The basic fallacy with your Diagram is that it depicts one group of Sun rays bending and making U-Turns. In this fashion, you are attempting to explain the phases of the Moon, why sunlight can be reflected under clouds. Etc..
But, in reality, the Sun emits rays from its surface in all directions of it's globe surface. If you were to depict rays in this fashion, than on a flat Earth's surface one would see light no matter where they stood.
You really struggle to substantiate your claims. Allow me to repeat myself:
I understand
that you think this is the case, but you need to explain
why that is. It is not sufficient to say that this is the case "in reality".
You've made a mistake somewhere. I want to point at it and help you understand. However, this will only be possible once you've laid out your reasoning in steps.
In your Diagram, you need to take the 2D set of rays shown in your first Diagram and then do a "revolve" of the those all around the globe Sun. You then end up with a more correct Diagram where the Sun is emitting rays from all directions, thus light reaching all surfaces of a Flat Earth.
This is incorrect. If you created the same diagram in three dimensions, including the unilluminated part of the Earth, you would end up with a circular illuminated area, one that covers part, not all of the Earth.
If you think otherwise, you have to lay out your logic, in steps. Allow me to be perfectly clear:
it will be insufficient for you to state that:
- You think there's a fallacy
- You are correct "in reality"
without any meaningful qualification of these claims.
Light simply does not bend and make U-Turns in such drastic fashions such that at a certain distance I could not see the Sun.
Of course it does. In the FE model, that's sunrise and sunset. At the time of these phenomena, you observe the Sun being partially obscured by the Earth. Move a little further, and boom, you're in an area of the Earth that's not reached by any sunlight - because all light rays are either obstructed by the Earth, or not hitting the Earth at all.
Once again, if you disagree with what's posited in the diagrams, you'll have to illustrate
why. If you think drawing additional light rays may be helpful, draw them.
Do not repeatedly state that there is a contradiction without explaining what it is.
We know that this is not true because we can see other Suns (Stars) that are light years away. If your EA Diagram were true, than we would not be able to see such far away bodies.
This also does not follow. Whether an EA light ray will reach the Earth or not depends on (broadly) two factors: the elevation of the source and the angle of incidence of the ray. You are arguing that we should be seeing wide-angle rays from the Sun, and backing it up with the height of other stars. This is a non-sequitur.
You can have the last word Pete. But, the fallacy with your Diagram has been summarized.
You have yet to state your objection in a way that's complete, coherent, and free of fallacies itself.