Sunrise, Sunset: A Question for Flat-Earthers

[Justatruthseeker]

I mean a guy COULD drive them himself IF HE CARED ABOUT THE TRUTH!

I drive them every day, that's my job..... But in itself tells us nothing as we go up hill and down hill, and around this curve and that curve, and so road mileage is not mileage as "the bird flies".....

 

[Dirk1540]

What is the reply that’s given for why the Earth’s reflection on the moon is spherical IF lasers prove a FE?

 

[Chinchilla]

What is the reply that’s given for why the Earth’s reflection on the moon is spherical IF lasers prove a FE?

What reflection ? During eclipses ?

 

[Dirk1540]

What reflection ? During eclipses ?

Yes

 

[tas8831]

Show me an accurate globe, and I will pick faults in that also.

And you will do this based on your extensive knowledge of and experience in cartography, geography, etc.?

The country sizes don't correspond on a globe.

So all mileage/distance measures are also part of the conspiracy, got it.

Neither Flat-Earth believers nor Globalists have ever produced an accurate, to scale model of Earth.

Well, except that one side actually has, like, pictures.

 

[Chinchilla]

Yes

Nothing is eclipsing them , I was wondering about it aswell . There are witnessed eclipses where nothing blocked the sun , the moon was in different position to block it , even visible .

Sun just simply turns off , same as moon , they are lights .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is the reply that’s given for why the Earth’s reflection on the moon is spherical IF lasers prove a FE?

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.....

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

No, we do not have the Tropics and the Equator because the sun moves in a spiral pattern.

Ok, then let me ask this (trying to get in idea of how the motion of your sun works)...

If one were to travel the world periodically through the year such that at noon the sun was directly overhead. Would the sun then always be the same distance from the observer? In other words, does the spiral stay on the same plane above the earth, or does the spiral include the sun getting closer or farther away from the earth?

I think the sun works something like the diagram below.

View attachment 237460

I just posted the one of the first diagrams I could google.

As the ancients often showed the firmament as being dome shaped, it would not surprise me if the sun did rise and fall (getting closer to Earth in the Southern Summer, and further from Earth in the Northern Summer). Note the speed of the sun would also need to change between Summer and Winter.

 

[46AND2]

I think the sun works something like the diagram below.

I just posted the one of the first diagrams I could googled.View attachment 237452

As the ancients often showed the firmament as being dome shaped, it would not surprise me if the sun did rise and fall (getting closer to Earth in the Southern Summer, and further from Earth in the Northern Summer). Note the speed of the sun would also need to change between Summer and Winter.

What causes the velocity change?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What causes the velocity change?

What causes the earths velocity changes?

 

[Freodin]

What causes the earths velocity changes?

Serious question, or just a deflection?

The answer on what causes the earth's change in velocity in the heliocentric model, both in speed as well as in direction is of course: gravity.

Even if you only use the simpler Newtonian mechanics, the existence of a large central mass and the forces excerted by and on objects of mass lead to a rather good description of the movement of planetary bodies and their orbits.
The laws of physics, including such observations as the conservation of energy, linear and angular momentum, as well as the understanding of forces and vector maths, explain very well how planets speed up, slow down and change course in orbit.

And now to repeat 46AND2's question: What causes the sun's velocity to change on a Flat Earth... going contrary to all known laws of physics?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Serious question, or just a deflection?

The answer on what causes the earth's change in velocity in the heliocentric model, both in speed as well as in direction is of course: gravity.

Even if you only use the simpler Newtonian mechanics, the existence of a large central mass and the forces excerted by and on objects of mass lead to a rather good description of the movement of planetary bodies and their orbits.
The laws of physics, including such observations as the conservation of energy, linear and angular momentum, as well as the understanding of forces and vector maths, explain very well how planets speed up, slow down and change course in orbit.

And now to repeat 46AND2's question: What causes the sun's velocity to change on a Flat Earth... going contrary to all known laws of physics?

Well, how about Flat-Earth-Gravity? It's every bit as mysterious and magical as Ball-Earth-Gravity, only, it works on the Flat Earth.

 

[Freodin]

Well, how about Flat-Earth-Gravity? It's every bit as mysterious and magical as Ball-Earth-Gravity, only, it works on the Flat Earth.

So it was a deflection, (even if the deflection did not come from you.)

But if you want to proclaim that "magic" is the driving force of your model... feel free to do that. It is kind of self-defeating though... a response that works to explain everything equally doesn't explain anything.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

So it was a deflection, (even if the deflection did not come from you.)

But if you want to proclaim that "magic" is the driving force of your model... feel free to do that. It is kind of self-defeating though... a response that works to explain everything equally doesn't explain anything.

It's only as magic as the magic in your Ball-Earth gravity.

But I do agree. Ball-Earth gravity is strong enough to keep the Earth orbiting the Sun, and strong enough to create the tides, but not strong enough to pull the oceans clean away?

 

[Freodin]

It's only as magic as the magic in your Ball-Earth gravity.

But I do agree. Ball-Earth gravity is strong enough to keep the Earth orbiting the Sun, and strong enough to create the tides, but not strong enough to pull the oceans clean away?

Pull the oceans clean away from what? From the earth? The object that is subject to exactly the same force?

A little experiment: (careful, might get a little messy)

Take a small plastic cup. Fill it with water. Drop it.

Now, does the water stay in its original form, and only the cup drops to the floor? Or do they both fall, the water staying in the cup until the end? It's the later, isn't it?

Basically, it is the same with the earth and the oceans. Yes, the oceans are attracted by the sun. But so is the earth. Both "fall" in the same direction.

Also, the earth is quite massive and excerts its own gravitational pull on the oceans, ensuring that both stay together while they orbit the sun.

(And as an aside: the moon has a much larger gravitational impact on the tides than the sun.)


If you understood the system that you so vehemently deny, you would be aware of the number and scale of forces involved. Learn the maths! Understand it! Only then can your disagreement have any validity.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Pull the oceans clean away from what? From the earth? The object that is subject to exactly the same force?

A little experiment: (careful, might get a little messy)

Take a small plastic cup. Fill it with water. Drop it.

Now, does the water stay in its original form, and only the cup drops to the floor? Or do they both fall, the water staying in the cup until the end? It's the later, isn't it?

Basically, it is the same with the earth and the oceans. Yes, the oceans are attracted by the sun. But so is the earth. Both "fall" in the same direction.

Also, the earth is quite massive and excerts its own gravitational pull on the oceans, ensuring that both stay together while they orbit the sun.

(And as an aside: the moon has a much larger gravitational impact on the tides than the sun.)


If you understood the system that you so vehemently deny, you would be aware of the number and scale of forces involved. Learn the maths! Understand it! Only then can your disagreement have any validity.

Sorry, is this a proof of Flat-Earth, or Ball-Earth? It sounds like a proof of Flat Earth, because if it were a proof of Ball-Earth, you would have used a ball in your experiment, rather than a cup. And trust me, the water leaks out for the ball!

 

[Freodin]

Sorry, is this a proof of Flat-Earth, or Ball-Earth? It sounds like a proof of Flat Earth, because if it were a proof of Ball-Earth, you would have used a ball in your experiment, rather than a cup. And trust me, the water leaks out for the ball!

Learn the maths. Understand it. Only then can your disagreement have any validity.

Do the experiment. You would need to record it with a camera, preferable with a high speed one, because the effects will be small and the timeframe as well.

Take a ball, wet it, drop it. Look at the footage you recorded. Does that water drop quicker than the ball? Does the ball drop quicker than the water? Or do both drop at the same speed?

But I guess you refer to the many many Flat Earther "proofs" that pour water over a ball, see it drop to the ground and lament that it doesn't stick to the ball.

Well, do the darned math!. How big is the gravitational force between the ball and the water? How big is the gravitational force between the water and the big rock that we are standing upon? Why do you think you can ignore the pull of the earth on the water, when you are still holding the ball? What do you think is holding the earth, but not the oceans?

It is always the same: you don't understand what you are talking about, you ignore the explanations you get, you deflect to another question, showing that you don't understand that problem either, and never never ever get to explain your own system beyond "magic".

(And you know what? When you pour water over a ball, most of it will run off. But most likely, a tiny film of water will stick to the ball, due to surface tension and electrostatic attraction. In scale, this film is thicker than the oceans on earth. But scale is another of these things that Flat Earthers just choose to ignore.)

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Does that water drop quicker than the ball? Does the ball drop quicker than the water? Or do both drop at the same speed?

The water doesn't stick to the ball in the first place. The ball-Earth is refuted by this experiment before it can begin.

How big is the gravitational force between the ball and the water? How big is the gravitational force between the water and the big rock that we are standing upon? Why do you think you can ignore the pull of the earth on the water, when you are still holding the ball? What do you think is holding the earth, but not the oceans?

Do I do the math on the mass of the ball and water, or the mass of the water alone? If on the mass of the ball and water, then how can you claim gravity causes the tides? If on the mass of the water alone, how doesn't this end up in the sun?

It is always the same: you don't understand what you are talking about, you ignore the explanations you get, you deflect to another question, showing that you don't understand that problem either, and never never ever get to explain your own system beyond "magic".

Optimistic.

(And you know what? When you pour water over a ball, most of it will run off. But most likely, a tiny film of water will stick to the ball, due to surface tension and electrostatic attraction. In scale, this film is thicker than the oceans on earth. But scale is another of these things that Flat Earthers just choose to ignore.)

This is not true. A film does not remain - droplets of water remain, and most travel to the underside of the ball, where they drip. Do we see mountains of water on Earth piling up underneath where it is noon, with the odd huge wave hurtling into the sky toward the sun, or does water find it's own level? It appears your statement about not understanding the physics applies to yourself, moreso than to those who hold Earth to be flat.

 

[Freodin]

The water doesn't stick to the ball in the first place. The ball-Earth is refuted by this experiment before it can begin.

Do I do the math on the mass of the ball and water, or the mass of the water alone? If on the mass of the ball and water, then how can you claim gravity causes the tides? If on the mass of the water alone, how doesn't this end up in the sun?

Optimistic.

This is not true. A film does not remain - droplets of water remain, and most travel to the underside of the ball, where they drip. Do we see mountains of water on Earth piling up underneath where it is noon, with the odd huge wave hurtling into the sky toward the sun, or does water find it's own level? It appears your statement about not understanding the physics applies to yourself, moreso than to those who hold Earth to be flat.

Scale. One thing that Flat Earthers simply do not get.

Wasn't it you who connected the tides with the sun? Why, yes, you were! (Even if you got it wrong... scale again.)

Basically, the response to EVERY of your objections is, in some form: "there is a force that influences object X in this way, and another force that influences it in another way (and maybe/most likely more than two forces). Because of the relation in scale between all these forces, the result will be in this or that way."

But because Flat Earthers do not have any idea about the scale of all the different concepts involved, they make statements like "the odd huge wave hurtling into the sky".

Learn the math! Understand it! Only then can your disagreement have any validity!

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Scale. One thing that Flat Earthers simply do not get.

Wasn't it you who connected the tides with the sun? Why, yes, you were! (Even if you got it wrong... scale again.)

Basically, the response to EVERY of your objections is, in some form: "there is a force that influences object X in this way, and another force that influences it in another way (and maybe/most likely more than two forces). Because of the relation in scale between all these forces, the result will be in this or that way."

But because Flat Earthers do not have any idea about the scale of all the different concepts involved, they make statements like "the odd huge wave hurtling into the sky".

Learn the math! Understand it! Only then can your disagreement have any validity!

Lol. So you propose I do an experiment. Then I propose you do the same experiment, making it more accurate for your ball-Earth, which would show inadequacies in your ball-Earth model. Then you explain said experiment won't work due to scale? Lol. Why propose I do it in the first place?

Why should those who believe the Earth is flat be the only ones who have to conduct experiments, when Globalists can just say "it doesn't work due to scale" for the experiments that disprove their theory? Lol.

I do understand that (small) scale is the reason that some water droplets stick to the bottom of the ball, but it was you who proposed this as some justification for your ball-Earth theory, where magic gravity (not molecular forces) is said to produce the tides, yet not suck the waters up into space.