That's okay. On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles, 'for either will do as well'.
Estimating in terms of millions of miles is an improvement on one thousand miles but I would love to see the source and context for these quotes.
However, what you appear to be saying here is 'nobody really knows how far away the Sun is' and you have not engaged with the main point of my last post which is that the Earth-Sun distance absolutely cannot be anywhere near 1000 miles AND the spotlight Earth model cannot be right. Indeed, even if the FE model assumed the distance to be 150 million Km's a spotlight configuration would still obliterate life on Earth. So the spotlight model cannot work in ANY situation at all.
However, the basic idea that the sun is much smaller does superficially allow for it to be much closer and thus appear large while not burning us to a crisp.
I did the math's:
If we ignore the sun's overall flux value and instead look at its output per sq meter which of course CAN be established from simple observational measurements we arrive at a total 'Solar Luminosity (L
S of 5.25 x10^17 Watts (using the Irradiance value of 63million Watts/sq. meter output).
The equation for solar flux density (S
d) works out how that energy spreads out from the source and is 'diluted' so to speak. It is dependant on the size of the source (Sun) and the distance to the observer (Earth). This is exactly what we are debating.
S
d = L
S/4xPixd
2 where d is the distance between Sun and Earth.
Now this is very important. The value for S
d is a well established measured property (1348w/m2). Anyone can measure it. It varies across the Earths surface but not substantially. The solar luminosity as previously stated is also easily verified by direct measurement of the Sun's spectral output and using Wien's Law and the Stephan Boltzman law to determine the solar output power. Again, absolutely rock solid theories that work every time and in any circumstance.
Solving for d gives us d = 3431 miles. Not too dissimilar from the FE theory (~350% error) IF YOU ASSUME THE SUN IS ONLY 32 MILES IN DIAMETER AND RADIATES EQUALLY IN ALL DIRECTIONS.
The problem with this is that, again, it creates more problems than it solves. The Sun's size and distance from us does not agree with orbital mechanics, principally Kepler's 3rd law, which agrees absolutely perfectly with the observed motion of all the planets and moons in the solar system. Keppler's laws are a triumph of mathematics and mechanics and are all the more beautiful because any budding astronomer can go out on a clear night and verify the motion of the planets to a incomparable degree of accuracy.
No, you have a big logical car crash on your hands here. FE theory is, if nothing else, unequivocal about certain aspects. It has to be in order to explain certain easily observed effects e.g. the curvature observed from balloons at near space. But these bold assertions create even bigger logical problems that simply cannot be explained away.
Now I am making assumptions that certain aspects of scientific theory are accepted by the FE community but even discounting the Newton's law of gravitation the orbital motion of the Sun and Earth must obey Keppler's laws and the orbital distance of 1000miles would have it orbiting us in hours instead of hundreds of days.
Now before you site the day/night orbital cycle as the explanation...
https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F...lets just put that to bed. If you look at the animation on your wiki we see the sun somehow orbiting in partnership with some other gravitational 'object'. I believe this is called the 'Northern hub'. Until such an object has been actually detected and measured all we have is a completely made up device that as yet still does not explain the motion of the Sun. However, even ignoring this the seasonal position of the Sun in the sky is apparently explained by the increasing and decreasing concentric orbital rings that the sun cycles through. Such a motion would require ENORMOUS changes in rotational energy of a cyclic nature. Unless energy is exchanged from outside with this system then this model unfortunately runs up against the absolutely cast iron bedrock of scientific theory....'energy cannot be created or destroyed'. No, we stop right here, we do not 'pass go' and I am afraid one must go back to the drawing board. It is annoying, it is time consuming, but it is the law as far as science and mathematics is concerned. I'm afraid now we get to my point in this thread. That is that if you jump in at any particular point in FE theory you can find logic, but that logic relies on ever increasing circles of logic built on ever more elaborate assumptions. Eventually those assumptions run up against a logic so great and irrefutable that one must start again. In essence, the house of cards falls down. Scientists meet this all the time. The difference is they seek a better model, they do not endlessly persist with the flawed model. That is how we arrived at the current model for our solar system. The round Earth model, Newton's Laws of gravitation, Keppler's Laws all work. By that I mean they agree with experimental evidence, they never disagree.
Now it will be interesting to see if this thread ends up in the angry ranting section. I believe I have engaged in a thoroughly logical and polite discourse herein. that said, I await with interest evidence that Keppler's laws do not hold and conservation of energy is not an issue. At that point I am afraid we would simply have to agree to disagree. I do not doubt my post will not sway your thinking, but I do find it interesting to see which aspects of provable scientific theory can be sacrificed in order that FE theory maintains. this should be interesting.