Problems with the FE sun
« on: August 21, 2021, 07:17:28 PM »
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?

Offline JS

  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the FE sun
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2021, 12:06:57 PM »
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?


Offline AlephNull

  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Technical Support Engineer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the FE sun
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2021, 07:42:20 PM »
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.