[totallackey]

The sun sets.  It goes down.  In the north it is very slow but near the equator it drops fast. It is not moving away, it is going down.  It is a sunset.  I was in Fiji and I said "want to wait and watch the sunset?" "No, lets just go" However before we could walk back to the shack, the sun had gone down and it was dark.  In the morning it rises.  It is not coming from some distance.  It is rising.  Go and watch a sun rise and a sun set.  In the Arctic on Jan 22 at noon, I had to climb the hill to see the sun pop up and then pop down.  It was not coming closer and then farther.  Pop up and pop down.  Half the earth is lit at all times.  Phone some person far away from you.  Ask them if the sun is there.

There is no proof that "half the Earth," is lit by the Sun at all times and this is certainly not the case in FE.

But if you have access to timeanddate.com and can pull up their mercator projection with the current outline of the Sun over the face of the plane and then transcribe that outline of the Sun coverage to the AEP used by the USGS, I think you will find less than half being illuminated this time of year.

[totallackey]

And when the stars go down below the horizon, just before they disappear, they keep the same distances between them.  As the stars come closer and move away, the distances between them should change.  We should not all be able to recognize the same constellations all the time if they are circling around a flat earth.  Perspective makes telephone poles look closer together as they get farther away.  Train tracks converge to a point.  Stars for some reason just look the same all the time.

The perceived size of constellations (such as Orion) is almost always larger at first/last appearance in the night sky than when directly overhead.

[Ratboy]

And when the stars go down below the horizon, just before they disappear, they keep the same distances between them.  As the stars come closer and move away, the distances between them should change.  We should not all be able to recognize the same constellations all the time if they are circling around a flat earth.  Perspective makes telephone poles look closer together as they get farther away.  Train tracks converge to a point.  Stars for some reason just look the same all the time.

The perceived size of constellations (such as Orion) is almost always larger at first/last appearance in the night sky than when directly overhead.

This is the problem I have with people in the northern hemisphere neglecting the southern hemisphere.  They will claim that the amount of sun hitting the earth varies by season when the people in the south know that their seasons exactly mimic the north.  I said nothing about perceived size of the constellations.  If you look at a picture in a book at an angle it gets distorted.  The constellations should distort the same way if they are moving away on a flat earth. They should be subject to perspective the same as everything else.  They would no longer look like a hunter just like the picture in the book if they are moving away on a flat plane.  Go and look at the moon and the sun and the constellations when they are near the horizon and overhead.  Use your finger at arms length to get a measure of their size and the distances.  They do not change.  I mentioned in a different thread that when you watch football on TV when they use a telephoto lens the players in the distance look like giants because your brain expects the farther away people to look smaller.  If you freeze the image and compare, the players are the same size if you measure them with your fingers.  So things might look bigger on the horizon because your brain is comparing them to the trees in the distance.  Overhead you have nothing to compare with so they appear smaller.

[Ratboy]

My "proof" that half the earth gets lit half the time is the 22 different countries I have been in and the sun rises and sets according to the webpage that tracks the light of the earth.  It would be unlikely they would know which countries I am going to travel to and somehow get the sun to agree with their webpage to rise above the horizon and set below the horizon just for the places I go to. And these include countries in the southern hemisphere.   Is there anyone reading this that does not believe they get equal amounts of sunlight and darkness over a year.  If so, where do you live?

[totallackey]

My "proof" that half the earth gets lit half the time is the 22 different countries I have been in and the sun rises and sets according to the webpage that tracks the light of the earth.  It would be unlikely they would know which countries I am going to travel to and somehow get the sun to agree with their webpage to rise above the horizon and set below the horizon just for the places I go to. And these include countries in the southern hemisphere.   Is there anyone reading this that does not believe they get equal amounts of sunlight and darkness over a year.  If so, where do you live?

Your "proof," is limited to the amount of time you were:

1) Able to spend in each country at the "same time"; and

2) Drop mic and end conversation...

[ShowmetheProof]

At least he has proof, because TFE has none and has never shown any, while RE has.

[Macarios]

On this point the author apparently did not read Earth Not a Globe which explains why this occurs. We have a writeup in our Wiki: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

The article was written by real descendant of "Dr" Rowbotham and successor of his "science".

First part is hope that reader will not understand the difference between sharp view of the light source itself, and surrounding camera glare.
Second part uses description of divergence of laser or light beam, as if eye is big enough to receive the whole beam at observing point.
How can configuration of Sun spots remain the same in "projection" with just direct beam, without set of lenses to project the image?
Ever seen a movie or slide projector?

If you focus camera well and set short enough exposure, or add filter, you will see the real size of the light source, not the glare blur around it.
If you get cheap welding mask from Lowe's and a calliper, you can see and measure the Sun itself, not the glare around it.
In that case calliper will show you constant size (angular diameter) of the Sun through the day, not of the glare around it.
Moon has light just faint enough to see her that way without filter.
Through the night Moon keeps the constant apparent size as well.
Moon image is also detailed in "projection" without set of lenses.

Of course, there are more precise instruments, if you have access.

Some other FE sources are not talking about dispersed light, but air magnification.
(How convenient. If someone starts talking about one explanation, then we point out the other one.)

How high is required refraction index of air, and why such air doesn't magnify airplanes and balloons.

Sun is at 3000 miles above the ground, and 99% of the air is up to 30 miles high.
(Air density measured and confirmed no matter who did it, Flat Earther or Globe Earther.)

High-altitude balloons are unmanned balloons, usually filled with helium or hydrogen and rarely methane,
that are released into the stratosphere, generally attaining between 18,000 to 37,000 metres (59,000 to 121,000 ft;
11 to 23 mi). In 2002, a balloon named BU60-1 attained 53.0 km (32.9 mi; 173,900 ft).

Above that the molecules are too far from each other to have any noticeable optical effect.
Why air shows magnification effect on Sun and Moon and not on anything else, especially objects 100 or more miles away?

And I'm not talking about glare blur around.

[Ratboy]

My "proof" that half the earth gets lit half the time is the 22 different countries I have been in and the sun rises and sets according to the webpage that tracks the light of the earth.  It would be unlikely they would know which countries I am going to travel to and somehow get the sun to agree with their webpage to rise above the horizon and set below the horizon just for the places I go to. And these include countries in the southern hemisphere.   Is there anyone reading this that does not believe they get equal amounts of sunlight and darkness over a year.  If so, where do you live?

Your "proof," is limited to the amount of time you were:

1) Able to spend in each country at the "same time"; and

2) Drop mic and end conversation...

Just like Rowbotham, drop mic and run away.  If you said to me "prove that people have hearts in their chests and not their head," we could grab someone and kill them and rip out their beating heart.  You would say "that only proves that guy did, it does not prove everyone does."  So we kill 22 people and then you could say "that does not prove everyone does."  That is your argument.  My argument is that there is a website that shows where the earth is light and where it is dark at any time.  I went to 22 different countries and it matched the website at that time.  Your argument is that we have to rip out everyone's heart and once everyone is dead you can say "no one has their hearts in their chests because we ripped them all out."  We now have to include statistician in the list of jobs an FEer cannot morally work as (you should not accept money for doing something you believe is fake).

[totallackey]

My "proof" that half the earth gets lit half the time is the 22 different countries I have been in and the sun rises and sets according to the webpage that tracks the light of the earth.  It would be unlikely they would know which countries I am going to travel to and somehow get the sun to agree with their webpage to rise above the horizon and set below the horizon just for the places I go to. And these include countries in the southern hemisphere.   Is there anyone reading this that does not believe they get equal amounts of sunlight and darkness over a year.  If so, where do you live?

Your "proof," is limited to the amount of time you were:

1) Able to spend in each country at the "same time"; and

2) Drop mic and end conversation...

I went to 22 different countries and it matched the website at that time. 

I am to believe you went to 22 countries just for the sole purpose of matching the sunlight to website?

Or even took the time to do so?

That is laughable at best, an outright lie more likely.

Come on, stop fooling around Ratboy...

[Macarios]

I am to believe you went to 22 countries just for the sole purpose of matching the sunlight to website?

The problem is in "sole purpose".
We don't know why he traveled, but since he was already there, he checked it out.

If you were somewhere, would you miss the opportunity to check things of interest?

Besides, your effort is futile, because other people live there.
If there were any errors they would gladly expose them.
Discrediting his honesty won't disprove the data.

[totallackey]

Just like Rowbotham, drop mic and run away.  If you said to me "prove that people have hearts in their chests and not their head," we could grab someone and kill them and rip out their beating heart.  You would say "that only proves that guy did, it does not prove everyone does."  So we kill 22 people and then you could say "that does not prove everyone does."  That is your argument.  My argument is that there is a website that shows where the earth is light and where it is dark at any time.  I went to 22 different countries and it matched the website at that time.  Your argument is that we have to rip out everyone's heart and once everyone is dead you can say "no one has their hearts in their chests because we ripped them all out."  We now have to include statistician in the list of jobs an FEer cannot morally work as (you should not accept money for doing something you believe is fake).

No my argument is not killing people.

You have been to 22 countries, fine.

You checked the websites for sunrise, solar noon, and sunset times in each of the countries you were at, while you there, (highly fucking dubious!) fine...

That still does nothing to prove an equal amount of sunlight/darkness everywhere on the entire surface of the Earth, nor rotundity.

[AATW]

This is all very interesting but I still haven't seen any FE answers for

And if it is circling above the flat earth then what keeps it in the sky? Why doesn't it fall on us?

I see that seasons are explained by the circular motion changing so it is a tighter circle in summer and bigger circle in winter. What causes the sun to move between these orbits and what makes it speed up in winter and slow down in summer as it would have to as the circumference of the circle changes, otherwise the day / night cycle would change length

If the sun is a sphere then what causes the spotlight effect? The Wiki compares it to a lighthouse but in a lighthouse the light is focused by lenses. What focuses the light in the flat earth model and stops it shining over the whole earth?

And of course there is sunset, I mentioned that in the original post too. The sun has to be physically below the level of the clouds for clouds to be lit from below. In the FE model it never is.

[JohnAdams1145]

I'll give the FE explanation:
Remember, FE denies gravity. The FE answer for why the Sun doesn't fall onto us is that nothing makes it do so. Both the Sun and Earth are accelerating at the same rate, (or you can view it as a magical force affects only us on "shielded" surfaces by Einstein's equivalence principle -- that makes the idea seem rightly absurd).

It moves due to a 4th form of gravitation.

Distortion.


See the problem with FE believers? They don't quantify anything, just assert that these words can catch all of the problems with their hypothesis.

[AATW]

Right. So does Celestial Gravitation only work one way?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
"an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies"
I like the fact that it's only a thing in "some" flat earth models.
There is a clue there, they pretty much admit they don't have a coherent model.
Does Celestial Gravitation exist or not? Is the moon self-illuminating or not? Is there one pole or two?
These are pretty fundamental things which they can't agree on, they don't have a map they can make work.

Pickel laments that this is because there is so much funding for "round earth" ideas and so little for "flat earth" ones. Maybe there's a reason for that...
It's like me lamenting the lack of investment in alchemy research. What would be the point? It's a waste of money.
No-one serious about science is going to invest in research into a model which was shown to be wrong thousands of years ago.

It is bizarre they they cling so stubbornly to a model which has such glaring holes in it. They can't even explain sunset without shouting "PERSPECTIVE!" and then running away when I prove that for clouds to be lit from below the sun has to be physically below the clouds, or appear so.

[Ratboy]

My "proof" that half the earth gets lit half the time is the 22 different countries I have been in and the sun rises and sets according to the webpage that tracks the light of the earth.  It would be unlikely they would know which countries I am going to travel to and somehow get the sun to agree with their webpage to rise above the horizon and set below the horizon just for the places I go to. And these include countries in the southern hemisphere.   Is there anyone reading this that does not believe they get equal amounts of sunlight and darkness over a year.  If so, where do you live?

Your "proof," is limited to the amount of time you were:

1) Able to spend in each country at the "same time"; and

2) Drop mic and end conversation...

I went to 22 different countries and it matched the website at that time. 

I am to believe you went to 22 countries just for the sole purpose of matching the sunlight to website?

Or even took the time to do so?

That is laughable at best, an outright lie more likely.

Come on, stop fooling around Ratboy...

When a person travels, they do take note of the change of time zone.  Of course they do.  That was not the purpose of any of these trips.  People that live near the equator do not think much about changes in the length of day because it does not vary much.  I noticed that when you say to someone in Thailand "nice weather today" they look at you weird because the weather is not something they think about when they get up and get dressed.  When you live in a part of the world where the temperature one day can be 60F different than the day before, you look at the weather forecasts often. When you live where you get 20 hours of daylight in the summer and 4 in the winter you do take note of sunrises and sunsets just out of habit. 

So when I go to different countries I do notice stuff about weather and sunsets and lengths of days. I have been in 13 different time zones.  I did not go there just to reset my watch and to see if the sunsets when it is supposed to.  But I did notice it.  It just amazes me how fast the sun sets at the equator.  I do not know how to explain a fast setting sun at the equator and a setting sun that takes more than an hour in the north if it is just circling around a pie plate.  Zenetic research is about just looking at stuff.
So it goes back to proof.  The two choices are: 1. Accept a model that does not fit stuff we can see.  2. Accept a model that fits everything we see.  Just because we cannot do an infinite number of tests we should not reject everything we think we know.  There could be a hole in Greenland with an underground world where there is more sun than dark, but why bother believing in that?  Or rather why reject that there is an equal amount of day and night everywhere on earth just because there might be this hole?
There are so many more things.  I flew from Seattle WA to Frankfurt Germany (note that this is west to east so travelling the opposite way the sun moves).  That website of the sun tracking told me it would be daylight the whole time.  It was.  How can a flat earth do that for me? So when I look at what should happen if the earth is round and it works and I try to think how it is possible to do that with a flat earth and it does not, I think that "proves" the earth is not flat.  It may not prove the round to your satisfaction since there might be a hole in Greenland or something, but it is good enough for me.

[AATW]

The way day lengths vary per latitude and season is a good point. I wonder if there is a way any flat earth model can explain this.

[Ratboy]

The way day lengths vary per latitude and season is a good point. I wonder if there is a way any flat earth model can explain this.

But in particular, I am thinking about how the sun hangs near the horizon for so long in the extreme latitudes and drops so fast at the equator, not just length of day but length of sunset.  I am always caught in the dark when I go too close to the equator because I misjudge how much time I have before it gets dark.  And then it gets really dark.  Like there is a whole round globe between me and the sun.  In the north (or south) the sun may not get too high at noon, but it takes a long time to drop too far down that there is not enough twilight to finish up on the 18th hole after the sun already set a half hour ago.  Explain that on a flat earth. 
In the flat earth model, the sun is farther away at midnight when you can see it from Resolute Bay in July, than it is at noon  in December when you cannot.

[AATW]

I've just found that video and I think we owe flat earthers an apology. Sunset IS possible on a flat earth.



Admittedly you have to be clearly below the horizon somehow and the sun has to be dragging along the ground, presumably scorching and killing the terrified residents of wherever it is or boiling the sea as it goes.

Still, it's good enough for me.

[ShowmetheProof]

Although since the residents of the seashores are alive, that sun clearly isn't reality.

[Macarios]

I've just found that video and I think we owe flat earthers an apology. Sunset IS possible on a flat earth.



Admittedly you have to be clearly below the horizon somehow and the sun has to be dragging along the ground, presumably scorching and killing the terrified residents of wherever it is or boiling the sea as it goes.

Still, it's good enough for me.

Why he has to position camera below table surface?
Why he has to drag coin on the surface to skip questions about 3000 miles?
Why he hsa to use this deception, if there's real proof?

Is there?