[timterroo]

If the earth is flat, you should be able to see the sun through a telescope in the middle of the night (assuming you are high enough that your view is not obstructed by obstacles) - perhaps from an airplane or tall mountain. Why is it that you cannot?

[Dr David Thork]

The sun is a spotlight. When it isn't shining on you, you can't see it. This is a pretty basic concept of FET. You'll need to understand the spotlight sun in order to progress this thread.

[timterroo]

If you are looking at a spotlight, such as on a stage at a concert, you can still see the spotlight even though you are in the dark. It only stands to reason that you should be able to see the sun in a similar manner.

[ICanScienceThat]

The sun is a spotlight. When it isn't shining on you, you can't see it. This is a pretty basic concept of FET. You'll need to understand the spotlight sun in order to progress this thread.

I think that depends on who you ask. I've seen FEs here who readily admit that the sun goes below the horizon. They seem to think this is caused by a bending of light. I think they call it Electromagnetic Acceleration.

So... the spotlight thing. Not accepted by the entire FE community.

If you want to stick to the spotlight, it wouldn't be too hard to test it. A spotlight won't explain the sun going below the horizon. For that, you'll need the light to bend.

[JRowe]

What is it you expect to see? Paint me a picture. We have a black sky, and an object not emitting or reflecting any light set against it.
I can't see to the end of my garden at night, with or without a telescope, and you expect to see something thousands of kilometers away?

[Curious Squirrel]

What is it you expect to see? Paint me a picture. We have a black sky, and an object not emitting or reflecting any light set against it.
I can't see to the end of my garden at night, with or without a telescope, and you expect to see something thousands of kilometers away?

I believe he's referencing the FE Perspective Hypothesis, wherein a ship vanishes 'over the horizon' due to the limits of perspective and can be restored using a telescope. The sun is said to vanish for similar reasons, so why can we not restore it the same way? I believe there is a difference, but I'm not recalling it at this time.

[timterroo]

Indeed, I am referencing the perspective hypothesis, and adding in some common sense about flat planes.

To answer JRowe's question...

What is it you expect to see? Paint me a picture. We have a black sky, and an object not emitting or reflecting any light set against it.
I can't see to the end of my garden at night, with or without a telescope, and you expect to see something thousands of kilometers away?

If there was a street light at the end of your garden, you would be able to see it. If your garden is 10 miles away, you should be able to see that same street light with a telescope even though everything else around you is dark. We can see galaxies thousands of light years away with telescopes, so theoretically, we should be able to see the sun which according to FET is only about 3,000 miles vertical and would be several thousands miles away horizontally at night.

[JRowe]

Indeed, I am referencing the perspective hypothesis, and adding in some common sense about flat planes.

To answer JRowe's question...

What is it you expect to see? Paint me a picture. We have a black sky, and an object not emitting or reflecting any light set against it.
I can't see to the end of my garden at night, with or without a telescope, and you expect to see something thousands of kilometers away?

If there was a street light at the end of your garden, you would be able to see it. If your garden is 10 miles away, you should be able to see that same street light with a telescope even though everything else around you is dark. We can see galaxies thousands of light years away with telescopes, so theoretically, we should be able to see the sun which according to FET is only about 3,000 miles vertical and would be several thousands miles away horizontally at night.

You can't reclaim the sight of a ship with a telescope, i've tried.
You'd only be able to see the street light if there was a straight line view from you to the light. if it's night, that's obviously not going to be the case. Ok then, maybe you'd see where the Sun's light reflects off of, the area under the light? Sure. Except the Sun's so far away it seems like it's touching the horizon.
it's not a street lamp at the end of a garden, it's a face-down night light.

[ICanScienceThat]

Indeed, I am referencing the perspective hypothesis, and adding in some common sense about flat planes.

To answer JRowe's question...

What is it you expect to see? Paint me a picture. We have a black sky, and an object not emitting or reflecting any light set against it.
I can't see to the end of my garden at night, with or without a telescope, and you expect to see something thousands of kilometers away?

If there was a street light at the end of your garden, you would be able to see it. If your garden is 10 miles away, you should be able to see that same street light with a telescope even though everything else around you is dark. We can see galaxies thousands of light years away with telescopes, so theoretically, we should be able to see the sun which according to FET is only about 3,000 miles vertical and would be several thousands miles away horizontally at night.

You can't reclaim the sight of a ship with a telescope, i've tried.
You'd only be able to see the street light if there was a straight line view from you to the light. if it's night, that's obviously not going to be the case. Ok then, maybe you'd see where the Sun's light reflects off of, the area under the light? Sure. Except the Sun's so far away it seems like it's touching the horizon.
it's not a street lamp at the end of a garden, it's a face-down night light.

It's a facing-down night light that somehow appears to be a circle as it traverses the sky right up until it reaches the horizon where it inexplicably squishes not into an ellipse, but a squashed circle.

[iamcpc]

You can't reclaim the sight of a ship with a telescope, i've tried.

This is something that non flat earthers support their claims that the earth is round. Whatever is obstructing your view of the ship is the same thing that obstructs your view of the sun during a sunset.

I understand the perspective arguments about the disappearing ship from a flat earth perspective 100%. What I don't understand is why a telescope or binoculars don't bring the ship back into view. I feel like that either supports the round earth model or it means the earth is flat and the ocean must be curved or have curved waves like the tides or something.

You'd only be able to see the street light if there was a straight line view from you to the light. if it's night, that's obviously not going to be the case. Ok then, maybe you'd see where the Sun's light reflects off of, the area under the light? Sure. Except the Sun's so far away it seems like it's touching the horizon.
it's not a street lamp at the end of a garden, it's a face-down night light.

We can't really describe a start to a man made spotlight. They are totally different. In a spotlight, like when at a play or a concert, I can see the spotlight come, I can see when it's on me, and I can see it leaving.
Regardless of if the earth is round or flat the sun is 298797 times more powerful than any spotlight so we can't expect it to behave the same way.

[JRowe]

It's a facing-down night light that somehow appears to be a circle as it traverses the sky right up until it reaches the horizon where it inexplicably squishes not into an ellipse, but a squashed circle.

Short version: space isn't uniform. Long version, see sig.

This is something that non flat earthers support their claims that the earth is round. Whatever is obstructing your view of the ship is the same thing that obstructs your view of the sun during a sunset.

I understand the perspective arguments about the disappearing ship from a flat earth perspective 100%. What I don't understand is why a telescope or binoculars don't bring the ship back into view. I feel like that either supports the round earth model or it means the earth is flat and the ocean must be curved or have curved waves like the tides or something.

I don't use the perspective argument, I have a couple of issues with it with respect to height, for my model it comes down to the force that keeps us on the Earth's surface affecting light directly, so when it reflects off the boat it insteads hits the sea. The higher the part of the boat, the longer it takes before it meets the sea.

We can't really describe a start to a man made spotlight. They are totally different. In a spotlight, like when at a play or a concert, I can see the spotlight come, I can see when it's on me, and I can see it leaving.
Regardless of if the earth is round or flat the sun is 298797 times more powerful than any spotlight so we can't expect it to behave the same way.

The basic principle holds. It doesn't matter how powerful it is when it's not pointing at you, the power of the spotlight doesn't change the rules at play.

[JHelzer]

If there was a street light at the end of your garden, you would be able to see it. If your garden is 10 miles away, you should be able to see that same street light with a telescope even though everything else around you is dark. We can see galaxies thousands of light years away with telescopes, so theoretically, we should be able to see the sun which according to FET is only about 3,000 miles vertical and would be several thousands miles away horizontally at night.

The atmolayer is not transparent.  It distorts and then obscures visibility over great distances.

[alfred1]

If the earth is flat the Sun should always shine on us. It would light the whole Earth equally.

[timterroo]

If the earth is flat the Sun should always shine on us. It would light the whole Earth equally.

You are applying a round earth concept to a flat earth theory. Can't do that. In FET, the sun acts as a spotlight, directing light to a limited, circular, area. FET assumes the sun is also NOT a sphere.

I have recently experienced a phenomenon that, to me, is proof the earth is ROUND. I would have a hard time convincing anyone of this phenomenon though.... here it is:

I returned from a vacation to Colorado a few days ago.... as I was driving cross-country through the VERY flat state of Nebraska, I observed the lovely, endless, corn fields that stretch for miles and miles in all directions. It just so happens that this time of year the corn is right about eye level when driving on the interstate in my van. As I looked across one field, I could see the flat surface of the tops of the corn as though it was an ocean of corn. If you understand calculus and statistics, you can understand that the average height of all the corn in that very flat field was the same for each corn plant - there is not any significant deviation from the average height. This allows you to observe the corn field as a flat surface, or an ocean. In looking across a corn field (at nearly eye-level), I could see the tops of the corn for about 1 mile or so until strangely enough, the tops of the corn disappeared. In other words, there appeared to be a 'hill' and the tops of the distant corn faded below the nearer corn. That seems consistent with the mathematical conclusion that if the earth is round, it should dip about 8 inches per mile. The distance that I observed this effect was too short to attribute to the perceptual effect. The difficulty in proving this, is that someone can easily say, "How do you know there isn't actually a hill in the corn field?" Well, I can't without surveying the entire area. However, being from Nebraska, I know that these flat spreads of land are REALLY flat, and have no hills. I observed this in multiple corn fields during my 6 hour drive through Nebraska. That is my 2 cents.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

You can't reclaim the sight of a ship with a telescope, i've tried.

>> Why not?
 
You'd only be able to see the street light if there was a straight line view from you to the light. if it's night, that's obviously not going to be the case.

>> You have a straight line view in the daytime, but suddenly, as night falls, you don't? Why not?

Ok then, maybe you'd see where the Sun's light reflects off of, the area under the light? Sure. Except the Sun's so far away it seems like it's touching the horizon. it's not a street lamp at the end of a garden, it's a face-down night light.

You sure about that?

[iamcpc]

I don't use the perspective argument, I have a couple of issues with it with respect to height, for my model it comes down to the force that keeps us on the Earth's surface affecting light directly, so when it reflects off the boat it insteads hits the sea. The higher the part of the boat, the longer it takes before it meets the sea.

This makes a lot more sense to me than the perspective argument. I feel like this is a very valid point and something to look into. Einstein had shown that gravity bends light so that could be happening here. The issue with that is that if the light was hitting the water shouldn't some of it bounce off the water in the form of a reflection?

The basic principle holds. It doesn't matter how powerful it is when it's not pointing at you, the power of the spotlight doesn't change the rules at play.

I went to theater in the park and they had spotlights shining all over the crowd. When the spotlight was not on me i could clearly see it shining on people on the opposite side of the park. If I had binoculars or a telescope I could see the spotlight from VERY far away.

This is why I prefer an infinite repeating plane flat earth model.

[JRowe]

You'd only be able to see the street light if there was a straight line view from you to the light. if it's night, that's obviously not going to be the case.

>> You have a straight line view in the daytime, but suddenly, as night falls, you don't? Why not?

That is literally the definition of night. You do not have a straight line view to the Sun's lit face.

This makes a lot more sense to me than the perspective argument. I feel like this is a very valid point and something to look into. Einstein had shown that gravity bends light so that could be happening here. The issue with that is that if the light was hitting the water shouldn't some of it bounce off the water in the form of a reflection?

Sure, but to do that you'd need to be able to see the water it's reflecting off of. Light disperses; a ship doesn't vanishes when it's the same length as its height away, the light from the bottom of the ship is spread over a larger area. It's the same general rule as a light being head on, vs at an angle, the best you could expect to see is a diminished grey smudge that's just not going to be apparent against a constantly moving blue surface.

The basic principle holds. It doesn't matter how powerful it is when it's not pointing at you, the power of the spotlight doesn't change the rules at play.

I went to theater in the park and they had spotlights shining all over the crowd. When the spotlight was not on me i could clearly see it shining on people on the opposite side of the park. If I had binoculars or a telescope I could see the spotlight from VERY far away.

This is why I prefer an infinite repeating plane flat earth model.

An infinite repeating flat plane isn't the farthest thing from my model, they still require a spotlight Sun.
As far as those spotlights go, you'd still need them to be in a comparable situation; you can see the light between the Sun and ground, and what it reflects off of, but if it's so far away that it appears to be touching the ground then what is there to see?
After sunset you do get a vague light without any direct view of the Sun itself, but once it moves farther than that...

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

That is literally the definition of night. You do not have a straight line view to the Sun's lit face.

Well, my definition is that you don't have a straight line to the sun at all, because the rest of the globe is in the way, and you're in the shadow cast by the Earth when the sun is illuminating the other hemisphere... but are you saying that an observer still has a straight line of sight to the sun, just not to it's 'lit face' ?

[pj1]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand why (when the we can't see the spotlight pointing at us) we don't see something akin to this?

See attached

[AATW]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand why (when the we can't see the spotlight pointing at us) we don't see something akin to this?

See attached

I have come to learn there are different FE models but I don't think any of them claim that the sun is actually a spotlight - i.e. there is no celestial "lampshade" on it which stops light going out of the side of the sun.

Tom's model - which is based on Rowbotham's - claims that you can't see the sun because it has perspective. This is the most nonsensical version I know of, clearly perspective doesn't work like that.

Pete favours EA which claims that there is a force which bends light upwards so the light simply goes up and over our heads. That one sort of works but I don't think there's any actual evidence of that force. You could argue that sunset is that evidence but that is circular reasoning.

I don't understand JRowe's model, he says there is no clear line of sight to the sun at night which is true in Round Earth model too. I'm not clear where the sun is in his model though.