Huddersfield Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Assuming those distances have somehow or other been measured (as per Toepoke I'd still like to know how) then according to those measurements, the Sun would appear in the sky from the experimentation point to have an angular diameter of around 0.5°. That's about right in terms of our observations & can be measured relatively easily. You are by the way correct when you say it does change apparent size, but I used the word appears because the changes are so small as to not be detectable by the human eye, which is of significance here. The big problem those numbers have though is when you start moving around a flat Earth. Standing directly underneath the Sun, using those figures, gives it an angular diameter of closer to 0.85°, so from that vantage point, we'd be looking at a Sun approaching twice the size. And the differential from observing at the 'edge' of the world to directly underneath (depending on how big your flat earth is) means we could take measurements very easily, today, to show that the sun is twice as big underneath as it is from (say) southern Australia. So, why not just take the measurements & show us a sun taking up more sky in one place than another? By the way, I tried to find something mathematical in those measurements to explain how the sun can disappear - I can only get it to shrink. Even allowing for generous distances moving away from the observation point, I can't get much below about 0.1°, which would still be very visible (the average star has a much smaller angular diameter than that - evidenced by the fact that if you look through a telescope, they don't seem any bigger, you just see more of them). (I'm happy to be challenged on this - I did the maths still half asleep & without drawing anything out, so if I'm wrong, better mathematicians than me can correct my numbers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Surely Crilly's Law states that things look small when they are further away. An object only 30-something miles across - say, a city the size of London - would look big close up, but very small when far away. Imagine flying away from London: at some point, maybe somewhere over the west of England, London would appear as small as the sun does from the ground. But by the time you crossed the Atlantic it would shrink to a dot on the horizon. So, no sunshine? Is that what would cause daytime to be different at different times in different parts of a flat world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave78 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 5 hours ago, Toepoke said: Don't know what's going on there but it's certainly not like anything I've actually seen. Is it not just the glare from the sun being reduced, making it look like it's getting smaller? If he made the same video using an anti-glare filter over the lens, you'd see no change in the sun's size, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 41 minutes ago, Dave78 said: Is it not just the glare from the sun being reduced, making it look like it's getting smaller? If he made the same video using an anti-glare filter over the lens, you'd see no change in the sun's size, no? Probably yes. Plus with the sun setting over a hilly landscape it'll be disappearing irregularly. If you were to watch the sun set over the sea with a dark filter it wouldn't appear to change size (although like the moon it does look larger the closer it gets to the horizon - that's an optical illusion though). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 8 hours ago, Toepoke said: Probably yes. Plus with the sun setting over a hilly landscape it'll be disappearing irregularly. If you were to watch the sun set over the sea with a dark filter it wouldn't appear to change size (although like the moon it does look larger the closer it gets to the horizon - that's an optical illusion though). It's called atmospheric lensing/refraction. Light slows down when it hits our atmosphere. at the horizon has more atmosphere to "lens" through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 What's the (correct) formula for determining the curve of a sphere? (The formula that I had posted has been rejected by the globe-heads.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 57 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: What's the (correct) formula for determining the curve of a sphere? (The formula that I had posted has been rejected by the globe-heads.) I'm not sure what you are asking for here? But the definition of a sphere is quite simple. It is the set of all points in 3 dimensional space which are equidistant from a given point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 Unless you want to do loads of calculus you can assume the earth is a circle and then use trigonometry and it works out about 8 inches for a mile. However the Flat Earth problem is they think this value is cumulative, so 9 miles would be 72 inches, that's where their lack of mathmatical knowledge let's them down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) c = (2/3) times x2 is an approximation for small distances compared to the earth. Curvature and line of sight are two different things as well. Anyway normally stay out of these fruitless exercises. c is curvature in feet and x is distance in miles. Edited August 22, 2018 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, phart said: Unless you want to do loads of calculus you can assume the earth is a circle and then use trigonometry and it works out about 8 inches for a mile. However the Flat Earth problem is they think this value is cumulative, so 9 miles would be 72 inches, that's where their lack of mathmatical knowledge let's them down. What works out at 8 inches for a mile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Orraloon said: What works out at 8 inches for a mile? the curvature of the earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, phart said: the curvature of the earth. Ah, right. I get you now. I just hadn't read your post properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 7 hours ago, phart said: Anyway normally stay out of these fruitless exercises. I don't believe that it's fruitless. (Please stay with it.) Is this correct? 8 inches x miles squared = curvature drop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: I don't believe that it's fruitless. (Please stay with it.) Is this correct? 8 inches x miles squared = curvature drop No that plots out a parabola. Plus doesn't take into account that the observer isn't at surface level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) No discussion of a 'Flat Earth' scenario would be complete without knowing that shape the world is - what happens at the edges, and what is behind/underneath it (can you fall off the edges?). One version has the Earth as a roughly circular disk centred on the North Pole, but this implies there is no south pole! Antarctica is an impenetrable ring of ice round the edge. If so, then distances between southern hemisphere locations should be further apart than equivalents in the northern hemisphere. So an easy calculation to do would be: what is the distance between comparable locations at roughly the same latitudes (degrees north and south). Very roughly New York - Rome - Tokyo compared with Santiago de Chile - Cape Town - Sydney. If the Earth is a flat disk centred on the north pole then the southern hemisphere would be considerably larger than the northern set (much more than due to variation in degrees north/south). A primary school kid could do the calculation - no advanced maths required. If you don't have a suitable map, you could check airline schedules. (Holiday homework maybe) Edited August 23, 2018 by exile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eisegerwind Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 20 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: What's the (correct) formula for determining the curve of a sphere? (The formula that I had posted has been rejected by the globe-heads.) "Globe-heads", arsehole! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, exile said: No discussion of a 'Flat Earth' scenario would be complete without knowing that shape the world is - what happens at the edges, and what is behind/underneath it (can you fall off the edges?). One version has the Earth as a roughly circular disk centred on the North Pole, but this implies there is no south pole! Antarctica is an impenetrable ring of ice round the edge. If so, then distances between southern hemisphere locations should be further apart than equivalents in the northern hemisphere. So an easy calculation to do would be: what is the distance between comparable locations at roughly the same latitudes (degrees north and south). Very roughly New York - Rome - Tokyo compared with Santiago de Chile - Cape Town - Sydney. If the Earth is a flat disk centred on the north pole then the southern hemisphere would be considerably larger than the northern set (much more than due to variation in degrees north/south). A primary school kid could do the calculation - no advanced maths required. If you don't have a suitable map, you could check airline schedules. (Holiday homework maybe) Every self respecting flat earther knows that southern hemisphere flight schedules are a fabrication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Eisegerwind said: "Globe-heads", arsehole! Scotty thinks his head is flat. Which might help to explain some stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty CTA Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Toepoke said: Every self respecting flat earther knows that southern hemisphere flight schedules are a fabrication. I question the flights claiming to fly over the 'South Pole' between two cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 16 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: I question the flights claiming to fly over the 'South Pole' between two cities. Are you talking about scheduled flights? I don't think there is any reason why they would want to do that. If you've got plenty dosh you could fly over it if you wanted to. Not sure the view would be up to much though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huddersfield Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said: I question the flights claiming to fly over the 'South Pole' between two cities. I don't think any scheduled airlines pass over the South Pole nor claim to - if you look on sites like Flightradar24, nothing goes anywhere near that far South. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 50 minutes ago, Huddersfield said: I don't think any scheduled airlines pass over the South Pole nor claim to - if you look on sites like Flightradar24, nothing goes anywhere near that far South. The curiously named Norwegian Air Argentina are about to commence a service between Buenos Aires and Singapore, using Antarctic prevailing winds to speed up flight times... https://thewest.com.au/travel/air-aviation/perth-stopover-on-world-first-flight-linking-south-america-and-asia-to-boost-wa-tourism-ng-b88751880z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 6 hours ago, Toepoke said: Every self respecting flat earther knows that southern hemisphere flight schedules are a fabrication. On this map, Los Angeles is situated very roughly half way between Santiago de Chile and Auckland. You can fly from Santiago to LA in 11-12 hours. You can fly from LA to Auckland in 12-13 hours. If the Earth were flat like this, you'd expect Santiago to Auckland to be roughly the addition of these times, probably a bit over 20 hours. But you can fly between Santiago and Auckland in under 13 hours. Costs follow a similar pattern. Where does the southern hemispehre flight conspiracy kick in? (Is it safe to fly internally within Brazil and Australia without being affected by it?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huddersfield Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Toepoke said: The curiously named Norwegian Air Argentina are about to commence a service between Buenos Aires and Singapore, using Antarctic prevailing winds to speed up flight times... https://thewest.com.au/travel/air-aviation/perth-stopover-on-world-first-flight-linking-south-america-and-asia-to-boost-wa-tourism-ng-b88751880z That’s one flight I’d love to take. Notwithstanding the somewhat bizarre airline running it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, exile said: On this map, Los Angeles is situated very roughly half way between Santiago de Chile and Auckland. You can fly from Santiago to LA in 11-12 hours. You can fly from LA to Auckland in 12-13 hours. If the Earth were flat like this, you'd expect Santiago to Auckland to be roughly the addition of these times, probably a bit over 20 hours. But you can fly between Santiago and Auckland in under 13 hours. Costs follow a similar pattern. Where does the southern hemispehre flight conspiracy kick in? (Is it safe to fly internally within Brazil and Australia without being affected by it?) This video was posted on here before. Favourite quote "I see there are direct flights, but I don't think they exist" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.