The question no flat-earther can answer

[GaryA]

GaryA, consider this evidence:

Sydney, Australia, is at about 33 degrees south, ten degrees south of the Tropic of Capricorn. The sun is never directly overhead in Sydney. In the North-centric flat earth model, the sun could never appear directly east, directly west, or south of either. Yet in southern summer, the sun rises to the southeast of Sydney, and sets to the southwest. This is easily explained on a ball earth, and impossible on a north-centric flat earth.

Still looking into this...

 

[GaryA]

So....
you are NOT trying to prove the earth is flat?

NO - not in THIS THREAD.

I am trying to "respect" the context of the thread. And, in my opinion, everyone else should also. Way too many threads on this site are destroyed by people who do not [seem to] have the self-discipline to stay close enough to the context of a thread as put forth by the OP - to "preserve" the discussion of the thread. Yes - sometimes "running rabbits" can be profitable to a thread - especially for the sake of good-natured humor. However, the general rule should always be - stay within the confines of what is set by the OP.

Besides - right now, "real life" will not allow for a lot of time spent on CC. And, I certainly don't have time to make any full-blown presentations.

I am not currently in a good situation that would lend itself to doing a lot of in-depth searching or researching.

Virtually everyone knows how to search the internet.

There are a lot of good videos out there that explain most aspects of the flat-earth model; albeit, there are different views on some areas... And - yes - there is some error in many of them. Like everything else, discernment is required.

"Now - go to it..."

Anyone who is too lazy or indifferent to do [at least] some research on their own doesn't deserve to be "spoon-fed" complex answers to silly questions that are answered in several places - if they would only go look...

 

[GaryA]

I disagree.

That is okay - you are entitled to your own opinion just like everyone else... (including me)

 

[GaryA]

well reported - Can you give me documented nonbiased clear reports?

I would certainly like to - can't promise much right now - but, if I can manage anything worthwhile any-time-soon, I will try to get it in here.

 

[GaryA]

Welcome back Gary. You have been missed. This is not debatable.

Thank you for the kind words...

"Well-put, too!"

 

[GaryA]

For a longer radius, the sun would have to travel faster to subtend the same 15° angle.

You flat lot say, the sunlight doesn't travel everywhere, because that's what you have to say to explain why there is such a thing as night.
Therefore, 'daylight' is restricted to a patch on the surface of the Earth of a fixed area under the travelling sun. Therefore, the amount of daylight a fixed position on the earth receives is calculated by how long the sun takes to move from the position in which the leading edge of the 'daylight patch' crosses the fixed earth position, to the position in which the sun moves when the trailing edge of the 'daylight patch' crosses the fixed position on earth.

The "basic essential core essence" of this explanation is correct - if not quite so much on the varied "embellishments" added to it...

Therefore the amount of daylight a point on earth gets is definitely dependent on the speed of the suns movement ((in the flat model))

Nope. Sorry. I don't think you are getting it fully.

In the major sense of the whole day (daylight) - No.

In the minor sense of first-light and last-light - Yes, there can be small differences (measured in mere minutes).

Therefore Gary still doesn't understand what he's talking about.

Therefore, you have made a bad conclusion.

 

[maxwel]

NO - not in THIS THREAD.

I am trying to "respect" the context of the thread. And, in my opinion, everyone else should also. Way too many threads on this site are destroyed by people who do not [seem to] have the self-discipline to stay close enough to the context of a thread as put forth by the OP - to "preserve" the discussion of the thread. Yes - sometimes "running rabbits" can be profitable to a thread - especially for the sake of good-natured humor. However, the general rule should always be - stay within the confines of what is set by the OP.

Besides - right now, "real life" will not allow for a lot of time spent on CC. And, I certainly don't have time to make any full-blown presentations.

I am not currently in a good situation that would lend itself to doing a lot of in-depth searching or researching.

Virtually everyone knows how to search the internet.

There are a lot of good videos out there that explain most aspects of the flat-earth model; albeit, there are different views on some areas... And - yes - there is some error in many of them. Like everything else, discernment is required.

"Now - go to it..."

Anyone who is too lazy or indifferent to do [at least] some research on their own doesn't deserve to be "spoon-fed" complex answers to silly questions that are answered in several places - if they would only go look...

Gary,

I've examined plenty of flat earth arguments.
I can't see they hold water.

I'm not going to go look at videos for things which, as far as I'm aware, are thoroughly debunked.
I've already done my homework, I'm not doing more.

A lot of people feel the same way.

That is why I suggested you simply include appropriate evidence to support your propositions.

However, I'm not going to harass you about any of this either.
Nobody is mad at you, and I'm not mad at you either.
Everything is good.
We just disagree.

Hope you're having a great week.
: )

.

 

[maxwel]

Gary,
I was only giving you a hard time in this thread because it's the conspiracy forum, and it was a bit of fun.

We don't generally get too serious or upset in here.

We can all have our weird theories about this or that, and at the end of the day, Jesus still rose from the dead, and we're still all Christians. And I'm not too worried about any of this other stuff.

 

[posthuman]

The "basic essential core essence" of this explanation is correct - if not quite so much on the varied "embellishments" added to it...


Nope. Sorry. I don't think you are getting it fully.

In the major sense of the whole day (daylight) - No.

In the minor sense of first-light and last-light - Yes, there can be small differences (measured in mere minutes).


Therefore, you have made a bad conclusion.

suppose i am watering my garden.

i stand at the edge with a hose in my hand and spray water back and forth in an arc.

suppose i just make one arc with the hose.

obviously, the longer the arc is, the more area of the garden i reach.

consider my one little rosemary shrub. it lays within the path of the arc of water i spray.

• does my rosemary get more water if i wave the garden hose slowly?
• does it get less water if i move the hose quickly?

 

[posthuman]

The "basic essential core essence" of this explanation is correct - if not quite so much on the varied "embellishments" added to it...


Nope. Sorry. I don't think you are getting it fully.

In the major sense of the whole day (daylight) - No.

In the minor sense of first-light and last-light - Yes, there can be small differences (measured in mere minutes).


Therefore, you have made a bad conclusion.

suppose i am painting a slat of wood with a sprayer.

i have a 10m board, my sprayer sprays at a certain rate, and i want 0.1mm of paint to result.

i move the paint sprayer at a certain speed over the board. suppose that takes exactly 1 minute.


now suppose i have a 20m long board, and the same sprayer. suppose i only have 1 minute to spray this board.
i move the spray gun across the board at a constant rate, and finish in 1 minute.

• i coated a board twice as long in the same amount of time -
  • do i have the same 0.1mm thick paint?
  • do i have only 0.05mm thick paint?

 

[maxwel]

When I paint...

I use a roller.
.

 

[GaryA]

Nobody is mad at you, and I'm not mad at you either.
Everything is good.
We just disagree.

I'm not mad, either. I simply don't want to waste my time dealing with useless "go-nowhere" discussions that do nothing but clutter up a thread...

I have dealt with this before - and, have decided that it is simply not worth it. Therefore, I have "changed my stance" (since leaving CC and coming back).

I respect the right of anyone-and-everyone to believe what they will.

I also believe that it okay to "agree to disagree agreeably"...

If someone has their mind made up, why would I want to waste time trying to change it?

But - if someone truly-and-sincerely wants to understand something that I believe I might be able to help them understand - well, that is different!

We will all know the [real] truth about many things on Judgment Day...

"We just disagree."

I'm okay with that.

 

[Chester]

This post made me realize that I did not word my statement correctly. My apologies to all. At the time I made the statement (post #27), I was thinking about the extremes and not the middle (evidenced by post #29) - not from 0-90 degrees N&S - rather, from something more like 60-90 degrees N&S. It is the far-north vs far-south that I intended to illustrate.

Look into it -- you may find it very interesting...

Well, now you are changing the question quite a bit. There are no cities that I am aware of south of 60 degrees south except on Anarctica. And I have no problem admitting that the southern pole has colder temperatures than the North. That is a well known fact. But I think it has to do with a land mass at the southern pole versus open water/ice at the North Pole.

But back to the original question of the OP - if indeed the Earth is flat with the North Pole in the center, then temperatures should be cooler all across the southern hemisphere. Why? Because the sun would have to travel faster in the summer months of the southern summer; or if, as one theory goes (mentioned in the OP), the sun goes up higher in the sky then its rays will not be as strong.

 

[JamOn]

Low altitude clouds like this long tube like cloud is moving/hovering over the earth at the same height on each end yet it’s bowed. it’s conforming to whatever it’s passing over, the cloud is about a mile long and about a 8” curvature. bottom of photo is a wooden tee post power pole standing almost straight up with about a 8 foot wooden cross post it’s pretty flat. I think if the earth was flat clouds passing over the surface like in the photo i think would reveal its contour.

 

[MattforJesus]

If the Earth is flat and the North Pole is the center of a circular flat Earth, then . . . distances in the southern Hemisphere are much greater between lines of latitude than distances between the same lines of latitude north of the equator.

This means that the sun (according to the flat Earth theory) must travel a greater distance each day in the southern summer than it must in the northern summer. Thus the sun must travel faster in the southern summer.

But if the sun travels faster, then the length of summer daylight for locations in the southern hemisphere will be shorter than for comparable locations north of the equator. The problem is that this is not what the objective evidence shows. Locations equally north and south of the equator will be found to have almost exactly the same length of summertime daylength.

So, to solve this problem, some flat-earth people will say that in the southern summer the sun rises higher in the sky: thus is gives light to a wider area, lengthening the time of daylight. Problem solved? No, now there is another problem. If this were so, then then that increased area of daylight would also affect the time of sunlight at the equator. Thus one would expect that in the southern summer the time of daylight would also increase at the equator. But does it? Absolutely not! The objective evidence at any spot on the equator at any time of the year is exactly 12 hours of daylight year round.

Flat-earthers - Can you resolve the dilemma?

Also if the sun is 3000 miles, or how far ever it is above the earth at all times not going lower then we would experience it going from dark to light, and light to dark different.

For the light would chase the darkness, and the darkness would chase the light for the sun is always above the earth and does not lower.

And we know it is not always light in our area, and it is not always dark.

So when it is daytime in our area and it approaches night time we would see the darkness off in the distance coming our way, but it would still be light in our area, and then the darkness would pass through our area and we would see the light go off in the distance until it is gone and it is all dark as far as the eye can see.

The same with it going from dark to light, we would see the light coming, but dark in our area, and the light would pass through our area and we would see the darkness going off in the distance until it is gone, and it is all light as far as the eye can see.

That is the way it seems it would be to me for it is not always dark, and it is not always light, and the sun always stays above the earth and does not lower.

But we do not see it going from dark to light, and light to dark that way.

But on a round earth as soon as the sun goes down, boom, it is dark, and when the sun rises, boom, it is light.

We do not see the light chase the dark, and the dark chase the light, and if it is a little lighter on the side of the earth where the sun comes up it is still light as far as the eye can see, and the light does not chase the dark, and the same the other way around.

Can you picture how it would be if we were on a flat earth and the sun is always above the earth at the same height, and does not lower.

For that is the way that is would seem to me, because it is not always light, and not always dark, so the light would have to follow the dark, and the dark would have to follow the light.

Also what about gravity, which some people will say that it does not exist.

Gravity - the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

On a round earth no matter where you stand you have the same amount of earth under you, the same with objects, so gravity goes downward.

But on a flat earth wouldn't we be pulled to the center of the flat earth and move sideways if we were not in the center.

 

[GaryA]

But on a round earth as soon as the sun goes down, boom, it is dark, and when the sun rises, boom, it is light.

Yet, this is not at all what we see.

What we see is the 'light' follow behind the sun when it sets (even after it disappears over the horizon) and precede it when it comes up (even before it appears at the horizon).

 

[GaryA]

Well, now you are changing the question quite a bit. There are no cities that I am aware of south of 60 degrees south except on Anarctica. And I have no problem admitting that the southern pole has colder temperatures than the North. That is a well known fact. But I think it has to do with a land mass at the southern pole versus open water/ice at the North Pole.

But back to the original question of the OP - if indeed the Earth is flat with the North Pole in the center, then temperatures should be cooler all across the southern hemisphere. Why? Because the sun would have to travel faster in the summer months of the southern summer; or if, as one theory goes (mentioned in the OP), the sun goes up higher in the sky then its rays will not be as strong.

It is you who have changed the question - from the original question about length of daylight - to the new question about temperature.

Part of what you are saying is correct.

The temperatures will be colder outside of the Tropic-to-Tropic zone.

Temperatures will be colder in the south, yes.

According to the ball-earth model, the temperatures at 80 degrees north should be the same as 80 degrees south - because - both places get the same amount of sunlight (over the year cycle). It is the same for any other set of matched places.

What we experience actually matches the flat-earth model.

 

[Chester]

When I paint...

I use a roller.
.

And the roller is round . . . but wait - was that a flat paint - or a round paint? on a flat surface . . . - now I am all confused?

 

[Chester]

It is you who have changed the question - from the original question about length of daylight - to the new question about temperature.

Part of what you are saying is correct.

The temperatures will be colder outside of the Tropic-to-Tropic zone.

Temperatures will be colder in the south, yes.

According to the ball-earth model, the temperatures at 80 degrees north should be the same as 80 degrees south - because - both places get the same amount of sunlight (over the year cycle). It is the same for any other set of matched places.

What we experience actually matches the flat-earth model.

I am much more interested in actual stats and evidence than "experience"

 

[stonesoffire]

The final definitive evidence that the Earth is a globe and is spinning . . .

Well, my head is spinning - and I have heard many other people say the say thing - you have probably said it too!
In fact - I bet when most flat-earthers read my question in post # 1 it made their head spin . . .

There you have it - your head spins because the Earth is spinning - it wouldn't happen on a flat Earth!

LOL!

Why not? Records spin. I remember records from long long ago.