[ichoosereality]

Some clear indications of the round earth require a bit of effort to observe (like noticing that the stars change as you move north/south requires you to travel a bit).
But issues with the sun can be observed by anyone right where you are.

The FET posits some sort of "spot light sun" that tracks around the claimed disk earth roughly around the equator (a bit north or south depending on the season though what causes this movement is not specified).  The day light illumination provided by this FE sun is going be a round spot fading into darkness and this spot must fit roughly between the center and outer edge of the disk.   So the radius of this spot is roughly half the radius of the disk.  But that means the area of the illuminated spot is only 1/4 the area of the entire disk, yet we observer it to be half.  Doesn't this refute the FE model?

We observe the light / dark transition to be a straight line (usually not due north / south but still a straight line), but the spot the "spot light sun" would cast would be round and thus have a curved light to dark or dark to light transition.  This transition zone will also be much wider than what we observe. The sunrise and sunset times available online for basically any city on earth are based on the globe model and I have never heard of anyone anywhere every claiming they are wrong.   Doesn't this refute the FE model? 

The FET claims that the sun rising and setting behind the horizon is an illusion of perspective where a far distant object appears low on the horizon and as it nears you it appears to rise.  But the perspective illusion explanation does not provide for an equal amount of rise irrespective of the position of the sun.  The track of the sun across the sky changes day to day, but the angular distance we observe the sun travel along that track is the the same for every hour of the day.  But the perspective illusion has a much smaller angular change in the morning or evening than it does at midday.  Doesn't this refute the FE model?

The sun does not appear at sunrise as a tiny dot that grows size but it comes up from behind the horizon and is observed to be larger than it is for the bulk of its trek across the sky and likewise for sunset.  The perception of a large disk size at sunrise or sunset is due to atmospheric distortion, but clearly it is not a tiny dot that grows or shrinks but we observe it (please be extremely careful observing the sun) as roughly the same size throughout its daily passage.  Doesn't this refute the FE model?

[JS]

Doesn't this refute the FE model?

It is hard to know what the FE model really is, as one would need to find some actual maths that would, e.g. be able to predict when exactly the sun rises or sets on a specific day at a specific location.

RE models can do this very precisely and reliably and the maths for those models is readily available and conforms to all the classical assumptions of standard physics and astronomy. So I would be curious to see not just textual explanations and drawings but an actual FE math model where I can enter my coordinates, the model gives me the times and I can check if those times conform to reality.

Does such a model exist? If not, how do people who support the flat earth theory then interpret the discrepancy that models based on RE are able to predict such things while models based on FE do not even exist?

[AlephNull]

The "sun" and "moon" are actually conglomerations of bodies that cooperate together but can behave separately also - also they don't illumine "half" the earth at a time - the southern ocean is much larger - an unknown amount actually - than it is on the globetard model - that is why so many ships get lost down there, b/c nobody really knows the layout as one approaches Antarctica - and as I've said on other posts - nobody has been back to Antarctica since Admiral Byrd. Somebody mentioned David Attenborough - he is part of a Satan worshipping cult and is a pedophile so nothing he says can be taken seriously.

[Tron]

the southern ocean is much larger - an unknown amount actually - than it is on the globetard model - that is why so many ships get lost down there, b/c nobody really knows the layout as one approaches Antarctica -

I can't find a resource to show me all the lost ships down there...  can you provide a link?

[Kangaroony]

I live in Melbourne, and I can be standing in full sunlight when I phone my friend
in Perth, who confirms it's totally dark there.  The distance from one city to the
other is 1,700 miles.  I don't understand why she can't see even a light glow from
the sun, looking east towards Melbourne. 

According to FET, the sun is 3,000 miles above the earth's surface.  Using simple
trigonometry, this means she's only around 3,500 miles from the sun in Perth.

Why then can she not see it?  How does that extra 500 miles block the sun's light
so completely?

[Tron]

Hi Kangaroony,

I personally like the idea of there being a Dome or Thick Atmosphere above the earth which helps explain a lot of the lighting anomalies we see on a Flat Earth.  See the picture below of Melbourne and Perth with and without a Dome.  You'll notice the dramatic edges it creates with the sunlight.

[Kangaroony]

Thanks MetaTron...

I guess that would work, as I know that even a dense morning fog easily blocks
out the majority of the sun's light.  It's hard to imagine how an optically-dense
dome would be stabilised, and what gasses composed it though.  A normal fog,
composed as it is of simple water vapour easily dissipates as the atmosphere
warms up.

The proposed "dome" would/could not be composed of a solid—like a plastic or
glass—and would have to be nearly opaque.

I also note from your photos that your light source is acting like a spotlight,
whereas the sun radiates light from its entire spherical surface.  Your lamp
has, naturally, a sharp lens/reflector cutoff, so it doesn't accurately mimic the
light from the sun—which has no such artificial cutoff.

I note too that your model of the earth is spherical.  And the second image
appears to show Australia lightly but evenly and equally illuminated from
its west coast to its east coast—which of course cannot happen as the earth
rotates.

Could you please post a couple of images using the FET model of a flat planet
with a similar lighting source, and with the countries arranged as per that model?

[AATW]

Hi Kangaroony,

I personally like the idea of there being a Dome or Thick Atmosphere above the earth which helps explain a lot of the lighting anomalies we see on a Flat Earth.  See the picture below of Melbourne and Perth with and without a Dome.  You'll notice the dramatic edges it creates with the sunlight

Is that glass solid? As in, it’s a solid hemisphere of glass? If so then that surely has significantly different optical properties than the FE dome which sits over and above the earth and the atmosphere.

[Tron]

Yes its a solid magnifying glass... 

[Tron]

Kangaroo, the 1st image is the same setup as the second image, except the first one has a glass magnifying dome on top and the second does not.  Its the same flat map as well, except the glass dome cuts off the outer edges and perhaps gives it an illusion of sphericity.  Thats also the Map I use for my FE Theory albeit with slight modifications.

As for the Dome's composition, you were right about the "Grey Fog" contribution and how it can eliminate light.  I'd say one reason you cannot see the Sun all around the flat world is because the near atmosphere interferes with images at a certain angle and distance -"Water vapor, clouds, moisture, and other weather-associated winds all are found within this layer: (https://planetseducation.com/5-layers-of-the-atmosphere/#:~:text=The%20atmospheric%20layers%20start%20from%20the%20ground%20level,%2812%20-50%20km%29%20or%20%287%20to%2031%20miles%29")

That and of course the "Dome" light bending affect.

Here's a photo of the different layers of atmosphere if your interested.  The top of the Dome I'm suggesting reaches as high as the Exosphere, before you reach the Sun/Moon and other bodies.  MY EDITS ARE IN YELLOW



Photo source:  https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Eu_Pi2Pi1ok/VP5hiC6o7dI/AAAAAAAABS4/AGFc3m5TQ6c/s1600/Atmosphere%2BLevels.jpg

[Tron]

Is that glass solid? As in, it’s a solid hemisphere of glass? If so then that surely has significantly different optical properties than the FE dome which sits over and above the earth and the atmosphere.

For my example, its a solid glass dome.

In reality, I think the Dome itself is the Atmosphere shaped like a Dome.

 Around the very edges of the Dome or Exosphere may be compressed Hydrogen which "Theorists have long predicted that extreme pressures combined with mild temperatures should cause hydrogen to turn the normally clear gas into a glossy, grayish, metallic solid."  This would give the Dome its reflective properties. 

This in addition to the properties and behavior of the atmosphere we get the various lighting effects we see on earth.  The answer is usually "all of the above" IME.

Hydrogen Article:  http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/2016/01/physicists-solid-metallic-hydrogen/

[Kangaroony]

If the dome did consist of a thick opaque metallic substance, in order to reflect light, would it
not also reflect (or deflect) the radio waves we're allegedly picking up from distant stars? It'd
be like a Faraday cage would it not?

[Tron]

If the dome did consist of a thick opaque metallic substance, in order to reflect light, would it
not also reflect (or deflect) the radio waves we're allegedly picking up from distant stars? It'd
be like a Faraday cage would it not?

Thats a really good point...I pulled some info below which suggests its possible?

What Is A Faraday Cage?
A Faraday Cage (Shield) can be described as an enclosure created by conducting materials that blocks external electric fields (both static and non-static).  These shields – cages can be used to protect different kinds of electronic equipment from electrostatic discharges. They can’t block magnetic fields like Earth’s magnetic field, but they can protect the interior from electromagnetic radiation coming from the outside.
http://www.faradaycage.org/

-----

Astronomical objects that have a changing magnetic field can produce radio waves.
Radio Waves | Science Mission Directorate

science.nasa.gov/ems/05_radiowaves

[Kangaroony]

It can depend on which metal is used for the Faraday cage, and its thickness etc as far as its shielding properties go.

[Kangaroony]

I live in Melbourne, and I can be standing in full sunlight when I phone my friend
in Perth, who confirms it's totally dark there.  The distance from one city to the
other is 1,700 miles.  I don't understand why she can't see even a light glow from
the sun, looking east towards Melbourne. 

According to FET, the sun is 3,000 miles above the earth's surface.  Using simple
trigonometry, this means she's only around 3,500 miles from the sun in Perth.

Why then can she not see it?  How does that extra 500 miles block the sun's light
so completely?

I note that no other FE has attempted to explain this strange lighting anomaly. But I do
thank MetaTron for his explanation of the disparate global lighting effects caused by the
purported dome in its refraction of the sun's rays.  The first image looks at first glance to
be very convincing, but I'm not sure his replication of the sun's light (LED light source?)
or the "sun's" size versus the "earth's" size is anywhere accurate.

The angular width of the light source looks to be far too narrow; in fact it's working more
like an adjacent spotlight.

In actuality, whilst it's commonly thought that while half of the Earth is covered in darkness,
the other half is covered in sunlight, it's actually not true; the bending of the sunlight results
in the land covered by sunlight having greater area than the land covered by darkness.
And this is not accounted for in MetaTron's model—as it's totally out of proportion in comparison
to the real-world scenario.

[astralography]

My Kitchen Table is Flat.  If I shine a light anywhere above the surface, it illuminates the entire surface.  If I argue that one edge of the table is closer to a thick atmosphere that diffuses light, how would it completely block the light on one side and not the other?  Might be dimmer, but not completely blocked.

Trying to understand this.

[Kangaroony]

My Kitchen Table is Flat.  If I shine a light anywhere above the surface, it illuminates the entire surface.  If I argue that one edge of the table is closer to a thick atmosphere that diffuses light, how would it completely block the light on one side and not the other?  Might be dimmer, but not completely blocked.

Trying to understand this.

Flat earth theory requires that the sun acts similarly to a spotlight, shining on a well-defined
circular area on the earth's surface, with a narrow corona, or light-spill.    In the "standard"
spherical earth model of course, the sun's light radiates from the full 360º of its surface, rather
than as the focussed light from, say, an LED torch with a reflector and/or lens.

Also, there is no such thing as a "thick" atmosphere.  The atmosphere of course gets thinner
(less dense) with increasing altitude above the earth's surface—less gas molecules per cubic metre.

[drand48]

The sun ... is observed to be larger than it is for the bulk of its trek across the sky and likewise for sunset.  The perception of a large disk size at sunrise or sunset is due to atmospheric distortion ...

Just FYI, this isn't true, according to the commonly accepted theory (RET, not FET -- I have no idea what FET says about this.)  There is slight atmospheric distortion, especially just where the sun touches the horizon.  Actually, it's just an optical illusion; things close to the ground seem bigger because there's a frame of reference. Cf. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3153

You can prove this to yourself with the moon, just hold a micrometer at arm's length and measure the moon when it's on the horizon, and again when it's high in the sky.  You'll get the same measurement.  If you don't have a micrometer, use any handy object as a reference, like a small ruler you can hold in your hand and move your thumb to register the Moon's size, and then note where your thumb is on the ruler.

But, doesn't everyone have a micrometer?  I don't know what I'd do without mine!

[ichoosereality]

The sun ... is observed to be larger than it is for the bulk of its trek across the sky and likewise for sunset.  The perception of a large disk size at sunrise or sunset is due to atmospheric distortion ...

Just FYI, this isn't true, according to the commonly accepted theory (RET, not FET -- I have no idea what FET says about this.)  There is slight atmospheric distortion, especially just where the sun touches the horizon.  Actually, it's just an optical illusion; things close to the ground seem bigger because there's a frame of reference. Cf. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3153

Indeed that was sloppy of me.  Thanks for pointing it out.