either you didn't state exactly what you meant, or you've got the wrong idea.

On a globe, Southerners would be upside-down, therefore would be seeing the moon upside-down, surely? Even if it was a ridiculous distance away, as they claim.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

There is a gravitational pull on every object with mass. A "force" will result in the acceleration of an object... proportional to its mass.
So the sun excerts a force on both the dirt-earth, as well as the water layer on earth. (And the humans, and the birds and the clouds and everything else.)

Let's assume for simplicities sake that there no other massive bodies around... only the sun and the earth. So both the water and the earth are pulled towards the sun. Equally. There is no additional force that would pull the water away from the earth.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Earth itself has a mass, excerts a gravitational pull, and thus pulls the water down to the ground, keeping the whole system together.

I agree with this, and it is consistent with the theory. But how then does gravity cause the tides? It cannot, without the oceans being uplifted into the skies, by whatever is overcoming the gravity of the Earth.

The sun has about 333,000 times the mass of the earth. The earth has about 12 x 10^24 times the mass of a soccer ball. The ball is also, in relation, a lot closer to the earth than the earth is to the sun. In relation, the gravitational pull of the earth on the ball - and the water - is a lot higher than the pull of the sun on the earth system.

I'm aware of the numbers, but they don't add up. Were the numbers accurate and the theory correct, the weight of an object would vary measurably and repeatably between day and night, Summer and Winter. As weights do not vary in this way, either the theory, or the numbers, or all of it, is incorrect. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I posit the latter.

Why should I believe that you can lift a toy truck, when you cannot do that to a real 40-tonner? Maybe because of SCALE? That the real truck is a lot bigger and heavier in relation to the toy?
So you cannot lift the real truck. Why should I believe that you can use a crane to lift it? Maybe because of SCALE? Because the crane is capable of excerting a lot more force than a single human can?

Scale is important.

You used scale to explain why water on the ball in the experiment could be used to justify gravity allegedly keeping water on the 'bottom' of the ball-Earth. The force keeping droplets of water on the ball is not gravity, but Van der Waals' forces. These forces work on a small scale, and do not scale up. There is no consistent way you can scale up the attractive Van der Waals' forces from the water on the ball and proclaim "Aha. Hence how gravity keeps water on Earth."

I'm open minded. If you can suggest an experiment where gravity (not other forces) can keep a layer of fluid suspended evenly over the surface of a suspended ball, I'll admit to you possibly having a point with this being a valid mechanism by which gravity can keep the oceans and water bodies on ball-Earth. Until then, I'll keep referring it to magic-gravity, because it has no observational basis in science.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Why is the the gravity exerted on the sun in a different direction than the gravity exerted on things on earth?

Why is it important to you that I explain this? Perhaps it's anti-gravity, or a different type of gravity? Perhaps it's gravity fairies? What difference does it make? Globalists don't explain why there is gravity, they just accept there is. The same with Flat-Earth gravity.

And can you come up with mathematical formulas which consistently describe your gravity like we have done for our gravity?

Well, they're all the same as yours, naturally, but G, the Universal Gravitational Fudge Factor... errr... I mean Constant... is different, to take into account the much closer, much smaller sun.

 

[46AND2]

Why is it important to you that I explain this? .

Because I'm curious to see if FE have any sort of a coherent theory; I have not looked into it much. But I think it's important to understand both sides of an argument. And, I have a FE friend who is rather intelligent; he doesn't quite fit the mold of what I had in mind when considering flat-earthers.

When things don't make sense to me, I ask questions.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Because I'm curious to see if FE have any sort of a coherent theory; I have not looked into it much. But I think it's important to understand both sides of an argument. And, I have a FE friend who is rather intelligent; he doesn't quite fit the mold of what I had in mind when considering flat-earthers.

When things don't make sense to me, I ask questions.

But Globalists can't explain what causes gravity. So why do you demand this from Flat Earthers?

 

[Strathos]

No Flat-Earther in his right mind

Do such people exist?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Do such people exist?

Who, do you think, are the people enlightening you with Flat Earth theory knowledge?

 

[Strathos]

Who, do you think, are the people enlightening you with Flat Earth theory knowledge?

Extremely gullible iconoclasts.

 

[Freodin]

I agree with this, and it is consistent with the theory. But how then does gravity cause the tides? It cannot, without the oceans being uplifted into the skies, by whatever is overcoming the gravity of the Earth.

This shouldn't be that difficult to understand. In fact, it is extremely difficult for me to understand how someone who claims to have "an open mind" can make such uninformed statements.

"It cannot"... you proclaim. Without even trying to understand how the system is supposed to work, or providing reasons why it would not work.

Sorry, but this is not very open minded.

I'm aware of the numbers, but they don't add up. Were the numbers accurate and the theory correct, the weight of an object would vary measurably and repeatably between day and night, Summer and Winter. As weights do not vary in this way, either the theory, or the numbers, or all of it, is incorrect. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I posit the latter.

And again, you make an absolute statement without providing any evidence that you understand the topic at hand.

Yes, the weight of an object does "vary measurably". Weight depends on height above ground, the geological structure of the earth, latitude... a number of factors.

And it is indeed influenced by other celestial objects and their position. It changes by day and night, by summer and winter.

But again, the thing that you are ignoring is scale. The influence the moon alone has on the weight on objects on earth is in the range of a 1 to 300,000 of the influence the earth itself has.
If you consider that the difference in weight due to the above mentioned factors on earth can vary in the range of 1 to 1000... this is rather hard to notice.

You used scale to explain why water on the ball in the experiment could be used to justify gravity allegedly keeping water on the 'bottom' of the ball-Earth. The force keeping droplets of water on the ball is not gravity, but Van der Waals' forces. These forces work on a small scale, and do not scale up. There is no consistent way you can scale up the attractive Van der Waals' forces from the water on the ball and proclaim "Aha. Hence how gravity keeps water on Earth."

There are several factors of adhesive forces involved, but yes, basically you are correct.
But there is a major flaw in your reasoning here.
The basic Flat Earther argument is "water does not stick to a ball, it drops down, therefore the ball earth is wrong."
But here you admit that water does stick to a ball. There is a force to do that.

The only problem we have to solve now is - again! - that of scale. How large are the adhesive Van der Waals forces? How large is the force of gravity of the earth? What will the resulting motion be?

I'm open minded. If you can suggest an experiment where gravity (not other forces) can keep a layer of fluid suspended evenly over the surface of a suspended ball, I'll admit to you possibly having a point with this being a valid mechanism by which gravity can keep the oceans and water bodies on ball-Earth. Until then, I'll keep referring it to magic-gravity, because it has no observational basis in science.

No, sorry, that is not open minded. In order to claim that, you would need to admit to ALL the involved factors and adjust the experiment to that.

Let's return to your ball example. Some water sticks to the ball, because of Van der Waals Forces. So why does the main part of the water still drop down? Why does the ball fall down to earth? Van der Waals Force?
How large is the Van der Waals Force that the earth excerts on water, balls, you? If the ball excerts a Van der Waals Force on the water... do other objects as well? Do you? Does the moon? Why don't the Van der Waals Forces of the moon such the oceans into the air?

Your problems remain, regardless of what forces you want to imply... because you misapply them. You are not able to imagine systems with different forces. You would deny that scotch tapes can stick to something, because you can still rip it off.

Gravity is not a very strong force. The reason why the effects that we see on a global or stellar scale are so recognisable is because the masses involved are gigantic.

You want to see water stick to a ball, based on gravity alone, here on earth? There is a little problem. The gravitational field of the earth. We have that big bad person who keeps ripping the scotch tape from the wall and then claims that sticking is impossible.

Though there have been "experiments" involving objects sticking to the surface of a ball without being influenced by the earth's pull (in a major way). We have send stuff to the moon, which stuck to the moon's surface. With a lesser weight, as described by the gravitation formula.

But let me guess: you don't believe that there have been moon missions?

 

[Freodin]

Why is it important to you that I explain this? Perhaps it's anti-gravity, or a different type of gravity? Perhaps it's gravity fairies? What difference does it make? Globalists don't explain why there is gravity, they just accept there is. The same with Flat-Earth gravity.

Well, they're all the same as yours, naturally, but G, the Universal Gravitational Fudge Factor... errr... I mean Constant... is different, to take into account the much closer, much smaller sun.

Well... if they are all the same as ours... then you shouldn't have any problems to show your math.

Using the accepted systems for gravity - only adapting your constants - show how the sun moves over the flat earth.