[globularSkeptic]

Okay, I have seen the picture here (https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F) of the sun and moon circling over the earth, illuminating it like a lamp. But could someone please tell me why the sun rises. On the diagram the sun and moon seem to stay at a fixed height, meaning that they would never drop below the horizon. Legitimate question, please answer.

[JohnAdams1145]

The explanations I've heard attribute it to optical phenomena (refraction, perspective, atmospheric distortion) without explaining in depth. The fact remains that under the conventional laws of physics and mathematics, it is impossible for the sun to rise when viewing it circling over the Earth. Of course, FE theory does not accept the conventional laws of physics verbatim (gravity, black body radiation, Lawson criterion). Therefore, by asking this question, you will find an unsatisfactory answer because you want it based on the conventional laws of physics.

Essentially, FE theory mandates that the Sun be only a few thousand miles away from the Earth. Besides the geometry problems that this poses, what's the most obvious intuitive problem? We'd all burn up. The black body radiation emitted by the Sun would lead to stupidly high power densities on the Earth which would lead to us quickly vaporizing. FE posits that this doesn't happen because either the Sun is a lot smaller than we think (and they'll justify it by saying its mass is based on gravity and that indirect measurement doesn't work because the distance used, ~93 million miles, is fake and that parallax measurements of the distance are atmospherically distorted...), or the amount of radiation is somehow less because it's not a big ball of gas that's very hot. It doesn't work.

You should beware those who pin a one-word response such as "distortion" to discredit the parallax measurements. If that is the standard of proof required, then I can cite it any time you see an airplane to prove that airplanes don't fly at 10km. FE theory, without bending the laws of optics, cannot explain why the parallax measurements are wrong.

[Rounder]

The black body radiation issue is moot because the FE sun is MUCH smaller.  I did the math in a post some time ago.  The problem isn’t that we would get too much solar energy, it’s that it would fall off much more sharply than it actually does as distance from the sub solar point increases.  We get far more infrared at the poles than we would if the sun were actually small and close.

[JohnAdams1145]

Precisely the problem. FE theory asserts without basis that the Sun is way too small. If this were the case, the Lawson criterion would not be satisfied within the Sun and the current mechanism for it staying hot (nuclear fusion) couldn't happen. The smallest possible mass for this to happen is very roughly twice the mass of Jupiter, which would definitely be noticeable from Earth at a distance of a few thousand kilometers.

Illumination problems on Earth would only be the start of the issues with the theory. You would expect almost no sunlight to hit any of the planets that are billions of miles away (as verified by Cassini -- again, this program is technically feasible so the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to prove why it didn't happen). Parallax measurements wouldn't line up with the idea that the Sun is just circling overhead.

The idea that the Sun is only a few thousand kilometers away is just delusional bunk (and using this as a stop-gap patch for any theory is just indefensible), and there are numerous ways to see that this is the case. In your post, you cite a figure from FE believers of 32 miles as the diameter of the Sun. I seriously don't know what planet someone has to be from to assert such a ridiculous suggestion. It is intellectually indefensible to assert this garbage without any sort of experimental verification.  If the Sun were 32 miles wide, I could build a thermonuclear bomb in my backyard with just some power tools. It has been verified thousands of times over that nuclear fusion requires far more pressure than a ball of gas 32 miles wide can provide (or you can choose to accelerate particles in the proper directions instead of just heating, but that's not how stars work; this is how inertial electrostatic confinement 'fusors' work).

I don't doubt that your math is correct and that a 32 mile wide Sun would produce reasonable intensity figures for the Earth. But I think that your math should be interpreted differently: it results in an outlandishly small figure for the size of the Sun when reality disagrees with that notion. If I had to bet on the odds of the Sun being 32 miles wide and therefore the Earth is flat vs the Sun is 800000+ mi wide and the Earth is round, I'd pick the latter 99999999999 times out of 100000000000.

For Flat Earth believers: these kinds of absurdities are part of the reason why a lot of people treat FE theorists with contempt. They're outlandish. It's far better to just admit that the theory is incomplete and needs work than to blindly patch holes by making unfounded claims.

[Rounder]

All of your points are valid, and none of them matter.  The FE side discards too much of the science you are basing your points on.  Lawson Criterion and stellar fusion?  These depend on gravity, which is rejected by a lot of FE.  Illumination of objects millions of miles away?  In the FE world, those objects are not millions of miles away, not even thousands of miles.  Cassini?  Space flight is impossible and any evidence claimed to derive from it is part of The Conspiracy (their capitalization, not mine).

[JohnAdams1145]

Rounder, you're right. I just realized that FE throws all of that science out. It's amazing, though, because nuclear fusion is something that has been accomplished right here on Earth, with tangible (and terrifying) results. I'm frustrated, though, by the lack of an FE argument that posits that rockets can't reach Saturn or even LEO. If they are going to throw out massive chunks of established science out, they need to justify why it's (1) the result of a conspiracy or (2) why there's no repeatable experiment that backs it up or (3) why there's a repeatable experiment that conclusively denies it. Science only accepts the last reason as a good reason to reject an argument, but since we've the overwhelmingly easier (and correct) side, perhaps the first two can be worked around.

[Macarios]

Speaking of sunrise (and sunset).
By now I've seen two main explanations why we don't see sunlight when the Sun goes too far away, or doesn't come yet close enough.

One is based on limited reach of light, so when the Sun is, say, 6000 miles away we are out of range.
Another is based on cone around the Sun, that serves as "lamp shade", converting Sun into spot-light.

(The "lamp shade" was conveniently hit and dented from north by one of wandering stars, hence the shape of illuminated area on the Earth's surface.
The said wandering star shatered on impact and that's why we now have asteroid belt.)

In both cases light, for sunrise or sunset, reaches exact spot where we are, and can't enlighten further.
Both of those cases claim Sun is still 3000 miles above the horizon.

However, in reality, horizon casts shadow on tall building or high hill/mountain behind us.
For sunset shadow of horizon crawls up, for sunrise shadow of horizon crawls down.

Example: obesrver in Burj Khalifa (Burj Dubai) at the top sees sunset 3 minutes later than observer at bottom.
If the height of the Burj is 828 meters, it means horizon shadow travels at average speed of about 4.6 m/s.

I wonder how we can see the Sun set, while the top of the mountain 2 miles behind us still has sunlight.

At this diagram we don't have light reflected from point A, and DO have light reflected from point B.

[Ratboy]

I did a similar picture on my first thread where the sun ended up being 20 miles below Concepcion.

[Ratboy]

Speaking of sunrise (and sunset).
By now I've seen two main explanations why we don't see sunlight when the Sun goes too far away, or doesn't come yet close enough.

One is based on limited reach of light, so when the Sun is, say, 6000 miles away we are out of range.
Another is based on cone around the Sun, that serves as "lamp shade", converting Sun into spot-light.

(The "lamp shade" was conveniently hit and dented from north by one of wandering stars, hence the shape of illuminated area on the Earth's surface.
The said wandering star shatered on impact and that's why we now have asteroid belt.)

In both cases light, for sunrise or sunset, reaches exact spot where we are, and can't enlighten further.
Both of those cases claim Sun is still 3000 miles above the horizon.

However, in reality, horizon casts shadow on tall building or high hill/mountain behind us.
For sunset shadow of horizon crawls up, for sunrise shadow of horizon crawls down.

Example: obesrver in Burj Khalifa (Burj Dubai) at the top sees sunset 3 minutes later than observer at bottom.
If the height of the Burj is 828 meters, it means horizon shadow travels at average speed of about 4.6 m/s.

I wonder how we can see the Sun set, while the top of the mountain 2 miles behind us still has sunlight.

At this diagram we don't have light reflected from point A, and DO have light reflected from point B.

As I sit here, I realized that a friend is visiting in Residencial Tres Hermanos in a town called Punta Arenas, southern Chile.  I skyped him and it was still light out there, he can see the sun.  I skyped my friend in Brisbane Australia and he can see the sun as well.  I looked at the two models of the flat earth map and half way between them is approximately Montreal.  I skyped a guy there and laughed at him because it is dark there!  The sun is magically lighting two places at the ends of the earth and the guy in the middle is getting squat!  I called the guy a loser for sitting in the dark between two other guys where it is light!