[jimster]

If the sun directionally beams light down, seems like right after sunset, if it is still up there after sunset, I should be able to see the beam, much as you see the beams of searchlights. Right after sunset, I see light from across much of the horizon, although it does not look like it is being projected from above. Shortly after that, disappears completely. Why do I not see what looks like a distant searchlight in the sky pointing down? I can see stars across the entire dome, so I know I can see that far, and the sun is way brighter than those stars. Even if it is not pointing at me, why don't I see the beam, and why doesn't it gradually recede?

If what I see matches RE perfectly, but whatever atmospheric distortions make it look different than it really is, is it the greatest coincidence in history that those unacknowledged distortions make the true flashlight sun look just like the RE sun?

Test of faith?

[manicminer]

Seems to me, based on the second paragraph that you have answered your own question here.

If what you see matches one theory better than any others that are on offer, then there is probably a good reason for that.  It is then up to those who support other theories to provide evidence for why they think those others are any better.

[TotallyFlat]

Sometimes stars reveal the answer. I accidentally told my herbologist I was a flat earther and he offeredd the best theory on this matter. While the Earth spins, the universe also spins perpetually. The power of the rotation f the world will spin stars around it. Please ignore the fact he was a bit tipsy

[jimster]

If that's as deep as you go, anything might be true.

Why, if it is at the top of the dome, can I not see the north star from the southern hemisphere?

Why do star trails go opposite directions in south and north hemisphere?

The north star is at an angle from the horizon equal to latitude. At the equator, it is on the horizon, 0 degrees, With FE geometry, that puts it on the surface at the north pole. If it is at 3100 mi altitude over the north pole, a triangle calculator gives an angle of 26 degrees above the horizon. How does this work? Where is the north star on FE?

The moon and stars go across the sky all night. On the side where they are rising, where do they come from? On the setting side, where do they go?

I can see stars at night all over the sky, everywhere on the dome. Why can't I see the sun? Where did it go?

RE knows where it went and all these things. Who do you stand with, colleges, universities, 100s of years of exploration and confirmation, or a slightly tipsy herbologist (not to say they might not have knowledge of herbs, and sometimes be sober)?

[QED]

If that's as deep as you go, anything might be true.

Why, if it is at the top of the dome, can I not see the north star from the southern hemisphere?

Why do star trails go opposite directions in south and north hemisphere?

The north star is at an angle from the horizon equal to latitude. At the equator, it is on the horizon, 0 degrees, With FE geometry, that puts it on the surface at the north pole. If it is at 3100 mi altitude over the north pole, a triangle calculator gives an angle of 26 degrees above the horizon. How does this work? Where is the north star on FE?

The moon and stars go across the sky all night. On the side where they are rising, where do they come from? On the setting side, where do they go?

I can see stars at night all over the sky, everywhere on the dome. Why can't I see the sun? Where did it go?

RE knows where it went and all these things. Who do you stand with, colleges, universities, 100s of years of exploration and confirmation, or a slightly tipsy herbologist (not to say they might not have knowledge of herbs, and sometimes be sober)?

I think these are all excellent questions. Probably the worst thing to do is assume the answer based on what people just tell you, and then retroactively fit observations to match the assumption. This is called leading the data, and it’s how folks get fooled.

[jimster]

How folks get fooled, just curious. Are folks fooled about F=MA, the periodic chart, atoms and molecules, dna, cells, etc? Or is it just the stuff that has to do with the shape of the earth?

The reason to accept RE is that it explains all that and more and FE has to twist itself into explanations of explanations of explanations to explain stuff like this.

I find RE way more interesting than FE. FE just sits there. RE has this beautiful circular dance where things interact without touching and make patterns within patterns. The tilt of the earth, the rotation makes such an interesting pattern of day/night at the poles, seasons, FE has no way to explain short of a massive kludge.

[manicminer]

I'm with you on RE. You must start off completely impartial and then let your instinct guide you towards which ever theory you think best fits in with what we experience.

For example. Sun rises above the horizon in the east and sets again in the west each day.  It could be due to this or it could be due to that. FE talks about perspective, RE talks about the Earth rotating so half of it is aimed towards the Sun to give us day, the other half is turned away from the Sun to give us night.  Which theory offers the best explanation for what we see? I know which one I think is best but that doesn't mean I am right.  You cannot make a judgement on just one example though. You have to look at many examples and then decide if one theory (for you) consistently provides the better or more likely explanation.

[QED]

How folks get fooled, just curious. Are folks fooled about F=MA, the periodic chart, atoms and molecules, dna, cells, etc? Or is it just the stuff that has to do with the shape of the earth?

The reason to accept RE is that it explains all that and more and FE has to twist itself into explanations of explanations of explanations to explain stuff like this.

I find RE way more interesting than FE. FE just sits there. RE has this beautiful circular dance where things interact without touching and make patterns within patterns. The tilt of the earth, the rotation makes such an interesting pattern of day/night at the poles, seasons, FE has no way to explain short of a massive kludge.

And what principle of the Universe insists that it must necessary be described in a way that is aesthetically pleasing to you? Just because RE theory dancing and sings, and whispers sweet nothings into your ear before tucking you into bed is not evidence of its truthfulness.

The Universe never promised to appear magical to Jim. Did it?

[manicminer]

I certainly wouldn't use a term like a aesthetically pleasing myself but I would say that RE theory can explain many things a lot more simply than FE theory can.  The idea that the Sun moves in a circle over a flat Earth for example simply account for real world observations correctly as it is.  What causes the diameter of that circle to change with the seasons for example?

[jimster]

I did not say FE was true or false because I like it, it doesn't matter whether I like it. The question is not which do you feel is right, I could feel that anything is right.

On RE, when you point a sextant at the north star, the angle is equal to your lattitude. At the equator, the north star is on the horizon, which means if FE, it is on the surface of the earth. If you put the north star at the top of a 3100 mi high dome, you should get an angle of 26 degrees. You don't. On FE, the angle is never right, unless you decide the light was bent in just the right way to make it appear to be round. No explanation or experimentation is offered to justify this, only that it must be because the earth is flat. Assuming the conclusion is not allowed in logic.

RE explains and is consistent with observations. FE has no explanation for these. Same is true of 24 hour darkness at south pole, satellites/gps/DirecTV, equatorial mount, etc etc etc. All explained by RE, all requiring conspiracy or explanation without observation and experiment.

[QED]

A better way to describe it, IMO, is self-consistency. If you have two theories, one that describes sound propagation, and one that describes wave propagation, then you’d hope that there would be a lot of internal consistency between them - because both describe periodic motion. If your two theories have nothing in common, it would seem strange.

That is what RE theory has, an insane amount of internal consistency. But you’ll never know it unless you actually take the time to learn it. It is only afterwards so you realize that the evidence for different parts supports each other.

FE theory does not have this. There is no internal consistency, and is really just a handful of ideas that do not link together in any coherent way.

This may be due to the fact that modern science does no investigate it - so it does not enjoy the benefit of rigorous research. It could also be that it is incorrect. It could also be that the Universe simply is not internally consistent.