• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Sunrise, Sunset: A Question for Flat-Earthers

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
There is still a residual that doesn't aim down but encompasses the whole area. If the earth were flat the sun would reach all places at once. It might be dimmer in around the edges, but never dark. The layout would demand that daylight in Canada is also daylight in China, which we know isn't the case because we can Facetime somebody there and see for ourselves. I know you aren't espousing this, so this isn't really directed to you... but this whole "theory" is just lacking in any real science.
Not according to their theory.

flashlight beam 2.jpg


It is full daylight in the beam path, dusk or dawn were the outer beam hits, and completely dark outside the beam. In the atmosphere right here on earth.....

Here is a better example.

spotlight.jpg


Notice the entire floor is not lit up...

Again, I don not espouse flat earth theories, just find most of the arguments against it are based upon misconceptions, as are most of the arguments for it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Rank
Upvote 0

Nithavela

you're in charge you can do it just get louis
Apr 14, 2007
30,652
22,285
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟589,386.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Notice the entire floor is not lit up...
Notice that you can still see the light of the flashlight, which means that some of the light reaches the camera lens...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Notice that you can still see the light of the flashlight, which means that some of the light reaches the camera lens...
Agreed, but not enough to illuminate the entire floor.

You are getting close to the reason their belief is also a misconception.
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,673
3,205
✟174,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Recall your geometry lessons in school: the angle of a straight line is 180 degrees. If the earth is flat, sunrise and sunset should be 180 degrees apart. But sunrise and sunset aren't 180 degrees apart as observed on most places on earth at various times of the years.

At 45 degrees north of the equator, on December 22 the sun rises at 123 degrees (roughly SE) and sets at 237 degrees (roughly southwest.) This is only a 114 degree difference.

On June 20, the numbers are 55 degrees (a change of 68 degrees to the north) and 305 degrees (68 degrees farther north.) This is a difference of 250 degrees.

If the sun is travelling in a straight line across the sky, the only explanation for the differences between the differences of 114 and 205 degrees is that the earth is not flat but a sphere.

Even more revealing is that at the poles, at certain times of the year the sun never goes below the horizon.


This is a decent enough start. If you permit yourself to dig further, you will find video that NASA has put out allegedly from the ISS showing a sunset and how the earth goes dark across the horizon line all at once, but time lapse footage from the ground shows the exact opposite where as the sun travels farther away, the areas to the left and right of the sun at the horizon line goes dark first, which wouldn't happen in the current globe model.


I'm more interested in someone explaining to me why the earth repeatedly and historically fails curvature and motion tests.

 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
This is a decent enough start. If you permit yourself to dig further, you will find video that NASA has put out allegedly from the ISS showing a sunset and how the earth goes dark across the horizon line all at once, but time lapse footage from the ground shows the exact opposite where as the sun travels farther away, the areas to the left and right of the sun at the horizon line goes dark first, which wouldn't happen in the current globe model.


I'm more interested in someone explaining to me why the earth repeatedly and historically fails curvature and motion tests.

Well, I guess the challenge has been issued. For flat earth denouncer's to produce experimental proof that an object hidden behind a hill can then be seen because of refraction. If that's really their claim, then it shouldn't be hard to reproduce given the amount of times they use it.....

Not espousing FE, but kudo's to them all for actually performing experiments.....
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But it’s doesnt explain the phases of the inner planets like mercury and Venus . Mercury and Venus have phases like the moon . And they have to stay a close distance to the sun Their orbits and what they look like don’t make sense on a geocentric system .
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,673
3,205
✟174,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
But it’s doesnt explain the phases of the inner planets like mercury and Venus . Mercury and Venus have phases like the moon . And they have to stay a close distance to the sun Their orbits and what they look like don’t make sense on a geocentric system .

I'm shape-agnostic at this point, but after seeing dozens of curvature tests failed, footage of lunar eclipses with the sun still in the sky, the lack of motion of the earth detected in the Michelson-Morley experiment, or the experiment known as 'Airy's failure' which shows that the relative motion between the stars and the earth is a result of the stars being in motion, not the earth, then I can't just ignore it in favor of alleged pictures, refraction, and gravity. Even gravity itself assumes a heliocentric model to be viable. So that's actually a nonstarter. If you review that video I posted with the 34 curvature experiments, one of them measures a mountain range which should not be visible on a round earth with the sun setting behind it. If it were refraction, the sun would have dissipated it.


Personally, I don't care what others think about the shape of the earth, but for myself, I can't just ignore evidence to the contrary. That would be disingenuous.

The more one looks into it, it's realized the current globe model has real issues as currently presented. So while globe-earthers are demanding all this defined information from flat-earthers, they don't realize their own current model doesn't work either. They are just as confused as anyone else, except most are ignorant of that particular fact.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
But it’s doesnt explain the phases of the inner planets like mercury and Venus . Mercury and Venus have phases like the moon . And they have to stay a close distance to the sun Their orbits and what they look like don’t make sense on a geocentric system .

I believe this is there answer. It's for the moon, but the next is for the planets.


 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I'm shape-agnostic at this point, but after seeing dozens of curvature tests failed, footage of lunar eclipses with the sun still in the sky, the lack of motion of the earth detected in the Michelson-Morley experiment, or the experiment known as 'Airy's failure' which shows that the relative motion between the stars and the earth is a result of the stars being in motion, not the earth, then I can't just ignore it in favor of alleged pictures, refraction, and gravity. Even gravity itself assumes a heliocentric model to be viable. So that's actually a nonstarter. If you review that video I posted with the 34 curvature experiments, one of them measures a mountain range which should not be visible on a round earth with the sun setting behind it. If it were refraction, the sun would have dissipated it.


Personally, I don't care what others think about the shape of the earth, but for myself, I can't just ignore evidence to the contrary. That would be disingenuous.

The more one looks into it, it's realized the current globe model has real issues as currently presented. So while globe-earthers are demanding all this defined information from flat-earthers, they don't realize their own current model doesn't work either. They are just as confused as anyone else, except most are ignorant of that particular fact.

The Michelson-Morely experiment is actually nothing but an experiment of conceptual errors.

It was concluded there was no aether because of an incorrect belief in what the Michelson-Morley experiment showed. The only thing it actually showed was how easily people are fooled by incorrect conceptions. How they (and people still) failed to see that their viewpoint from outside the system being measured was flawed from the beginning.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is the biggest overlooked conceptual error of all time.

You, the observer looking at the illustration or device, are outside the illustration or device, and the illustration or device is moving with regard to you.

main-qimg-60e2e191448304e388fd14f4879cf12d.jpg


Feynman said: “Let us calculate the time required for the light to go to E and back. Let us say that the time for light to go from plate B to the mirror E is t1 and the time for the return is t2. While the light is on its way from B to the mirror [E], the apparatus moves a distance ut1, so light must traverse a distance of L+ut1 at the speed of c.”

Well, from your eyeballs’ point of view, looking at the illustration or device, yes. But from the point of view of the device, no. We conceptionally see the device moving, and therefore we see the extra distance ut1. But the device does not see itself moving. It has no velocity relative to itself. No object can calculate itself as moving in its own co-ordinate system. Any observer attached to the device or moving along with the device will see or measure the distance L. Period. Only an observer outside the local system would see the distance L+ut1. The device is inside its local system. The device cannot hope to measure any extra distance, or to find a phase difference at the end.

The entire experiment is founded on a conceptual error of the greatest import. The device is not moving relative to itself. There can be no phase shift because the device will never measure any distance but that of L. It will never measure the extra distance of ut1. No phase shift could ever be produced.

No system sees itself in motion. Only an outside observer would ever see the extra distance of ut1.

Just as if we built the device on the surface of the earth and spun the earth (oh wait, we already have) only an outside observer (off planet) would see the extra distance light must travel [ut1], while we (moving with the device) see it as stationary. The outside observer would expect a phase shift, while we on the earth would not. The experiment would measure the distance L and no phase shift would occurr to the astonishment of the outside observer.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is nothing but a conceptual error of profound proportions. So no experiment has shown the aether does not exist, but one of profound conceptual mistakes. So there was never any valid reason to begin with to conclude no aether existed. Just the incorrect conceptual errors of close to 130 years.
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,673
3,205
✟174,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
The Michelson-Morely experiment is actually nothing but an experiment of conceptual errors.

It was concluded there was no aether because of an incorrect belief in what the Michelson-Morley experiment showed. The only thing it actually showed was how easily people are fooled by incorrect conceptions. How they (and people still) failed to see that their viewpoint from outside the system being measured was flawed from the beginning.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is the biggest overlooked conceptual error of all time.

You, the observer looking at the illustration or device, are outside the illustration or device, and the illustration or device is moving with regard to you.

View attachment 233835

Feynman said: “Let us calculate the time required for the light to go to E and back. Let us say that the time for light to go from plate B to the mirror E is t1 and the time for the return is t2. While the light is on its way from B to the mirror [E], the apparatus moves a distance ut1, so light must traverse a distance of L+ut1 at the speed of c.”

Well, from your eyeballs’ point of view, looking at the illustration or device, yes. But from the point of view of the device, no. We conceptionally see the device moving, and therefore we see the extra distance ut1. But the device does not see itself moving. It has no velocity relative to itself. No object can calculate itself as moving in its own co-ordinate system. Any observer attached to the device or moving along with the device will see or measure the distance L. Period. Only an observer outside the local system would see the distance L+ut1. The device is inside its local system. The device cannot hope to measure any extra distance, or to find a phase difference at the end.

The entire experiment is founded on a conceptual error of the greatest import. The device is not moving relative to itself. There can be no phase shift because the device will never measure any distance but that of L. It will never measure the extra distance of ut1. No phase shift could ever be produced.

No system sees itself in motion. Only an outside observer would ever see the extra distance of ut1.

Just as if we built the device on the surface of the earth and spun the earth (oh wait, we already have) only an outside observer (off planet) would see the extra distance light must travel [ut1], while we (moving with the device) see it as stationary. The outside observer would expect a phase shift, while we on the earth would not. The experiment would measure the distance L and no phase shift would occurr to the astonishment of the outside observer.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is nothing but a conceptual error of profound proportions. So no experiment has shown the aether does not exist, but one of profound conceptual mistakes. So there was never any valid reason to begin with to conclude no aether existed. Just the incorrect conceptual errors of close to 130 years.

I've seen that explanation before, as well as refutations of that explanation. I do know what it boils down to is either there is an ether in motion, or no ether at all. I can't recall the experiment off hand that proved the existence of the ether, but I do know there are a number of Tesla electrical theorms that wouldn't have functioned without an ether present.

Like I said, I'm not the least bit interested in convincing anyone of anything. Each person needs their own journey into this area, just as I'm on my own journey. I'm just throwing out options should some wish to pursue as I do when it is convenient.

I have a large body of water nearby here in Texas, called Lewisville Lake, that at some point I'd like to conduct my own curvature experiments to satisfy my own curiosity in this matter. So far I'm not sold on anything other than the realization that what I've been told I must believe all my life isn't accurate.
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,673
3,205
✟174,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
View attachment 233837 ( sigh) I got this picture from NASA . The earths not flat!

The problem with pictures is there are enough proven fakes out there from NASA to question the authenticity of anything they release. So, one could sit here and say it's altered like others from NASA all day long, and another could respond by saying it's not altered. At the end of the day, neither can prove either position from what was provided. Each will claim the 'truth' from their own perspective.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,747
52,532
Guam
✟5,136,559.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm more interested in someone explaining to me why the earth repeatedly and historically fails curvature and motion tests.
As diameter increases on a sphere, arc increases.

As arc increases, flatness increases.

The larger the diameter, the flatter the surface.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I've seen that explanation before, as well as refutations of that explanation. I do know what it boils down to is either there is an ether in motion, or no ether at all. I can't recall the experiment off hand that proved the existence of the ether, but I do know there are a number of Tesla electrical theorms that wouldn't have functioned without an ether present.

Like I said, I'm not the least bit interested in convincing anyone of anything. Each person needs their own journey into this area, just as I'm on my own journey. I'm just throwing out options should some wish to pursue as I do when it is convenient.

I have a large body of water nearby here in Texas, called Lewisville Lake, that at some point I'd like to conduct my own curvature experiments to satisfy my own curiosity in this matter. So far I'm not sold on anything other than the realization that what I've been told I must believe all my life isn't accurate.
I’ve yet to see anyone refute it.

True about Tesla, his theories use the “ground”. Tesla was a firm believer in aether.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
As diameter increases on a sphere, arc increases.

As arc increases, flatness increases.

The larger the diameter, the flatter the surface.
But it’s their own calculations of the radius that fail, not any FE supporters have put forth.

This is why they do it over water, because water seeks its own equilibrium, unlike ground which may vary.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The problem with pictures is there are enough proven fakes out there from NASA to question the authenticity of anything they release. So, one could sit here and say it's altered like others from NASA all day long, and another could respond by saying it's not altered. At the end of the day, neither can prove either position from what was provided. Each will claim the 'truth' from their own perspective.
exactly. A theory can only be disproven within the bounds of that theory.

A challenge was issued to show hidden objects behind hills can be seen due to refraction. If it is as common as claimed which is used against every FE experiment, then providing such should be a minor task. I am not aware of anyone yet providing such. Perhaps there is on the just perfect condition days. But FE has reproduced experiments regardless of weather, or time of day or night.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,545
29,069
Pacific Northwest
✟813,591.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,545
29,069
Pacific Northwest
✟813,591.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
If the sun is a flat spotlight that gets further away at sunset, then the shape of the sun should change from sunrise to sunset.

EssentialDinner10p5inSHF15

https://images.crateandbarrel.com/is/image/Crate/EssentialDinner10p5inSHF15

31HMKjgdkyL.jpg

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31HMKjgdkyL.jpg

Does it?

-CryptoLutheran
Why would it’s shape change? It’s getting further away, not tilting.

Take that same plate in image one and move it away from you, it’s shape will remain constant.

Although this is the one problem I have against FE. The sun and planets can be round, but the earth has to be flat.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Notice that the light source appears oblong because the angle of the observer is different.

-CryptoLutheran
But they don’t believe the sun is flat or the planets, just earth. See my post above and my one complaint with their theory. And also why I said you were getting close.
 
Upvote 0