dad
Undefeated
They are belief based.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament
- Thread starter osgart
- Start date
dad
Undefeated
The stars were put in the firmament. So we are not talking about the sky over earth.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Francis Bacon apparently said, "By far the best proof is experience."
It is not enough to hang on to the words of old dead guys. You have to at some point verify whether their words ring true for you.
I have no problems at all if you were to trust this guy personally. It's when you get up in my face about what I should be accepting, then use faulty math or science and expect me to agree that I have an issue. I could debate this guy, but I have church in like an two hours, and have to get ready.
So the point for me, and it may not be for you, is whether such people actually proved things, or whether it's conjecture.
-I have no idea about this Greek guy and it voids my post if I go check (Kindle)
-Copernicus did in fact propose it. But it was Galileo who actually used a telescope to try to prove it.
-Galileo showed that distant planets do revolve around in orbit. But as flat Earthers are quick to point out, "But ths Earth is not a planet." But more importantly , you cannot have a scientific belief based on extending conjecture. I think it was Saturn or Uranus that read about (one of those "ten facts about..." ) which supposedly orbits upside down and backwards from that of other planets. If we're going by extending conjecture from what we know, then we know planets do not all have to move the same way. By that logic, a planet shouldn't need to move at all. There are also tidally locked planets so yeah.
- Newton had an incredible amount of axes to grind, so while the basic theory of gravity is self-evident, it requires suspension of disbelief to accepr that it is some sort of catch-all for impossible conditions on Earth.
Besides which, if we're gonna trust old Greek dudes, what about Plato, who basically said this world we perceive might just be a sort of cave showing us images? Or Archimedes, who if I remember correctly built basically a giant ant-burner. A solar focusing war engine requires four things:
-Good quality glass free of moisture and impurities
- A sunny day
-Very slow movement (impossible with orbit)
- Perfect angles (impossible with curvature)
Yet this device works and Archimedes is known as a great scientist. This guy? I heard about him in class, but I've already forgotten his name. He had no practical application, which I value far more than words and theory.
Last edited:
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
(Wow I quoted the wrong text)
Well suppose we didn't use my "perfectly good" map. Let us assume for argument's sake we aren't using this. Let is suppose we are sailing, and lack a radar and sonar, just having tools prior to electronic navigation since we have a cheap boat.
What tool do we use? Probably a compass, a straightedge, a ruler, maps, and that math rotation this for drawing circles if we have to curve.
What tool are we definitely NOT going to rely on? A globe. Now why is that? Well, let's start by saying that whether we view the Earth as centered around the North Pole in a circle (which as you point out has issues with stars unless we segment the sky somehow) or whether we draw it as an actual square (unlikely that's accurate either), we have a necessary need when sailing. We need to be able to drawa STRAIGHT LINE. Guess what is on a globe not present in either latitude or longitude? A straight line. The Gleason is probably not acceptable for sailing, unless I were to travel north or south, and discover in fact that space curves to the left or right as I sail. It may, but as a sailor, I need to think of at least one dimension as able to chart in a straight line. Otherwise, I will wind up in a continent or country different from intended, spiraling about. In fact, if I were to correct for the latitude and longitude curves, I'd probably end up confused, and back where I started. Every REAL navigator, however, pulls out a map and the ruler.
Gleason is helpful for understanding the probable state of the world, but practical is > theoretical always. I'd trust Gleason second to a navigational map then a globe last. I'd trust a radar/sonar first, since I figure these were invented to help stupid ppl who got navigating wrong. Coincidentally, a radar has the exact rotary display as you'd find on Gleason though.
Btw, to answer a previous post Subduction, both the firmament and the surface are designed to hold water IN not keep it out. I want you to get a common frypan and its cover, and fill it with water. Then I want you to boil it (evaporation), then put it in a fridge (condensation or "rain") . All of this works.
Now, I want you to spin it around while pulling it or pushing it at a steady speed around another kettle (orbiting the Sun). You'll notice as the pan eventually flops to the ground that you have a huge mess on your hands. That mess, is your burden of proof, and you have to clean it up before your Mom or Dad (God) gets back. I also want you to try scooping up the water in an upside down pan (the impossibility of holding water in a curved Earth) and then I want you to place several metric weights on top of this upaide down pan and see if they hold that water in place (meant to show that gravity cannot cure basic truth). Looks like you still have a mess, aren't you going to clean it up?
Well suppose we didn't use my "perfectly good" map. Let us assume for argument's sake we aren't using this. Let is suppose we are sailing, and lack a radar and sonar, just having tools prior to electronic navigation since we have a cheap boat.
What tool do we use? Probably a compass, a straightedge, a ruler, maps, and that math rotation this for drawing circles if we have to curve.
What tool are we definitely NOT going to rely on? A globe. Now why is that? Well, let's start by saying that whether we view the Earth as centered around the North Pole in a circle (which as you point out has issues with stars unless we segment the sky somehow) or whether we draw it as an actual square (unlikely that's accurate either), we have a necessary need when sailing. We need to be able to drawa STRAIGHT LINE. Guess what is on a globe not present in either latitude or longitude? A straight line. The Gleason is probably not acceptable for sailing, unless I were to travel north or south, and discover in fact that space curves to the left or right as I sail. It may, but as a sailor, I need to think of at least one dimension as able to chart in a straight line. Otherwise, I will wind up in a continent or country different from intended, spiraling about. In fact, if I were to correct for the latitude and longitude curves, I'd probably end up confused, and back where I started. Every REAL navigator, however, pulls out a map and the ruler.
Gleason is helpful for understanding the probable state of the world, but practical is > theoretical always. I'd trust Gleason second to a navigational map then a globe last. I'd trust a radar/sonar first, since I figure these were invented to help stupid ppl who got navigating wrong. Coincidentally, a radar has the exact rotary display as you'd find on Gleason though.
Btw, to answer a previous post Subduction, both the firmament and the surface are designed to hold water IN not keep it out. I want you to get a common frypan and its cover, and fill it with water. Then I want you to boil it (evaporation), then put it in a fridge (condensation or "rain") . All of this works.
Now, I want you to spin it around while pulling it or pushing it at a steady speed around another kettle (orbiting the Sun). You'll notice as the pan eventually flops to the ground that you have a huge mess on your hands. That mess, is your burden of proof, and you have to clean it up before your Mom or Dad (God) gets back. I also want you to try scooping up the water in an upside down pan (the impossibility of holding water in a curved Earth) and then I want you to place several metric weights on top of this upaide down pan and see if they hold that water in place (meant to show that gravity cannot cure basic truth). Looks like you still have a mess, aren't you going to clean it up?
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are using very poor "logic". The reason that some Greeks are still sited is because they hit on the correct answer way back when. We have endless evidence that the world is a round and no scientific evidence that says that it is flat. And I have a feeling that all of the "bad math" would come from you.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hey! My prediction came true! The bad math did come from you. Geometry is part of math and the only "straight line" in our world when traveling great distances is a Great Circle on a globe. Navigators know this and know how to calculate the route one must follow on a Mercator projection:
Great-circle navigation - Wikipedia
Globes are hard to work with, write on, put in a drawer etc.. So flat Mercator projections are used along with the formulas in that argument.
And we know what keeps in the atmosphere in the real world. It is gravity. You objected to people assuming that you have no education, but your posts demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of science beyond a ninth grade level, and that is being generous.
Last edited:
dad
Undefeated
Great, but since the sun and stars were in the firmament, that means any waters that were on the other side of that firmament would be on the other side of where the stars are. So there could be no canopy theories or explanations that involve just earth that fit.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
The word is "cited". A citation refers to a quote. Sited means where geographically you found something. Archimedes is still cited. What's his name is only mentioned when someone wants to haul out round Earth theory and the two standbys (Copernicus and Galileo) won't do. "See? He proved it back then!" With no lens of any kind I imagine. With no means of measuring the Earth's location in regards to the sun. The best he probably came up with (didn't even bother reading) was something like measuring the Earth with math or something. But let's be honest, I've seen birds divebomb our windows and knock themselves senseless because they have a false perspective of another bird in the window. If you do not have the ability to question your own theory, you shouldn't be telling people about logic.
What do you think the point of debate is? Is it to bully someone into going along with everyone else? Congratulations then, you're a staunch guardian of conformity. But no, I will not eat green eggs and ham, no matter how it's presented. No, we don't have to agree. The point of debate is to find common ground. When this is lost, it's argument not debate. Basically, you're not talking to me, you're not thinking, and you're not connected.
Do me a favor, and actually try. Figure out if I'm totally wrong, half-right, or whatever. If you're taking Greek guys word for it, you're doing things wrong. I gave you several pieces of homework. Starting with jogging around the block. Then dynk your globe in the water. And spin frypans around. Why? Because when you worry about proving right, you've lost the sense of wonder that made ppl want to do science experiments.
The scientific method is to test results. If you aren't testing (even lame testing I came up with just for fun), what you have isn't science. And you can tell me all you want about how my logic isn't good but I'm afraid I don't care.
Btw, Mercator Projection is just that. A projection. It cannot be called a map, and no navigation system will ever use it.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
All theories can be questioned. The problem is that so far the heliocentric globe model has consistent answers to questions that work. You can't claim the same for your beliefs. Do you remember your failure with "speed"?
And no, I am not trying to bully. I am trying to get you to try to reason rationally. If you can show the globe model to be incorrect using rational reasoning then you will become rich and famous.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Actually sat down and bothered reading how Pythagoras supposedly "proves" the Earth is round by using math equations. And how what's his name "measured" the circumference of Earth. You know that must have been quite a feat given that the known world at this time was minus about three continents! Wouldn't you need at the very least a radius to start figuring out things like arc and circumference? From where did he pull such measurements? You expect me to believe that he was allowed to cross several countries with a rope or whatever crude measuring tool he had, actually getting Earth's diameter? No likely. He, as in you, relied ob math in his head or from secondhand sources versus going outside and running the measurements himself. You might be interested to know that in this day and age we still need surveyors. What? We don't tak the word of these two and just divide the length and height of this bridge by the circumference of the Earth? No. Some people actually work for a living. They get the measurements themselves.
Uhhh, yeah math moves on dude. First off, you do not actually need pi to measure a circle unless you are being exact. This guy rightly proposed that tau (which essentially divides a circle into fourths rather than eights, search "Tau Day") should be used instead of pi , since we almost always do 2r for equations, and tend to like 90 degree angles. But math moves on in other ways too. He'd probably never expect that one of his geometry students, and nor a good on at that, would realize that all of his geometry while proposing to "prove" Earth is round, did not add any arc or slope to real world use of triangles to determine angle. All of them operated as if standing on a level platform. Wouldn't you need to adjust for curve with every geometry equation when trying to figure out the angle of any object that involved height? "A man looks at the horizon at a firteen degree angle and notices clouds that he perceives must must be 2500 miles away. How high up are these clouds?" His students in his day would fawn and drool over his every word. I, on the other hand would make two observations. First if we have the radius, in theory we can perfectly measure out a circle. But as it turns out this is an estimation as the circle may not in fact be a perfect 360 but have a strange wobble. Or it may turn out in fact that the object we are measuring in fact is an oval. My math teacher didn't teach me as well as I ought cuz I sucked at it, but I know how to use practical math, and I still remember her words "when you assume, you make an *** out of u and me" . You can't just casually throw around angles and expect things to work with no measurements. So Pythagoras. Era... that guy, were they world travelers? The second thing we notice is that the above equation would have to necessarily measure Earth's diameter, acquire the arc length of the Earth, then convert this to a degree displacement for the Earths's degree of curve given the distance (Earth's diameter is supposed to be about 7900 miles, so that's roughly a third of a half, or 60 degree slope), just as measurement from atop a mountain you have to account height displacement (I actually remember stalling on a math equation because I had to figure out height from a tree top or something), you now have to measure that there is presumably an estimated 60 degree slope. While you are staring across the flattest plane ever for miles. We don't do that for math equations. We don't mess them up with assumptions about curvature. We just do the math as if we are working with a flat surface, and nobody thinks too hard about it.
You are correct in saying that I am not a mathematician. I'm more of a designer. And as one, I can visualize things.
And so when Era... Erratum? Proposes that he has measured the circumference of the Earth and can prove it by showing that parts of Egypt the sun rises earlier. :starts giggling: Yes, math and science have definitely moved on. When we look at the sun (or try to) we are using that radius above, but not for the Earth's curve, we use it to gauge the sun's position by looking at the dome of the sky. If you were to make a perfectly round circle, and divide in portions, you would see an arc quite similar to the sun's rise and set. When looking at this from a 60 degree angle, in all directions, it should have moved in a semicircle, but the lower half is obscured by perspective due to the vanishing point. In other words, you are looking up at an object and it appears to set because it moves away from you. We can show that Earth is domred from this. Or we can make an assumption that it's rounded, and have to create mental gymnastics to explain total orbit of the Earth around the sun, estimate some huge size of a very distant sun and so on... You know what? I was driving into a sunset on the weekend, and I observed the sun at different angles and altitudes (we have hilly curved roads), as I curved I noticed the so-called coriolis effect,but rather than disproving flat Earth notions, it made it that much stronger. At a different curve and position the sun was in some cases not even set to looking completely set. As I moved towards it, and curved I actually seemed to get it to unset. When we notice this as an object arcing away from us, this suddenly makes sense given hills, curves, and distance.
Uhhh, yeah math moves on dude. First off, you do not actually need pi to measure a circle unless you are being exact. This guy rightly proposed that tau (which essentially divides a circle into fourths rather than eights, search "Tau Day") should be used instead of pi , since we almost always do 2r for equations, and tend to like 90 degree angles. But math moves on in other ways too. He'd probably never expect that one of his geometry students, and nor a good on at that, would realize that all of his geometry while proposing to "prove" Earth is round, did not add any arc or slope to real world use of triangles to determine angle. All of them operated as if standing on a level platform. Wouldn't you need to adjust for curve with every geometry equation when trying to figure out the angle of any object that involved height? "A man looks at the horizon at a firteen degree angle and notices clouds that he perceives must must be 2500 miles away. How high up are these clouds?" His students in his day would fawn and drool over his every word. I, on the other hand would make two observations. First if we have the radius, in theory we can perfectly measure out a circle. But as it turns out this is an estimation as the circle may not in fact be a perfect 360 but have a strange wobble. Or it may turn out in fact that the object we are measuring in fact is an oval. My math teacher didn't teach me as well as I ought cuz I sucked at it, but I know how to use practical math, and I still remember her words "when you assume, you make an *** out of u and me" . You can't just casually throw around angles and expect things to work with no measurements. So Pythagoras. Era... that guy, were they world travelers? The second thing we notice is that the above equation would have to necessarily measure Earth's diameter, acquire the arc length of the Earth, then convert this to a degree displacement for the Earths's degree of curve given the distance (Earth's diameter is supposed to be about 7900 miles, so that's roughly a third of a half, or 60 degree slope), just as measurement from atop a mountain you have to account height displacement (I actually remember stalling on a math equation because I had to figure out height from a tree top or something), you now have to measure that there is presumably an estimated 60 degree slope. While you are staring across the flattest plane ever for miles. We don't do that for math equations. We don't mess them up with assumptions about curvature. We just do the math as if we are working with a flat surface, and nobody thinks too hard about it.
You are correct in saying that I am not a mathematician. I'm more of a designer. And as one, I can visualize things.
And so when Era... Erratum? Proposes that he has measured the circumference of the Earth and can prove it by showing that parts of Egypt the sun rises earlier. :starts giggling: Yes, math and science have definitely moved on. When we look at the sun (or try to) we are using that radius above, but not for the Earth's curve, we use it to gauge the sun's position by looking at the dome of the sky. If you were to make a perfectly round circle, and divide in portions, you would see an arc quite similar to the sun's rise and set. When looking at this from a 60 degree angle, in all directions, it should have moved in a semicircle, but the lower half is obscured by perspective due to the vanishing point. In other words, you are looking up at an object and it appears to set because it moves away from you. We can show that Earth is domred from this. Or we can make an assumption that it's rounded, and have to create mental gymnastics to explain total orbit of the Earth around the sun, estimate some huge size of a very distant sun and so on... You know what? I was driving into a sunset on the weekend, and I observed the sun at different angles and altitudes (we have hilly curved roads), as I curved I noticed the so-called coriolis effect,but rather than disproving flat Earth notions, it made it that much stronger. At a different curve and position the sun was in some cases not even set to looking completely set. As I moved towards it, and curved I actually seemed to get it to unset. When we notice this as an object arcing away from us, this suddenly makes sense given hills, curves, and distance.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
Interesting use of phrasing, "it appears", "would have created". Very vague and very ambiguous. But more important, pulled completely from your imagination. There is nothing to support your fantasy than your own make believe.
What's your point?
https://phys.org/news/2012-08-tropical-climate-antarctic-palm-trees.html
Tropical climate in the Antarctic: Palm trees thrived on today's icy coasts 52 million years ago
Are you saying "Noah" happened 52 million years ago. Or are you, once again, taking a bit of the science that you love and distorting it to support your own fantastical ideas?
Chapter and verse?
ecco
Veteran Member
ecco
Veteran Member
You have a wonderful imagination. Perhaps you would be better rewarded writing books for fundies than posting in forums.
ecco
Veteran Member
You show your ignorance of basic maths. Here is an article a ten-year-old could understand.
Who Discovered The Earth is Round? | ScienceBlogs
One short excerpt...
If he could then figure out the distance from Alexandria to Syene, since he knew the angular difference between the two cities, he could figure out the circumference of the Earth! If only Eratosthenes had a grad student, he could have sent one to make the trip, and measure the distance!
Instead, he was forced to rely on the reported distance between the two cities. The most "precise" measurement of his day?
Image credit: Memphis Tours.
Travel-by-camel. (So I can understand criticisms of his accuracy.)
Instead, he was forced to rely on the reported distance between the two cities. The most "precise" measurement of his day?
Image credit: Memphis Tours.
Travel-by-camel. (So I can understand criticisms of his accuracy.)
Perhaps, if you read the entire article (ten minutes) you would come to understand why no one needed "at the very least a radius to start figuring out things like arc and circumference? "
Perhaps, if you read the entire article (ten minutes) you would come to understand why no one had to "cross several countries with a rope or whatever crude measuring tool" to get the Earth's diameter.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
edit update: If other users are doing ad hominem attacks on you, while it's something I'd personally ignore (one has to maintain one's own standards by staying above such), I'm perfectly willing to converse with you via the "Start a Conservation" here, in a friendly way. I don't descend down into making ad hominems against people, because that breaks the commands to Christians from Christ, such as Matthew 7:12.
Please feel free to answer via "Start a conversation" instead.
If I might ask, why would it matter much to you what shape the Earth is tho? Suppose (hypothetical) you had learned a variety of things so that you arrived at a place where you thought (at that moment) that both shapes (the circular disk and the spherical) both seemed to fit every thing you know about. Ok?
Would it matter much which shape was correct, past just mere curiosity? I'd know I'd be curious myself (and actually astronomy is a lifelong interest of mine), and I'd want to know which shape in that hypothetical situation for the sake of curiosity, but it would not have any great emotional significance. For instance, it would matter 0% for faith in God (since a flat Earth can't be read into the Bible without quite a stretch of clearly imported overlaying). So, why does it matter to you, is my question. Is there some other emotional significance to it for you?
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Uh huh. Like this...
(Ditto the problems with .png files mentioned by heyo)
More like this:
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
About my speaking earlier above about Earth being a 'water world' (meaning mostly covered in oceans, tho I'd not myself call our current 70% enough to be labeled 'water world', but instead something up nearer to 90%+, though that's a subjective line admittedly) -- did you end up later finding articles that help show that's considered a strong possibility?
Just to lay out the background understanding without linking a bunch of stuff, generally I understand that mountains and significant elevations arise because of subduction. But, for subduction to form significant elevations (e.g. a lot of dry land) itself needs a combination both of a sufficiently cooled crust to form plates, and then additionally also what we think of as active tectonics for that mountain forming to progress, right?
So, considering early Earth, beginning at first without any significant elevations -- at first cooling enough to form an initial crust, and then with surface water condensing onto that crust (or arriving via accreting water rich asteroids, comets and such), there will then the be a time when there isn't yet much elevations, but plenty of surface water -- i.e. a 'water world'.
That's the logic, but what is the evidence? There are a lot of pieces to consider!
I had read quite a lot of articles the other day, and I'm not sure if this was the one I linked for you:
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-plate-tectonics-key-life-scientists.html
but if you read in it, you noticed the significant moment when the moon was formed, and then the 'slow' or 'stagnated' tectonics -- which is also what a model would suggest, due to higher interior heat in the mantle. Some interesting things to include in trying to build out a picture of the early evolution of Earth.
But, a 'water world' for instance with only some modest amount of islands could indeed be the situation for a time, until the subduction progressed over time to cause more dry land. Right? It's a simple logic, but there is a lot to consider. So, I like to just read very widely, trying to hear from a lot of researchers and add more and more pieces of information. If you'd like more of the articles I read just let me know, and I'll link a bunch.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
If other users are doing ad hominem attacks on you, while it's something I'd personally ignore (one has to maintain one's own standards by staying above such), I'm perfectly willing to converse with you via the "Start a Conservation" here, in a friendly way. I don't descend down into making ad hominems against people, because that breaks the commands to Christians from Christ, such as Matthew 7:12.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
You show your ignorance of basic maths. Here is an article a ten-year-old could understand.
Who Discovered The Earth is Round? | ScienceBlogs
One short excerpt...
If he could then figure out the distance from Alexandria to Syene, since he knew the angular difference between the two cities, he could figure out the circumference of the Earth! If only Eratosthenes had a grad student, he could have sent one to make the trip, and measure the distance!
Instead, he was forced to rely on the reported distance between the two cities. The most "precise" measurement of his day?
Image credit: Memphis Tours.
Travel-by-camel. (So I can understand criticisms of his accuracy.)
Perhaps, if you read the entire article (ten minutes) you would come to understand why no one needed "at the very least a radius to start figuring out things like arc and circumference? "
Perhaps, if you read the entire article (ten minutes) you would come to understand why no one had to "cross several countries with a rope or whatever crude measuring tool" to get the Earth's diameter.
I guess Subduction gave up, and tapped out to you. Well, since I don't know you, you get the brunt of this I guess.
Using you own picture to demonstrate why you are wrong (and why you suck). You go into how my math is such that a "ten year old" knows better yet here we are looking at a pyramid standing perfectly straight, fully able to measure its area. Where is that curvature? Where is it leaning in the sand? Oh right, nowhere. It was built anywhere from 2000 BC to even earlier, yet no Leaning Tower of Pisa deal is going on. Nope, you can measure (b * h)/2 as perfectly as if asked to do so in a blackboard in math.
Earth Curvature Calculator - Calculate the curve you should see
Why is it not ( (b * h)/2) ± (r * (1 - cos a)) ) ? I don't know whether it would be plus or minus this, and I don't care, but no math EVER estimates for this. After 1000 km, all math would be off as much as 78.3196 km.
No calculation anywhere asks us to calculate for this ever. But yeah, insult me by calling my math something a 10-year-old can do. So now it's time to insult you. You see, not only a ten-year-old but a half-blind idiot would see that there is now trigonometry in my basic measure of geometry. That such math should be a fact of life that Pythagoras would be scrupulous to remind all of his students that they have to perform all such measurements using an angle below where they stand. Is this reasonable? Is this sane? No, it's stupid. So is this.
Any object at 180 degrees from its original position must account for change of position. Twelve noon should be like midnight during half the year. This is not somewhere like the North Pole, this would be in the Midwest or even the equator. If you believe this, I've still got orders on this 411 scam, you too can have your own Nigerian princess. This btw, would be despite constant rotation. But wait, we can add ANOTHER unnecessary displacement to our math. They explain this away by adding a number (I believe it is .982) to the equation based on (360 degrees / 365 days). There is no reason this number should work, but basically explains a certain percent of rotations as being nonstandard. You could watch sunrises and sunsets until you go blind and never see these, but you won't question this will you?
Let's show you why the sunrise/sunset proof is also stupid.
Remember that Gleason map earlier? Well, let's match this up by angle.
Anywhere in the world, you have roughly 12 hours of daylight, aside from shorter or longer days. You notice something else? It's a perfect arc, like this.
As the sun curves past 180 degrees it can no longer be seen. Because it is around the horizon. We say "below" the horizon but that choice of words cannot be accurate even in rotating Earth model. Also note that the sky has a beforeglow and afterglow for these where light shifts horizontally despite there being no sun visible.
Now, look at the orbit model above. You should be noticing something. Mainly that it is generating a reverse arc?
Last edited: