[Westprog]

I suggest that this thread deals only with things that everyone participating can see and understand, based on their own experience and level of knowledge.

So: no scientific theories. No photographs. No video. No equations. No personal testimony of what someone has seen through a telescope.

No links or references to arguments that someone else has made. No cutting and pasting from FAQs or Wikipedia.

I would like to think that there would be no ad hominem arguments, but that is probably too much to hope for.

Just the shared common sense day to day observations of ordinary people.

[Westprog]

What does this leave us? We could talk about going to the sea shore and looking at ships through a telescope, but not everyone can do that.

So that leaves the Earth, the Sun, and the sky.

What do the proponents of the round Earth theory assert?

That the Sun is very large (much larger than the Earth), and that it is a long way off. That the distance to the Sun is fairly constant. That the round Earth is rotating on its own axis, and that it is this rotation that makes the Sun appear and disappear from any given fixed point.


What to the proponents of the flat Earth theory assert?

That the Sun is comparatively small, and that it is comparatively near. Hence the distance between any given observer and the Sun will vary. That the Sun is not a sphere but a kind of spotlight. That the Sun moves above the flat Earth and that it is this movement which causes day and night.

[Westprog]

Let's consider what we know about objects that move away from us. What's the most obvious quality that they have?

Well, as things move away, they become smaller. As they move closer, they get bigger.

Things do not disappear when they move away, except in three ways. They are at such a distance that they've become too small to be seen, or some other object has appeared between the observer and the object, or there is insufficient light to illuminate the object.

So a car accelerating down a straight road will not suddenly disappear. It will get smaller and smaller.


Let's consider the apparent shape of objects. Only one object will always appear as a circle, from whatever angle it is viewed. That's a sphere. One can easily verify this by looking at household objects. Plenty of objects will look like a circle from a particular angle. Cups, plates, etc. Only a ball will always look like a circle.

[Westprog]

So, what would the Sun look like according to the round Earth model? As it is a sphere, it will always present as a circle. The sun will continue to be visible unless obscured by clouds, or hidden behind the Earth itself. One would expect the Sun to disappear behind the horizon, being for some time only partly visible. Then it would become entirely invisible until the Earth's rotation brought it back into view.

What would the Sun look like according to the flat Earth model? As it passed overhead, it would increase and decrease in apparent size. However, as there would always be a clear line of sight to it, it would never disappear. As the Sun is a spotlight, not a sphere, it would only appear as a circle when directly pointed at the observer. As it moved away, it would present the edge of the spotlight, which would appear as an ellipse.

It's perfectly possible for anyone to verify this for themselves, with a partner. Have the partner hold an orange while you rotate on the spot. The orange will remain the same size, but will go out of view as the back of your head gets in the way. If you do this in a big field and have your partner a long way off, the scale will be comparable to that of the round Earth schema.

Then get your partner to shine a flashlight at you. Then have them move away and direct the flashlight elsewhere. The flashlight will get apparently smaller, and it will no longer appear as a circle.

It would be an interesting challenge to take a flashlight and to use it to demonstrate the flat Earth model while conforming to the reality we all observe. I'm not sure how that could be done but it would be an interesting challenge.

[Westprog]

I would hope that replies (if any) would conform to the simple format requested at the beginning of this thread. No links, no scientific references, no cut and pasted articles, just simple arguments based on observations open to everybody.

[Ratboy]

So far I do not buy the premise here.  Since I only see one face of the moon, why does it have to be a sphere?  Sure a sphere looks like a circle from whatever angle it is observed from, but the moon is always the same face.  It could be a giant pie plate and that would look the same.  It has to be very far away and it circles the earth dropping in the west and rising in the east, but I see nothing to tell me it is a sphere.  The way to tell the earth is round is to travel north and south and see how the sun and moon change paths.  Is traveling allowed here? 
If we are not allowed travel then we could become Rowbothams and base our arrogant views on what the world looks like to us.  If we do not travel, this moon pie plate could even be turning so that it always faces me.  Maybe I am special and everything in the universe circles around me?  If the earth was a flat plate and the sun and moon orbit the plate and drop to the other side (underneath the Earth like the ancient Egyptians believed) when I cannot see them, I think it would look the same to me.

[Tumeni]

So far I do not buy the premise here.  Since I only see one face of the moon, why does it have to be a sphere?

Phases of the Moon, shadows upon the surface show it be a sphere from personal observation.

Careful observation by astronomers (yes, I know, not my personal observation) of the slight variance in the visible outer edge, due to irregularities in the orbit, reinforce this.

[Westprog]

The Moon could be a big pie plate, but it couldn't be a pie plate and be comparatively close to the Earth because then it would not present as a circle to everyone, all the time. If you have a roomful of people and you hold up a plate, it will appear circular to some of them, but most of them will see it from the side. Nobody has ever seen the Moon as anything but a circle (wholly or partly illuminated), which implies that it's either

• A long way off
• A sphere
• Both

However, I deliberately didn't include the Moon, due to the potential for digressions which might not be helpful. The Sun proves the case amply.

[Westprog]

So far I do not buy the premise here.  Since I only see one face of the moon, why does it have to be a sphere?

Phases of the Moon, shadows upon the surface show it be a sphere from personal observation.

Careful observation by astronomers (yes, I know, not my personal observation) of the slight variance in the visible outer edge, due to irregularities in the orbit, reinforce this.

That may well be true*, but I'm trying to stick to the very basic here. Shadows on the moon require a level of observation and analysis that many people won't be concerned with.


*Well, it is true.

[juner]

Please don't quintuple post. There is an edit feature, use it if you want to add/change your post.

[Tumeni]

Shadows on the moon require a level of observation and analysis that many people won't be concerned with.

Baseless assertion. As far as I know, you've conducted no study/poll of the number(s) of regular folks who have observed this, or are concerned with it, so you're in no position to dismiss either my observations or the observations of others as falling below your arbitrary level.

Quote "I suggest that this thread deals only with things that everyone participating can see and understand, based on their own experience and level of knowledge."

[Buran]

I did this exact experiment to scale, scale flat earth, scale spotlight sun, scale height of sun. I could still see the sun well beyond the halfway point of the earth's diameter, and it was still very high in the sky. I don't think this proves the earth is round, but it does prove, in my opinion, that the sun does not behave according to the wiki on this site. Im not even sure what zetetic principal would bring you to that conclusion

[Westprog]

Shadows on the moon require a level of observation and analysis that many people won't be concerned with.

Baseless assertion. As far as I know, you've conducted no study/poll of the number(s) of regular folks who have observed this, or are concerned with it, so you're in no position to dismiss either my observations or the observations of others as falling below your arbitrary level.

Quote "I suggest that this thread deals only with things that everyone participating can see and understand, based on their own experience and level of knowledge."

Yes, the key word being everyone. If I were dealing with, say, a science class full of 13-year-olds, I'd assume that they would be able to grasp the concept of shadows on the moon. However, this is not a typical group. This is the actual flat Earth forum. We can safely assume, from a cursory glance at the kind of arguments and counter-arguments put forward here, that there is no intuitive grasp of these concepts among the people arguing in favour of the flat Earth "theory".

I have no problem with a discussion about the shadow on the Moon, but it's a safe bet that the people who can understand it, or visualise it, or who would actually go out and look at it, wouldn't be promulgating flat Earth in the first place. Their research kit involves Google, not telescopes.

The idea of this particular post was to present the absolute simplest concepts in terms that everyone has experienced.

[retlaw]

Not everyone can experience this unless you come to my house now and had been here three years ago.
Although its very relevant to this topic.

The sun has moved.
I have been living in this house for 23 years and its located in very mountainous country.
During the summer solstice for three weeks we would get a double sunset during the farthest northern sun cycle.
The sun would set into a mountain peak and then come out again and shine for a little longer and then set again.
Two sunsets in one day for three weeks during summer solstice.
What was even cooler about it was the fact that the second time the sun can out from behind the mountain it would only light up a small section of the neighborhood. I was one of the places that got the extra sun while most of the neighborhood didn't.

Three summers ago it all changed at once.
The sun now doesn't give me any more second sun sets.
Before the solstice it goes into the mountain as always which never makes it back into coming out again for the second setting.
The sun now comes in over the mountain peak and drops down into the valley between two peaks and sets where it always did but the route it takes to get there has changed.
Now it is on the other side of the peak for much longer then three weeks, more like over 4 weeks.

My neighbors can back my claim.

The suns path has moved three years ago.

[Ratboy]

Not everyone can experience this unless you come to my house now and had been here three years ago.
Although its very relevant to this topic.

The sun has moved.
I have been living in this house for 23 years and its located in very mountainous country.
During the summer solstice for three weeks we would get a double sunset during the farthest northern sun cycle.
The sun would set into a mountain peak and then come out again and shine for a little longer and then set again.
Two sunsets in one day for three weeks during summer solstice.
What was even cooler about it was the fact that the second time the sun can out from behind the mountain it would only light up a small section of the neighborhood. I was one of the places that got the extra sun while most of the neighborhood didn't.

Three summers ago it all changed at once.
The sun now doesn't give me any more second sun sets.
Before the solstice it goes into the mountain as always which never makes it back into coming out again for the second setting.
The sun now comes in over the mountain peak and drops down into the valley between two peaks and sets where it always did but the route it takes to get there has changed.
Now it is on the other side of the peak for much longer then three weeks, more like over 4 weeks.

My neighbors can back my claim.

The suns path has moved three years ago.

So do you think your location has settled?  A friend of mine had to get a flexible gas line on his house because the soil was moving.  Do you think the mountain rose, as this does happen and maybe considering the angles it could move enough?  Do you think the earth has wobbled enough?  Do you think the earth's orbit has changed enough?  Any ideas? 

[AATW]

I did this exact experiment to scale, scale flat earth, scale spotlight sun, scale height of sun. I could still see the sun well beyond the halfway point of the earth's diameter, and it was still very high in the sky. I don't think this proves the earth is round, but it does prove, in my opinion, that the sun does not behave according to the wiki on this site. Im not even sure what zetetic principal would bring you to that conclusion

Long shadows at sunset prove the sun is physically low in the sky at sunset (or light is bending so it appears to be).
The flat earth model as presented in the Wiki demonstrably doesn't work.

[Westprog]

I did this exact experiment to scale, scale flat earth, scale spotlight sun, scale height of sun. I could still see the sun well beyond the halfway point of the earth's diameter, and it was still very high in the sky. I don't think this proves the earth is round, but it does prove, in my opinion, that the sun does not behave according to the wiki on this site. Im not even sure what zetetic principal would bring you to that conclusion

Long shadows at sunset prove the sun is physically low in the sky at sunset (or light is bending so it appears to be).
The flat earth model as presented in the Wiki demonstrably doesn't work.

Isn't it interesting, though, here on the forum where there's the opportunity to defend the theory, to explain how the Sun stays the same size in the sky as it's moving further away, that it disappears even when there's supposedly a clear line of sight to it - there's nobody in the entire flat Earth community willing to explain their point of view.

However, I'm quite sure that this argument hasn't convinced anyone who's a true believer. Indeed, the capacity to maintain the faith in the face of contradictory evidence is a plus point for this kind of belief system. Evidence is not evaluated according to whether it's reliable or not - it's evaluated according to whether it can be used to support the theory.

So the entirety of the world's airline schedules and routes, which only make sense in the context of a globe, are ignored, while the occasional apparently anomalous misread and misunderstood timetable is triumphantly produced.

I was under no illusion that this thread would be engaged with, because that never happens. The fundamental claim of the flat Earth movement is that their view of the world corresponds with how it actually appears. I demonstrated (and was supported by a number of other posters) that on a fundamental level, this is not the case. The world, as it appears to us all, appears to be a globe, according to the most basic evidence of our own eyes. To maintain their theory of a hovering microSun, the flat Earth movement have to presuppose an esoteric mishmash of optical illusions. The Sun, which is clearly always about the same size in the sky, is somehow magnified according to some non-existent refractive magic - a magic that doesn't apply to aircraft, which become smaller as they move away from us. When the Sun is quite clearly hidden behind the horizon, which any human being can see almost every day of their lives, then that is actually... well, I can't wrap my head around quite how they justify that one, but it obviously involves denying the evidence of their own eyes.

The interesting thing is always the psychological aspect. The active mind, when presented with facts that contradict a worldview, will be fascinated, enthralled, and seek to incorporate these facts into a new worldview, that explains them as simply as possible. The mind that seeks reassurance and comfort will react to facts that contradict the worldview with anger and avoidance.

I didn't expect anyone to come up with an argument to explain that even though the Sun always appears about the same size in the sky, it's actually at widely varying distances. It's too painful a topic. I anticipated

• Avoidance - simply failing to respond
• Insult - accusations of being paid, being a bot, being a shill, being unwilling to face the truth
• Digression - spinning off on an entirely other topic, preferably entirely unverifiable
• Giving a list of references that supposedly completely answer everything
• Some procedural quibble about the right way to post
• Shutting down the thread altogether as an embarassment

[Tom Bishop]

Isn't it interesting, though, here on the forum where there's the opportunity to defend the theory, to explain how the Sun stays the same size in the sky as it's moving further away, that it disappears even when there's supposedly a clear line of sight to it - there's nobody in the entire flat Earth community willing to explain their point of view.

Except for the books we have written over the last 150 years and the Wiki which talks about that, right?

[Tumeni]

Isn't it interesting, though, here on the forum where there's the opportunity to defend the theory, to explain how the Sun stays the same size in the sky as it's moving further away, that it disappears even when there's supposedly a clear line of sight to it - there's nobody in the entire flat Earth community willing to explain their point of view.

Except for the books we have written over the last 150 years and the Wiki which talks about that, right?

So, in the space of one sentence;

• Avoidance - simply failing to respond
• Giving a list of references that supposedly completely answer everything

If your response is "Look at the books I/we have written" (but not mention any book(s) in particular) and/or "It's all in the Wiki" (but fail to cite anything in particular in the Wiki), then why have this forum at all?

[Buran]

Isn't it interesting, though, here on the forum where there's the opportunity to defend the theory, to explain how the Sun stays the same size in the sky as it's moving further away, that it disappears even when there's supposedly a clear line of sight to it - there's nobody in the entire flat Earth community willing to explain their point of view.

Except for the books we have written over the last 150 years and the Wiki which talks about that, right?

Tom, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I just don't know what experiment I can conduct to prove to myself what the wiki and you say is true.