21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE

« on: February 02, 2022, 05:19:02 PM »

In physics, there's a very big difference between the way things look, and they way they calculate.
Math doesn't care how i draw things, it only cares about the numbers, and even numbers are surprisingly flexible because you can change the formulas.
A very simple example: imagine i make the entire universe twice as big, you and your ruler included. Would you notice?
The math/physics can be tweaked so it also doesn't notice.
Have a look at https://troolon.com  It shows physics working on a variety of differently shaped earths.

- coordinate transformations can turn any shape into any other shape
- coordinate transformations don't break physics
-> physics can be made to work on any shape universe (have a look at http://troolon.com for pictures)
-> There is no test to differentiate between the shapes. In reality we can only observe/measure the physical properties, not the shape.

So have a look around you and try these two views: i'm standing on a globe and lightrays are straight,
or you could say: i'm standing on a flat plane, and light curves to exactly counteract the missing curve.
Your eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference and there's no physical test to distinguish between the two views, it's just a matter of perception.

It's like the old question: Am i moving, or is the entire universe moving around me? It's just a matter of how you look at the world.

Also this result shouldn't be very surprising. The universe could already be a sphere, a simulation, have no shape (QM), be a restored backup from 5 minutes ago ... We will simply never know the shape of the planet. It can be flat, it can be a globe or even a velociraptor.

But physics doesn't just exist in the woo woo air, it is proven through observation. Take for example, general relativity. Yes, it's just math that Einstein put down on paper, and exists purely in the mathematical world. But it can be proved, such as in the Eddington experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment where Einstein correctly predicted the deflection of the position of a star as it is curved by the Sun's gravity on its path to us. Newtonian physics when applied to this problem, got it wrong.

There are galaxies in the night sky that look as though they've been twisted into a ring, evidence of gravity's influence on light. Physics makes predictions, predictions that come true under the most rigorous epistemological scrutiny.



By your own account, you say that your model is unobservable and unpredictable, so what makes it a theory and not just a fantasy?

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonbounce propagation time and the distance of the Moon from Earth

« on: February 02, 2022, 05:11:48 PM »

What’s the significance of “two-way”?

The suggestion in the OP was that you could independently determine the distance to the Moon for yourself, and that many amateurs independently verify the Moon's distance on a regular basis. It was claimed that "It is a quite elegant and simple experiment for any Flat Earthers who wish to deduce for themselves the true distance of the Moon." This is incorrect.

That is incorrect, one person absolutely can moonbounce to themselves. Here's an article from the Radio Society of Great Britain: https://rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/

"One of the unique characteristics of EME is that it is possible to hear and observe your own transmissions echoed back approximately 2.5 seconds later as the transmitted signal propagates from the earth to the moon, is reflected, and propagates back to the earth."

There is no reason one person could not transmit and receive back to themselves. Anywhere the moon is visible, you can receive a moonbounce, it's no different if you're 50 feet from the source or 50 miles.

The reason few people do this is because setting up a 3-meter radio dish is 1) expensive and 2) wildly space prohibitive, what are you doing to do with your $10,000 dollar 4-meter dish when you're not using it? It's much better to just listen to EME receivers that other people have sunk their lives into, like this one: http://websdr.camras.nl:8901/ and the hundred others like it: http://www.bobatkins.com/radio/ka1gt_eme_map.html The dishes are better, the recording instruments are better, it's free, there's just little reason to be your own receiver. Unless you believe that the internet is being rigged by unseen powers in an effort to invisibly deceive you, that is. There's not really a rational point to make in response to that.

But there's nothing stopping someone from doing it themselves.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 01, 2022, 11:23:45 PM »

I have one question about what people see on the ground, vs. what the map describes. In the animated diagram below you have light from the Sun warping every which way, stretching and contracting as needed to illuminate the Earth as we observe it. Wouldn't the sun appear to be wildly contorted in the sky, as the light from one part of the Sun will go on a roller coaster ride around Antarctica, while another will fall straight down? The shape of the sun in the sky should appear to alternate between an elliptical and crescent-moon shape with the changing seasons.



Yet what we actually observe when we look at the Sun is a perfect sphere of unchanging size disappearing over the horizon. You can see dark spots on the Sun, which refutes the idea that sunlight takes different diverging paths to arrive at their special destinations, depending on where it is emitted from. From the observer's perspective, the light from the Sun has taken a straight-line path between its surface and your eyes. Regardless of whether the light was emitted from the top of the Sun or the bottom, straight-line path.



So the only possible explanation I can see is that spacetime itself is warped in between the Sun and the ground observer, creating the illusion that the light travelled in a straight line, configured precisely to simulate the appearance of a massive Sun-like object in distant space. But this introduces more problems than it answers - warping space to that degree would require a phenomenal source of mass or energy - that somehow only acts upon sunlight, without interfering with other forms of matter or energy on Earth.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonbounce propagation time and the distance of the Moon from Earth

« on: February 01, 2022, 10:06:56 PM »

It is a quite elegant and simple experiment for any Flat Earthers who wish to deduce for themselves the true distance of the Moon.

No, you cannot determine this for yourself. The process involves sending your device information over the internet to get a response from a large facility.

See this video of a Moonbounce:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUbNDNBPFEM

He is communicating with a third party installation, and says "he heard me" and at 4:54 that "you need a pretty big station at the other end".

The Moonbounce is not conducted by setting up your own antenna, broadcasting a signal, and then receiving it. The process involves sending your data over the internet to a large (likely government funded) radio astronomy facility and then receiving back the results.

This "evidence" essentially involves asking the government how far away the Moon is. For what reason this service was made open to the public is unknown. But we may as well just go to the NASA website if we are relying on the government for our information.

From an article on the Moonbounce:

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/moonbounce-propagation-eme.php

Moonbounce basics

The basis of operation of Moonbounce or EME, Earth-Moon-Earth is the use of the Moon as a passive reflector. In view of the very large distances involved and the fact that the Moon's surface is a poor reflector the path losses are colossal, but nevertheless it is still a form of communication that is theoretically possible to use, and one that many radio amateurs regularly use.

There are clearly two stations in this diagram, not one. References can be found that the technique was developed by the U.S. Military after WWII.

From another Moonbounce reference of someone in Antarctica making a Moonbounce:

https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.535111485198853

Amateur radio operator Craig Hayhow has used the moon to bounce
a radio signal 742 000 km, from Mawson station in Antarctica to
Cornwall in England.

The Cornwall facility mentioned here is likely the Goonhilly Earth Station and 32-Meter Dish used for Moonbounces operated by the ESA:

http://www.arrl.org/news/goonhilly-32-meter-dish-to-be-active-on-moonbounce-on-september-1-2

Goonhilly 32-Meter Dish to be Active on Moonbounce on September 1 – 2

A team of moonbounce enthusiasts expect to activate the 32-meter antenna GHY-6 at Goonhilly, on the Lizard Peninsular in Cornwall (IO70jb) in the UK on September 1 – 2, operating as GB6GHY. The group, including G8GTZ, G8GKQ, and G4NNS, will be on the HB9Q logger while operational, which should be between 0800 and 1200 UTC, but “earlier if possible,” they’ve said.

GB6GHY will concentrate on 3.4 GHz on September 1 and 5.7 GHz on September 2, with the ability to switch bands immediately.

“Anyone with a relatively small dish (3-meter or less) should be able to work us,” their announcement said. The European Space Agency is undertaking a project to upgrade Goonhilly Earth Station to track missions to the Moon and Mars. The work will see the GHY-6 antenna — which carried the 1985 Live Aid concert around the world — upgraded over the span of 2 years.”

This cunning proof is a service that a space agency provides.

The assertion that this is a proof that amateur operators can perform for themselves is incorrect.

Do you mean to say that the Government is spoofing the true nature of the moon by artificially adding ~2.5 seconds to the receiving time?

That seems incredulous since EME propagation predates the internet by a veeery long time.

See this German article (translation provided) describing an early moonbounce experience from 1943. http://pa3fwm.nl/technotes/annex/cqdl-7-79-eme.html

"After activating the Würzmann, I made the following observation: the "perturbation" again appeared, had a duration of several impulses, and larger impulse strength than the strongest nearby targets. It didn't appear until about two seconds after switching on the transmitter and disappeared (pulsatingly) correspondingly later after switching it off. But the rest of the echo image appeared and disappeared at the instance of switching the transmitter on/off. The "perturbation" only occurred when the antenna was aimed to the east, and it disappeared immediately upon a major change of direction, but reappeared only about two seconds after rotating back to the original direction. Apparently we had detected the rising moon behind the clouds with the equipment."

The internet would not be invented for another 40 years, yet the 2-second propagation time is observed. Therefore the hoax-via-internet theory doesn't float.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Moonbounce propagation time and the distance of the Moon from Earth

« on: February 01, 2022, 02:38:36 PM »

It's possible to bounce a radio wave off the moon and back in what's called a 'moonbounce' and is a popular feat of skill for radio amateurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication

There are a multitude of videos online of people pulling off a moonbounce.




From above video >> "Looking at the signal at 10:28. I used the 2 second transmit time as a time-length reference. From the beginning of the transmission to the beginning of the echo, I measure 2.5 seconds, which is round trip time. So, 1.25 seconds one way. 1.25 seconds times 186,000 miles per second (radio wave speed) = 232,500 miles. Google shows 238,900 miles, average distance. Not bad using ruler measuring the signal on the computer screen."

The FE Wiki claims the moon is only 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth. If this were true, the propagation time for a radio wave to travel to the Moon and back would be 32.2 milliseconds.

It is a quite elegant and simple experiment for any Flat Earthers who wish to deduce for themselves the true distance of the Moon.

I look forward to the wild theories and postulations to explain why radio waves take 78x longer to travel to the moon and back in the Flat Earth model.

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Sun is alive and conscious. Undeniable evidence.

« on: December 29, 2021, 02:48:50 AM »

Not the first to speculate about crazy and exotic forms of life existing inside of stars. Life like this probably would not 'yawn' or 'sleep' or do anything remotely Earth-life-like. But it's fun to speculate.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 29, 2021, 02:04:04 AM »

If you work in the US, and pay taxes, you should be allowed to vote. 'No taxation without representation' is like, the cornerstone of American history, the very crux of its independence from Britain. The inverse, taxation earns the right to representation, should be true as well.

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 26, 2021, 02:18:42 PM »

https://twitter.com/NoSpinNews/status/1472983120601403400

https://twitter.com/Kukicat7/status/1473743177806974977

I'm glad he's still trying.  One of the few good things he's done.

I don’t buy it. After spending over a year grifting COVID and vaccine misinformation, he doesn’t just get to backpedal now and get off scot free. He had a duty to protect the country and its people, and he played the equivalent of a arsonist firefighter. One sentence telling people to get vaxxed isn’t enough, even if he went on non-stop pro vax rallies it would still not be enough to undo the damage he has done. No amount of messaging will bring back those who are dead because of him.

29

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA conspiracy questions

« on: December 22, 2021, 06:43:00 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

The conspiracy theory must evolve to be much more encompassing than just NASA. At this time there are 81 Government space agencies around the world, 15 with launch capacity, 3 with human spaceflight capability, 6 with extraterrestrial landing capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies

The conspiracy must also evolve to include the hundreds of companies now dealing in private spaceflight.

https://geoawesomeness.com/2019-top-100-geospatial-companies-startups/

Not to mention also the thousands of companies worldwide that deal with geospatial data and GIS.

This is not even including all of the airlines and pilots, the ocean freight industry, the military, functionally all of the academics and scientists, news weathermen, engineers, doctors, philosophers, politicians, from all over the globe. All but a small population of a few million Flat Earth believers should be in on the conspiracy, more than 7 billion people keeping a very tight secret. Must be a scary world knowing that literally everyone is out to get you.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?

« on: December 22, 2021, 08:35:38 AM »

I don't know.  It's a little complicated and I haven't worked out the details yet.

I appreciate that you haven't worked it out yet. But it's not a detail. Polaris has been the most important star for navigation (in the northern hemisphere) for 1000's of years. It's a big deal. It's not complicated at all in RE. It's right there, for all to see, hovering approximately above the North Pole.
You can't seem to get real distances, continents are missing in full disc satellite images and you don't know where Polaris is. That's pretty much the whole shootin' match in terms of criticality regarding your model and map. None of which are details. They are massive inconsistencies.

So start at the top, figure out where Polaris is and then we can move forward from there.

I think what’s happening with MetaTron (and FE in general) is that they attempt to bend (pun intended) facts about the universe around their beliefs, instead of the other way around, like a normal person. If belief in FE comes first, facts second, then of course you will run into a million errors everywhere you go. A beliefs-first approach won’t get you anywhere, whether you’re a scientist or a bartender and everything in between.

Compare this to hypothesis testing, where the very first step is forming an antithesis to your belief (the null hypothesis) that you must then disprove. FE never makes it this far, it poses the hypothesis (that the Earth is flat) and just runs with it.

The second problem is the bizarre refusal to reject the hypothesis when it is proven incorrect, often what I see is FEs coming up with yet another theory, like a game of conceptual whack-a-mole.

FE theory leads to Celestial Dome theory which leads to Universal Acceleration theory which leads to no-Gravity theory which leads to.. who knows where the rabbit hole will go. On Reddit I saw something about NASA conspiring with the Clinton Foundation to traffic Haitian orphans to Antarctica.

31

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: December 22, 2021, 06:14:18 AM »

The earth is flat as explained by God in the Bible.

Or maybe you don’t understand the Bible correctly. Given all the easily verifiable evidence which shows the earth isn’t flat.
I assume you go to church, do all the people there believe the earth is flat? If not are they all wrong?

Last I checked, any two who gather in HIS name is CHURCH. Flat earth is not a prerequisite to entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Being a satanist here would preclude you from the very narrow gates. Thanks for playing swish swish --l>>>>>>


"The Bible clearly establishes that the Earth is flat. There are hundreds of scriptures that suggest that the Earth is a stationary object and flat. According to 1 Chronicles 16:30, it states that "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable," which means that the Earth is an immobile, fixed object within space. This line of reasoning is continued with other scriptures including Psalm 93:1 which states that "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..." and Isaiah 45:18 with "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."[1]

Although flat Earth is never explicitly stated within the Bible, the state of the Earth as a flat object can be inferred from verses such as Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." [2] If the Earth were actually spherical, then it would be impossible to see this tree from all corners of the Earth. Because it is possible, it proves that the Earth is flat.

The flatness of the Earth is further proven due to the ability of people within the Bible to see to all edges of the Earth. Matthew 4:8 states that "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." Seeing all of the kingdoms in the world would be impossible unless the Earth was flat. This is further supported by Revelation 1:7 stating "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..." A flat Earth would allow everyone on the planet to see someone who is flying above them."

https://www.parlia.com/a/bible-says-earth-flat

Not sure what your point with all of this when the Quran is the definitive word of God, there is unanimous consensus amongst medieval Muslim scholars to the contrary.

Ibn Hazm (d. 1064 CE), wrote over a thousand years ago in his book al-Fisal, "I do not know of a single scholar worth the title of scholar who claims other than that the earth is round. Indeed the evidences in the Quran and Sunnah are numerous to this effect" [al-Fisal, v. 2 p. 78]. Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328 CE), wrote that there is unanimous consensus of all the scholars of Islam that the world is round, and that reality and perception also proves this, for, as he writes, it is well known that the Sun sets on different peoples at different times, and does not set on the whole world at the same time. In fact, writes Ibn Taymiyya, it is truly an ignorant person who claims that the earth is not round. [Majmu al-Fatawa, v. 6, p. 586]. And there are many others scholars, such as al-Razi, who wrote on this subject, and I do not know of any medieval scholar who held another view.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA

« on: December 22, 2021, 05:51:13 AM »

If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere

All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?

So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.

This isn't that different than standard EA. Light rays are bending upwards inside of the medium. This is a non-uniform EA, creating different curves depending on where the Sun is located and shining through the environment.

You are dodging the question of how a glass dome proves any point about our atmosphere and our sun. Glass is approx 2500x denser than air, the change in density from one material to another is literally what causes light refraction in the first place. I could not build a desktop model of a building out of paper and popsicle sticks and claim that those materials are suitable for real world construction, that would be insane. Using solid glass as an analogue to our atmosphere is just absurd, try the experiment again with a dome full of air and see where that gets you, at least that would be started on the right track.

Not to mention the use of a flashlight as a light source, which is not analogous to our Sun. According to the wiki, "The Sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth." If you shone a lightbulb at the glass dome instead of a spotlight you'd get a completely different result.

So the example using a glass dome and a flash light to describe the world is doubly absurd.

33

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: December 17, 2021, 09:56:39 PM »

For me this isn't about government mandates. This is a private sector thing.
In my factory, I'm paying for health insurance. I'm responsible for the safety of the people here. I have to breathe in your pathogens.
If you want to work here, you get vaccinated.

I don't give a crap what the government or the Book of Revelations or Vladimir Putin says.

If you have some problem with getting vaccinated, this isn't the job for you. Just like a vegetarian Hindu is not going to work in a slaughterhouse.

It's ironic how many people are anti-vaxx but also hoo-rah pro-Armed Forces despite the fact that being anti-vaxx will earn you a dishonorable discharge now.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/12/17/1065286802/u-s-military-moves-to-discharge-service-members-who-refuse-to-get-vaccinated

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 16, 2021, 04:46:32 PM »

The biggest impossibility with Universal Acceleration is that you'd reach relativistic speeds within the month, and hit the speed of light within a year. From an initial velocity of 0, a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s would mean that the Flat Earth would reach the speed of light in 11.6 months. So UA needs an entirely different physics paradigm, because depending on the age of the Earth, we would currently be experiencing a velocity that is trillions of times the speed of light.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA

« on: December 16, 2021, 02:58:36 PM »

Maybe if our atmosphere were made of solid glass, then the demonstration would yield some useful insight. Otherwise I fail to see the relevance.

I'm fairly sure that there are more atoms in the atmosphere than there are in that piece of glass.

Air at sea level is 1.225 kg/m^3, whereas glass is ~2500 kg/m^3. So the desktop glass dome example is rendered totally moot by the point that it is exaggerating the refractive effect by the point that glass is over 2000 times denser than air.

Another point of contention about your glass half-sphere example is that the density of the glass at the bottom (touching the plane) and the top are all the same densities. Which is obviously and demonstrably not true when it comes to the atmosphere, climbing to the top of a mountain is evidence enough that the atmosphere is not homogenous. There is a air pressure gradient as you go up in altitude. You would need a glass dome that is 'fuzzy' where it is 25x denser at the base than it is at its mid point, tapering off into nothing as you approach the top boundary.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA

« on: December 15, 2021, 09:58:55 PM »

Maybe if our atmosphere were made of solid glass, then the demonstration would yield some useful insight. Otherwise I fail to see the relevance.

37

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: America's healthcare isn't broken....

« on: December 15, 2021, 07:11:07 PM »

Part of the problem is fat people being fat. You can increase your life expectancy by 10 years if you stop double fisting Big Macs.

I support universal and free access to bariatric surgery for all Americans. The cost savings on healthcare for people who would otherwise suffer a heart attack, diabetes, ruined bones and joints, and mental health just to name a few, would run in the billions.

38

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Eugenics

« on: December 15, 2021, 06:37:52 PM »

I'm not usually one for tinfoil hat conspiracy theories but am I the only one that thinks anti-vaxx movement is actually a veiled eugenics movement intended to improve the USA via the pruning of some problematic demographic groups?

Is it any coincidence that the people with the most aggressive views towards 'outsiders', prone to knee-jerk reactions and militant outbursts, who are selfish to the point of radical individualism, distrustful of authority, and ignorant to the point of believing more pseudoscience than truth, are being exposed to endless torrents of anti-vaxx/mask/lockdown content on social media?

It could merely be that 'the corporate global elite' is so incompetent that they cannot control the flood of disinformation, which is causing Americans with IQs that are too low to suffer.

But in the conspiracy it could also be that the social media companies (namely Facebook) are behind anti-vaxx / anti-mask / anti-lockdown propaganda by sugar coating it in concepts like 'liberty' and 'inalienable rights' and 'freedom', to create an irresistible rhetorical sugar trap to bait the most garbage quality Americans into committing suicide via COVID. At the end of the day it would be plain old eugenics via genocide.

The irony would be that anti-vaxxers are being told via Qanon memes that 'the vaccinated' are actually the targets of this genocide, I think Qanon predicted that in 3 years everyone who is vaccinated would be dead from side effects. This is an obvious misdirect, to lull the real sheep into a false sense of survival and security, when they are truly the ones being lined up on the chopping block.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA

« on: December 14, 2021, 02:58:40 PM »

At equinox, the sun lights half the earth, from longitude to ((longitude +180) mod 360). On the FE map, this turns into simply bisecting the earth, one side is dark, the other is daylight. I have made a graphic of the horizontal component of bending light that I should probably put in it's own thread. Numerous questions arise.

Is the EA wiki page still in effect? I could not find it in the index, just through search.

I once calculated the size of an FE sun 3,500 mi away as 35 miles across. One can measure the energy per square foot, as is well known through solar panels. I calculate the ratio of the ratio of area of the sun to the lit portion of the earth (FE) to be 100,000 to 1. That means that each square foot of the sun has 100,000 times as much energy passing through/generated as the surface of the earth receives. The edge of the dome around the sun must be some pertty remarkable material, ditto whatever holds it up, shade mechanism.

Even more interesting is the total failure of RET explanation for the sun that produces all that power to grow plants, make wind and rain and ocean currents, power solar cells, heat the ground, etc. RET says it is a giant blob of hydrogen that compresses itself into fusion. Not sure it works with 35 mile diameter blob of hydrogen. Pretty sure it doesn't.

More significant is the failure of FET to explain why sunlight can travel up to 2.5x further in one arbitrary direction, over another.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA

« on: December 14, 2021, 05:31:49 AM »

How many phenomenon now are hand-waved away with the explanation of 'light gets curved'?

1. Sailboats descend below the horizon to an observer at sea level because light curves the image of the boat downwards, producing the illusion of a curved plane.
2. Light from the sun is curved into a bean shape as it casts down over the Earths surface, producing the illusion of a sphere illuminated by a distant light source.
3. Light from the stars in the dome are excluded from this principle, producing the illusion of distant stars, galaxies and gas clouds.

My point is that (2) isn't compatible with EA anyway. The explanation for EA describes beams of light radiating out from the sun / stars and being bent vertically - this would result in a circular pattern. There's no explanation offered for the bean shape - that comes from another, incompatible explanation involving lenses. They are both individually flawed and mutually exclusive.

I understand the FE theory of the sun revolving in a circular plane above the flat surface
of the planet at a constant altitude of 3,000 miles (more or less), with its orbital centre
located above the North pole.  Hence the "spotlight" effect on the Earth's surface.

But that seems to ignore the fact that rather than being smaller in diameter than the Earth,
(as per the FE model) in fact the sun is massively larger;  its diameter is 109 times that of
the Earth, measured even with any simple optical telescope.

This leads me to believe that the spotlight effect could not occur as theorised.  Imagine a
table-tennis ball resting on the far side of your room, illuminated by the incandescent bulb
of a table lamp on the opposite side of the room.  This better illustrates the lighting effects
from the sun onto Earth.

The shadow thus formed on the table-tennis ball will not actually form a clearly defined spotlight
on the surface of the ball, but simply its nearside illuminated fully, and it far-side in darkness.
Exactly as per RE theory.

A flat sheet of A4 paper cut to a circular shape and held facing the light will also be fully illuminated
over its entire surface, with again no spotlight effect, and at odds with the FE theory.  How can
this be explained?

And, critically, it makes little difference if the ball and paper are 10 meters distant from the light
source or one metre from the light source.  Which means, in effect, and knowing the size of the
sun, it could be 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface (ouch!) or 93,000,000 miles above, and the
RE model would still hold.

I suspect the FE answer to that will be that the sun isn't that big - it's much smaller in the FE model. I should also point out that TB has stated that the wiki is wrong and that the sun and starts are all up at around 6500 miles, not 3000.

If the Sun is the source of all heat on Earth and it's only 3000-6500 miles away it's a wonder we are not vaporized instantly.