What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Metabunk 2018-06-28 09-35-55.jpg

Flat earth folk seem to have no problem in visualizing the flat earth like this, as a disk, with the sun rotating around it.

But if this is what it looks like from "space" then why can't you see the sun from Europe? Perspective?

It might be interesting to ask a genuine flat earth believer what they think the view of the earth would be if they were to fly up to the point where the virtual camera is in the above image, and keep looking at the Earth. What do they think they would see, and why?

Here's the position of the camera in this scene.
Metabunk 2018-06-28 09-45-09.jpg
 

Majd Saedy

New Member
Perspective can't hide the sun, even at the accepted distances by most Flat-earthers:
A sun 12,000 miles away (about the maximum distance it can be on a 24,000 miles flat earth) and 3000 miles up would still be quite visible at an angle of about arctan(3000/12000) = 14° above the horizon.

(correct me if I am wrong or if I misrepresented the accepted FE distances)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perspective can't hide the sun, even at the accepted distances by most Flat-earthers:
Yes, we know that. The question here is what Flat Earther's think the world would look like from space.

The idea is really to make them think about it from a different perspective.
 

Majd Saedy

New Member
Yes, we know that. The question here is what Flat Earther's think the world would look like from space.
The idea is really to make them think about it from a different perspective.
I know that you know, I'm just trying to get an explanation or a different view from a FE proponent.

Your question is very interesting indeed, but my understanding is that there is no space outside the FE dome, or is that not the prevalent idea?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Your question is very interesting indeed, but my understanding is that there is no space outside the FE dome, or is that not the prevalent idea?
We they could probably avoid the whole question by saying reality only exists for ten miles above sea level. But it's kind of to get them to think about what their model of the world actually is. Like is it physically a disk with a small ball sun above it? Are there limits to where a camera could be? As you get higher you can see more of the world. What's going on there? What would happen if you continued to rise?

All rather moot points. But might be interesting to get some perspective on the mind of the true believer.
 
As Majd Saedy already stated, there's a dome/fermament in the way so you would never get a camera in that position. Your question would therefore be invalid to them.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member
As Majd Saedy already stated, there's a dome/fermament in the way so you would never get a camera in that position. Your question would therefore be invalid to them.
Maybe they could just use their imagination and picture what it would be like if they were able to get through the dome. It's not like anyone is asking them to actually go to space with a camera themselves is it
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As Majd Saedy already stated, there's a dome/fermament in the way so you would never get a camera in that position. Your question would therefore be invalid to them.
What if you just fly to the top of the dome? It’s a thought experiment.
 

Rory

Senior Member
The sun is actually on the outside the dome. The dome works like a lens, which bends the light, which explains why the elevation angles don't add up - we're not looking at the actual sun.

As for what it would look like for a viewer outside the dome...gosh; who knows what the laws of physics are on the other side?
 
The sun is actually on the outside the dome.
Have to disagree with you there. The hardcore FEers are hardcore because they've seen clouds 'behind the sun'. Therefore the sun would be in the dome.

Pics:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...0v_bAhWMd94KHcgNCt8Q_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=635
FE Proofs:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ome..69i57.10480j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member
I saw a video recently from Dr Zack that shows how the sun is outside the dome. Can't find it now though, so maybe it got taken down.

Jeranism also has a video which says we see the sun through our own individual 'virtual dome'.

I'd post it here but that would mean I'd have to summarise it and that's not something I want to do. ;)

The guys who think clouds can go behind the sun are wrong. They're not main players or true flat earth scientists. They're a little bit behind the curve.

Mainly what I seem to be seeing in flat earth is a dispensing with the idea that there's anything approaching an accurate map; that there's any knowledge of its size or how light works; or that we know what reality is.

Some may say that's a convenient dodge.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mainly what I seem to be seeing in flat earth is a dispensing with the idea that there's anything approaching an accurate map; that there's any knowledge of its size or how light works; or that we know what reality is.

Some may say that's a convenient dodge.
It's dodging empirical evidence. There quite clearly ARE accurate maps, which we use every day. We also have a vast amount of verifiable info about light (and hence about image forming, cameras, and eyes)

If they go down that road they have just descended into Solipsism/Mandela/Matrix, and there's no real point following.
 

Chameleon

New Member
(Signed up specifically to answer this, not a flat earther, but I do create/think up hypothetical worlds that run on rules other than our reality).

Your second picture shows that the sun emits a cone of light downwards, so from the point of view of the camera in the first picture you wouldn't be able to see the sun - it's there to show where the sun is in the model. Vision is dependent upon light, if there is no light coming from the point of the sun to the point of observation then you cannot see the sun (whether that is from "space" or from europe).

So (from the reality of the model in the first image) a photograph from "space" would look exactly like the first image but without the yellow circle of the sun.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Your second picture shows that the sun emits a cone of light downwards, so from the point of view of the camera in the first picture you wouldn't be able to see the sun - it's there to show where the sun is in the model. Vision is dependent upon light, if there is no light coming from the point of the sun to the point of observation then you cannot see the sun (whether that is from "space" or from europe).
But they are not claiming that the sun is a simple spotlight. A spotlight would not set. A perfect idealized spotlight with no leaking light would get smaller, dimmer and then go out. What their theory attempts to explain is why the sun looks like it sets.

To explain this they invoke "perspective", which essentially require light to bend.

The point here is to try to get people to think about how (and if) things look different from far away.
 

Chameleon

New Member
So.. The constraints are: has all of the observable properties of our current reality, but also matches the model? That obviously breaks in multiple ways (via the multiple proofs that the earth is a globe).

My response was based upon the model being accurate and absolute and then deriving from there (yes, in that reality the sun doesn't set fully, I hadn't explored that. Seems like an interesting world).

If the only extra constraint is that the sun also has to set, you could throw in a physical law that states that light bends at the edge of the cone? A band of the atmosphere that heats up in daylight and causes refraction at the interface between night and day such that the sun appears to pass the horizon? Seems more plausible than invoking "perspective" (though likely has its own issues). Which was your point, I guess, "perspective" isn't an adequate answer.
 

JFDee

Senior Member
If the only extra constraint is that the sun also has to set, you could throw in a physical law that states that light bends at the edge of the cone?
I have begun to make a point in discussions with FE believers who bring up the multiple distortions and 'bendings' that they need to explain celestial occurrences (including the different star constellations visible in the Southern hemisphere).

The point I bring up is this:

If all these things (bending perspective etc.) can fool your eyes so entirely - why would that stop precisely at the horizon?
How can you firmly trust your eyes when you state "I can't see any curvature"?
 
Top