[Sir Parsifal]

Could someone explain to me how the Sun works in the Flat Earth model?

Namely:
1. How is it able to be suspended 5000 kilometers above the giant 40 thousand kilometer long disc and why does it rotate? It obviously doesn’t comply with the laws of gravity, so what force causes it to behave so weirdly?

2. How is a ball that is 50 kilometers in diameter able to produce so much thermonuclear energy to not only light so much territory of Earth but also keep burning? How does it produce so much energy? How does it not run out of “fuel”?

3. How does sunlight work? Supposedly it’s like a stroboscope, but how would that explain equinoxes, where the sunlight’s range differs dramatically in the Flat Earth model, in regards to the equator AND the “south” pole? The distance of the source of light is much smaller to the equator than to the South Pole, so why and how come sunlight works like that? Why is it so selective?

4. Lastly, if you guys could explain the last question, then why is the case so much different for all the other seasons? Why does the Sun somehow selectively change the power of sunlight in regards to specific regions of Earth at different times differently?

That’s all. I hope the discussion will be polite and civil. I just want to know what Flat Earth explanation could be behind all this.

Addendum:
What exactly causes the Sun not to be able to be seen by a distant observer? Pic related.
https://m.imgur.com/XERV7aH

And something related to the Sun - phases of the moon. How would they work on Flat Earth? Someone seeing a full moon in Portugal would witness a quarter moon elsewhere, and that’s something that can’t happen, as everyone sees the moon the same.
Pic is related.
https://i.imgur.com/TXeWn3R.jpg

[Tom Bishop]

1. Unknown

2. Unknown

3. It would need to be shown that the sunlight area behaves in the way predicted by RET, before we can proceed further on that line of inquiry.

4. The shape of the spot of light upon the earth does change size with the seasons. This is because the sun is also changing its height somewhat over the duration of year.

Per your addendums, those perspective models rely on the Ancient Greek concept of a continuous universe. But no evidence for a continuous universe has ever been provided. It is questionable that perspective would behave in accordance to that model rather than in accordance to what we experience.

[AATW]

Per your addendums, those perspective models rely on the Ancient Greek concept of a continuous universe. But no evidence for a continuous universe has ever been provided. It is questionable that perspective would behave in accordance to that model rather than in accordance to what we experience.

Still ignoring the long shadows at sunset point, I see.
You repeatedly show you don't understand how perspective works but I proved in this thread that the sun cannot be where your model claims at sunset

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.0

Your nonsense about whether the universe is continuous is an attempt at misdirection and to muddy the waters. If you have clear line of sight to a light source - as you would if an object was above the plane of the imaginary disc earth - then you would be able to see it unless it was occluded by a close tall object.

As I keep saying to you, all you have to do to prove your theory is take some measurements from a few locations known distances apart - they don't have to be that far apart if the sun is as close as you suppose. Do some triangulation and you can work out the distance to the sun. You keep ignoring it I suspect because you know that doing this will show you to be wrong.

[inquisitive]

Tom can write a lot of words but seems to be incapable of doing some simple measurements, or even discussing them. 

This has been commented on many times and the use of timeanddate.com clearly gives data to calculate the shape of the earth.  It is interesting that nobody has said the data is incorrect so we can therefore use it.

Why is this so difficult for some to understand?

[juner]

Tom can write a lot of words but seems to be incapable of doing some simple measurements, or even discussing them.

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Next one is a week ban.

[Buran]

1. Unknown

2. Unknown

3. It would need to be shown that the sunlight area behaves in the way predicted by RET, before we can proceed further on that line of inquiry.

4. The shape of the spot of light upon the earth does change size with the seasons. This is because the sun is also changing its height somewhat over the duration of year.

Per your addendums, those perspective models rely on the Ancient Greek concept of a continuous universe. But no evidence for a continuous universe has ever been provided. It is questionable that perspective would behave in accordance to that model rather than in accordance to what we experience.

I really appreciate it when someone actually gives an honest answer when they don't know.

I do have a question about your answer to #4. The models I have seen show the sun moving from north of the equator to south which causes the seasons. But you are saying the sun moves up and down vertically. Is it a combination of the two? I would think just moving up and down wouldn't account for there being different seasons in the north and south.

[Sir Parsifal]

1. Unknown

2. Unknown

So you accept the theory that sun is a tiny, tiny ball hanging on the firmament just because? Just because it fits your “theory”?

3. It would need to be shown that the sunlight area behaves in the way predicted by RET, before we can proceed further on that line of inquiry.

What do you mean? We know what territory is lighted by the sun, and that causes a plethora of problems with it in the flat earth model, as the aforementioned ones.

4. The shape of the spot of light upon the earth does change size with the seasons. This is because the sun is also changing its height somewhat over the duration of year.

That’s not what I hear from most flat earthers, as Buran said.

Per your addendums, those perspective models rely on the Ancient Greek concept of a continuous universe. But no evidence for a continuous universe has ever been provided. It is questionable that perspective would behave in accordance to that model rather than in accordance to what we experience.

What is a continuous universe? What model of perspective is the right one in your opinion? One that predicts you can’t see things that are literally straight in your sight?

[Sir Parsifal]

Also, since the sun is just 50 kilometers in diameter and just 3000 kilometers above the disc, then its size would differ by a margin of several tens of arc minutes at noon and at sunset, before fading away into darkness (because that’s how the flat earth model of the Sun selectively choosing how much power to put into lighting specific territories would look like - a small ball getting a few times smaller by sunset before disappearing ABOVE the horizon into darkness).

[Ratboy]

1) I thought all the current models accepted by the most scientists that actually look at the data show that the universe is rather finite in nature.  That is, it began very small and is currently expanding.  Whether it collapses again or we all die an entropy death is a matter of current debate. 

2) I was thinking of making this a new thread but I will just propose the question here.  I can see how someone in England, or at an equivalent latitude, could watch the sun and see how it might look like it is circling the north pole.  Certainly anyone in the Arctic could think that.  I can see how someone in Aukland, or at an equivalent latitude might wonder if the sun does not circle the south pole.  Has any believer in the flat earth actually been at a latitude where they could see the sun rise due east, continue in a journey in a straight line until it was directly overhead, and watch it set due west and then after seeing that actually believe that the sun is circling a pole?  They could believe, based on this observation (like the Egyptians) that the sun was coming up, going overhead, and going around the underside during the night to come up again.  But has any believer in an FE actually seen this and still distrust what they saw to cling to this pole circling idea? Rowbotham would be ashamed if they would see one thing and believe something different.

[Sir Parsifal]

1) I thought all the current models accepted by the most scientists that actually look at the data show that the universe is rather finite in nature.  That is, it began very small and is currently expanding.  Whether it collapses again or we all die an entropy death is a matter of current debate. 

How does that relate to my point?

[Ratboy]

1) I thought all the current models accepted by the most scientists that actually look at the data show that the universe is rather finite in nature.  That is, it began very small and is currently expanding.  Whether it collapses again or we all die an entropy death is a matter of current debate. 

How does that relate to my point?

If the problem with the house of cards upon which we believe that the earth is round is due to the Greek's concept of a continuous universe, then we should believe in a continuous universe.  If we now believe that the universe is finite, then I do not see how this belief could be based on the above Greek concept.  That is why I brought it up.  If we do not believe the universe is continuous, it must mean that errors in the original Greek thought may not all be keeping us from realizing the "truth."

[Sir Parsifal]

What is a continuous universe?

[Ratboy]

If you are asking me that question, I assumed a continuous universe is one in which a line could exist. So since modern science believes an infinite line (a rather redundant term, I realize) cannot actually exist, then the house of cards upon which the ancient Greeks built their IP has been discounted long ago.  My grandfather actually took the subject "Euclid" in elementary school, but I am sure no one has taken that for 100 years. 

Old beliefs are replaced by new theories when new theories better fit the new evidence.  We still use Newtonian physics for things like designing race cars, because it is good enough.  No engineer believes Newtonian physics to be true for all applications but it will still win you the race.  No engineer has ever measured or seen pipe stress but it is good enough to use to build systems that do not kill people.  Unfortunately, the flat earth model does not work for much unless you are sitting in your back yard thinking about stuff.

[Sir Parsifal]

If you are asking me that question, I assumed a continuous universe is one in which a line could exist. So since modern science believes an infinite line (a rather redundant term, I realize) cannot actually exist, then the house of cards upon which the ancient Greeks built their IP has been discounted long ago.  My grandfather actually took the subject "Euclid" in elementary school, but I am sure no one has taken that for 100 years.

Many scientists hypothesize that the universe is infinite, so an infinite line can in fact exist in it.
Plus Euclidean geometry is like the basic geometry from which most education and theories sprout.

[Milford Cubicle]

The sun moves around in an approximate circle over earths surface and only shines in two directions. Due two particle spin in entangled particles having opposite spins so logically tunneling out from the self contained density of the sun at opposites -  Forward and backward. Giving it a spotlight effect in two directions. One always pointing down to earth. Its pretty simple and anyone with a knowledge of heat and light waves could calculate than light from a sun millions of  miles away could never be seen on earth.

[AATW]

You are nowhere near as good at physics as you think you are.

[juner]

You are nowhere near as good at physics as you think you are.

Refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Last warning, next one is a few days off.

[Ratboy]

The sun moves around in an approximate circle over earths surface and only shines in two directions. Due two particle spin in entangled particles having opposite spins so logically tunneling out from the self contained density of the sun at opposites -  Forward and backward. Giving it a spotlight effect in two directions. One always pointing down to earth. Its pretty simple and anyone with a knowledge of heat and light waves could calculate than light from a sun millions of  miles away could never be seen on earth.

I have a basic understanding of light waves, but never heard of heat waves, unless you call low spectrum radiation "heat" waves.  So the Andromeda galaxy that you can see with your own eyes without a telescope is close to us?  What would this fuzzy thing be if not something like the Milky Way only a magnitude or two farther away?

[AATW]

You are nowhere near as good at physics as you think you are.

Refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Last warning, next one is a few days off.

Ha. Ok, I'll give you that one.
But honestly, he is posting a load of pseudo-scientific gibberish. What is that adding to the debate?

But ok, let's imagine that the sun is a spotlight because of...reasons. I'm assuming from the above what I will charitably call "science" the other beam would be going in the opposite direction out into space. So what is illuminating the moon? Unless the claim is that the second spotlight is going sideways, I'm not clear what science (I mean real science, not made up science) could explain that.

[Westprog]

You are nowhere near as good at physics as you think you are.

I think that it could be fairly well demonstrated that just about 100% of people with knowledge of light and heat (sic) waves would say that yes, they would continue for millions of miles if nothing got in the way.