[mahogany]

Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.

In what way, exactly, would the two be alike? Please detail the necessary aspects of both RET and FET to underline your argument.

The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.

In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model. Some FE models have firmament domes and some models do not; some FE models are represented as an infinite plane and other models are not; some FE models are represented as mono-pole and other models are not; some models are represented with Antarctica being a ring of ice around the perimeter of the flat earth plane with the North Pole in the center, while other models are not, etc.       
                         

[Pete Svarrior]

The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.

What makes you believe the FE representation would be "highly inaccurate"? What discrepancies from FE have you observed in Tom's proposed representation? Please be specific - statements like "it's wrong because it's inaccurate" are not very helpful here.

In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model.

Ah, right...

Please let me remind you that the FET subforum is not intended for newcomers with no understanding of the model. If you're not ready to post here yet, please exercise some self-restraint and let the rest of us discuss in peace.

[mahogany]

The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.

What makes you believe the FE representation would be "highly inaccurate"? What discrepancies from FE have you observed in Tom's proposed representation? Please be specific - statements like "it's wrong because it's inaccurate" are not very helpful here.

In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model.

Ah, right...

Please let me remind you that the FET subforum is not intended for newcomers with no understanding of the model. If you're not ready to post here yet, please exercise some self-restraint and let the rest of us discuss in peace.

As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane. My question to Tom was what would his prediction be regarding light patterns if the Earth's atmosphere was not incorrectly represented as a solid piece of magnifying glass (because the Earth's atmosphere is not solid glass) and the spotlight Sun was not incorrectly represented as 1:1 scale the size of the flat Earth plane (because FET does not have the local Sun this large in scale).

In terms of my comment about there not being a unified FE model, I am only referencing what is stated in the FES Wiki. The Wiki states "here is a picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, Flat Earth. Other maps representing various Flat Earth models can be found on our Flat Earth Maps page." The Layout of Continents section further goes on to describe the main point of contention among Flat Earthers regarding the several theories concerning the nature and extent of Antarctica. Images of various different Flat Earth geographic models are then shown. This leads me to conclude that there is not a unifying FE model. 
       

[Pete Svarrior]

As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.

And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.

So, I am offering you a chance to fix the errors in your argumentation. It's possible that you have a point there somewhere, but that you've obfuscated it with your inadequate presentation.

Do not simply repeat your incomplete argument - I've read it the first time. Instead, fill the gaps and make yourself clear.

[mahogany]

As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.

And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.

So, I am offering you a chance to fix the errors in your argumentation. It's possible that you have a point there somewhere, but that you've obfuscated it with your inadequate presentation.

Do not simply repeat your incomplete argument - I've read it the first time. Instead, fill the gaps and make yourself clear.

We may be crossing wires and apologize if it's coming across as trying to obfuscate.

I have been referring to the Model Setup as being "highly inaccurate".
I noticed that you are questioning me about the Depiction as being "highly inaccurate".

It could very well be that light patterns do behave as Depicted in the YouTube video. Regardless, I was only referring to the need for a better model setup, where Earth's atmosphere is not represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and the Sun was more accurately represented in scale as per FET.
 
In my own example, it could very well be that rocket engines perform and "push" in a vacuum. I would also be referring to the need for a better model setup, if someone were to try and represent the vacuum of space using air (i.e. launching a model rocket in their backyard).

This site has been better than most all of the nonsense Facebook sites I've seen where debate doesn't even seem to occur; I don't want to get kicked off of TFES. Am only trying to understand and have good spirited debate. 

[Action80]

As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.

Where do you come up with the idea the source of the light used in the video is on a scale of 1:1 to the map?