The sun is always about the same distance from you.
Well, surely this changes to some degree. An object that travels a path above me will be closest to me when it's directly overhead, and further away at other points of its traveled arc. I understand that the the relative difference may not be so large, but the sun certainly isn't always about the same distance away.
If you're going to claim that though, it definitely brings into question the aspect of it setting. It seems odd that the relative distance doesn't change much, but the view we have of it changes so drastically.
some people have calculated it's about 30 miles in diameter.
Interesting! The figures I've seen are much larger, even those against current teachings. Where does this figure come from?
So, about the sun never changing elevation. I don't think you get it still. It doesn't change.
...Yes. This is what I've been saying from the beginning...
As objects "collapse" into the horizon, they get smaller as they get further away. We see this all the time every day. However, with the sun, it doesn't. You've explained this by saying the sun's relative distance actually doesn't change from the viewer, essentially saying the sun doesn't get further away, and we observe that it doesn't get smaller.
So, we now have the sun behaving differently from other objects, and I guess I'm still confused as to why.
Think about a row of street lamps. You are standing under one of them. You look up 90 degrees to see it. Then the one that is 100 feet away, you do t look up at 90, more like 75. Then the one after that is a bit lower. And on and on until you see about a mile down the road, and the street lamps is so low, it's almost level with the street
These streetlamps are considerably further away as you go down the road. You said the sun stays relatively the same distance away.
About beers law. How light, no matter how bright cannot travel through a media for infinity. As particles (H2, CO2, water vapor, dust, etc) deflects photons, eventually the light cannot travel through it all, and we see dusk, and eventually darkness.
Agree! I'm very familiar with the concept.
However, when light travels away from the viewer, it simply fades away, growing smaller and smaller until we can no longer see it. The sun does not behave this way.
Also, the sun is at the same elevation
Precisely! I already confirmed that in the very first sentence of my comment on this. Our line of sight is never interrupted, and yet it appears to drop below the surface of the planet long before it gets smaller/fades as a flashlight would.
Why is that?
Hi! Just pasting a comment hoping to continue the discussion:
I explained enough about Antarctica. I don't know, can't tell what is true or not
What you said was that you agree with the theory of the ice wall because of a number of other conclusions you can make, and implied that there is something that you saw yourself that helps staple your support of the theory. Whether or not there is an ice wall has nothing to do with a curve, or where stars are in the sky. Those things can exist whether there is an ice wall or not. If those are the conclusions you made that helps solidify your support of the ice wall, then they're not very convincing
I would hardly say you've explained enough. You couldn't drop the topic fast enough.
I can only confirm with observation and scienctific method.
So what have you confirmed so far, in regards to Antarctica?
The questions tallestskil asked
Are not my questions, so they aren't the questions I'm choosing to ask.
And why have you resisted looking up a "flat earth" proof so adamantly?
I'm not sure what you're asking me to look up. It seems you want me to ask a specific question and, at this point, I'm not sure what that question is.
Again, drop Antarctica and dinosaurs for now, first, you have to be confident that we are not in space on a globe
Sure, let me ask you something unrelated to that.
The sun is above us, that much we know. On a flat earth, that would mean that the sun is above us at all times (as opposed to the globe theory, where the earth rotates to face away from the sun every 24 hours).
However, the sun is not visible to us during the nighttime. We know, from the behavior of light, that even if we are not illuminated by a light source we would still be able to see the source (such as seeing a lit candle on the other end of an empty gymnasium, for instance).
Why is it that the sun appears to set, instead of remaining up in our field of view?
I explained enough about Antarctica. I don't know, can't tell what is true or not
What you said was that you agree with the theory of the ice wall because of a number of other conclusions you can make, and implied that there is something that you saw yourself that helps staple your support of the theory. Whether or not there is an ice wall has nothing to do with a curve, or where stars are in the sky. Those things can exist whether there is an ice wall or not. If those are the conclusions you made that helps solidify your support of the ice wall, then they're not very convincing
I would hardly say you've explained enough. You couldn't drop the topic fast enough.
I can only confirm with observation and scienctific method.
So what have you confirmed so far, in regards to Antarctica? Anything at all?
The questions tallestskil asked
Are not my questions, so they aren't the questions I'm choosing to ask.
And why have you resisted looking up a "flat earth" proof so adamantly?
I'm not sure what you're asking me to look up. It seems you want me to ask a specific question and, at this point, I'm not sure what that question is.
Again, drop Antarctica and dinosaurs for now, first, you have to be confident that we are not in space on a globe
Sure, let me ask you something unrelated to that.
The sun is above us, that much we know. On a flat earth, that would mean that the sun is above us at all times (as opposed to the globe theory, where the earth rotates to face away from the sun every 24 hours).
However, the sun is not visible to us during the nighttime. We know, from the behavior of light, that even if we are not illuminated by a light source we would still be able to see the source (such as seeing a lit candle on the other end of an empty gymnasium, for instance).
Why is it that the sun appears to set, instead of remaining up in our field of view?
I believe we were talking about Antarctica. I'm not going to choose someone else's question to ask you lol
I'll copy and paste my other comment:
So, I agree with the theory there is an ice wall because of a number of other conclusions I can make. I would never place my full belief in any report, only what I can guarantee because I saw it myself.
What are these other conclusions? What did you see yourself that makes you believe in this ice wall?
And it took years longer than they expected, traveling like 60,000 kms, which is more than the equator. So definitely sus.
Where does this information come from? AFAIK there wasn't a circumnavigation of what is believed to be Antarctica.
My mistake on the link! Here's this: Link
So, I agree with the theory there is an ice wall because of a number of other conclusions I can make. I would never place my full belief in any report, only what I can guarantee because I saw it myself.
What are these other conclusions? What did you see yourself that makes you believe in this ice wall?
And it took years longer than they expected, traveling like 60,000 kms, which is more than the equator. So definitely sus.
Where does this information come from? AFAIK there wasn't a circumnavigation of what is believed to be Antarctica.
My mistake on the link! Here's this: Link
I can't prove there is an ice wall.
Right, so, that's certainly part of where my doubts come from, the fact that nobody seems to be able to prove this supposed ice wall. A report by General Byrd is no more or less credible than reports I may find. It's things you've been told, just as things I've been told.
I'm somewhat familiar with his expeditions though, not acutely, something I can certainly read up on myself, but did he ever confirm/report that this ice wall surrounded the entire rest of the continents? I'm aware that he found massive shelves of ice cliffs, but is there anything that reports that this wall surrounds us?
The measured distance "around" the island was longer than possible
What was the measurement that he gave? Or is there somewhere to find it?
I would like to see these models. I've only seen one that makes sense.
Basically this. Is this the one that made sense to you, or did you have another in mind?
I know, you think they have, but you believe it. You never checked.
I actually have. I went to a school that afforded a lot of resources to us to test and perform experiments ourselves.
start what at Antarctica? Go get a flat earth proof. Just saying Antarctica is too vauge.
Well, I wrote a bit more after: "I see often that it's actually a surrounding ice wall that circles the rest of the continents. I'm curious what that comes from."
You described Antarctica (or what I believe was you describing Antarctica) as an ice wall. I'm wondering what led you (or others) to the conclusion that there even is an ice wall at all.
Do you just mean you don't understand the flat earth model or ?
Sort of correct. I've seen a number of different flat earth models (most commonly one where Antarctica is an ice wall that surrounds the other continents). What I'm not grasping is where that comes from and how that model came to be.
Do you find that wierd? It doesn't prove anything, but it's sus.
It's a little odd sure! I hadn't heard about there being a massive supply of resources there though. It doesn't really say anything about the shape of the earth though.
The flat earth is not a theory, it's what you observe when you look at the horizon and do the math.
Well, observations can only take you so far. I can observe my immediate surroundings to see that there are no mountains, and could reasonably conclude that mountains must not exist. However, as I explore my surroundings, I will go to other regions and see mountains, waterfalls, all sorts of things.
However, even observations I make don't seem to align with the idea of us living on a flat plane.
The math too is another place where I start to see the glaring holes in the flat earth idea.
Because it means a lot more is past where we think there is an ice island. There's no one to believe except you own ability to think and observe
Have you observed what is supposedly beyond this ice island (I assume you mean Antarctica)? Or are these pictures and videos?
if you want to learn, choose a "flat earth proof" that you don't get and ask me what you're missing.
I'm happy to start with Antarctica if you are! I see often that it's actually a surrounding ice wall that circles the rest of the continents. I'm curious what that comes from.
Mm, not really. The flat earth idea has a LOT of holes that, when ask, nobody seems to be able to explain. If I do get an explanation, it more often does not match an explanation given by another flat earth idea supporter.
I have asked a lot of questions about earth as a globe when I was a student, and learned a lot about why they say things are a certain way.
I agree that those people who stifle conversation are assholes. I don't think I've met a flat earth believer though who didn't stifle the conversation. Not yet at least :)
Expanding to fit an available volume is not infinite expansion, obviously.
It's not expanding in size infinitely, no, but the particles are infinitely working to expand, as futile as the efforts may be. The particles will never come to rest, especially not on top of one another. Even at equilibrium, the particles are still in motion at an atomic level.
Are you talking about the southport killings? The girls stabbed in the bathroom? Because that wasn't a muslim who did that
Also, this doesn't really have anything to do with your original idea, that this was something that would target black mothers and incite "a racial riot this summer unlike anything for decades...."
Seems you're just grabbing a random incident and pretending it's what you predicted.
This suggests that the entire path of the daytime sun is less than 1,000 miles across. That's half the width of the US. Are you sure about those figures?
I haven't seen this video. Do you have a link?
When I said teachings I was talking about the current common teachings of the sun being nearly a million miles in diameter.
The figures I've seen to counter that have been much smaller, but I haven't heard a figure as small as 30 miles. Do you know where I can find the calculations that led to this figure?