*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10885
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #80 on: May 17, 2020, 09:33:39 PM »
it would illuminate across the entire FE, because it's high enough from the surface to do so.
This continues not to be the case, no matter how many times you restate it. I once again refer you to the diagram, and encourage you to explain if you disagree with any part of it. We will not be able to progress until you state your objection coherently.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 09:35:32 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #81 on: May 17, 2020, 09:35:08 PM »
it would illuminate across the entire FE, because it's high enough from the surface to do so.
This continues not to be the case. I once again refer you to the diagram, and encourage you to explain if you disagree with any part of it. We will not be able to progress until you state your objection coherently.

I'm not disagreeing with the diagram.  I'm saying that the diagram disagrees with the idea expressed in several other places on the Wiki that the sun acts like a spotlight. 

(This is indeed, the thing I've repeated many times - the EA describes light that bends.  The explanation for night/day requires sunlight to be pretty straight).


Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #82 on: May 17, 2020, 09:37:54 PM »


Another way of summarizing everything I've been writing is that there are two different parts of the Wiki that contradict each other, and need to be resolved.  Perhaps a new section for the Wiki needs to be added to bridge this gap?   

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10885
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #83 on: May 17, 2020, 10:49:11 PM »
I'm saying that the diagram disagrees with the idea expressed in several other places on the Wiki that the sun acts like a spotlight. 
I think I may have finally guessed what you're talking about. It's a shame you didn't just say it.

The diagram illustrates only the portion of the Earth that's currently affected by sunlight. You might notice how it ends at 6AM on one side, and 6PM on the other. It does not suggest that the entire Earth is covered by sunlight, and indeed illustrates only the area affected by the spotlight Sun. The supporting text clarifies what happens to the areas unaffected by sunlight, or, rather, why they are unaffected.

Did I divine your objection correctly? Does my answer help? If not, you're really going to have to go through your logic step by step.

The explanation for night/day requires sunlight to be pretty straight
This is false. Perhaps you could explain why you think this so we can set you straight?

Another way of summarizing everything I've been writing is that there are two different parts of the Wiki that contradict each other, and need to be resolved.
I fully understand that you think there's a contradiction. The problem is that you're not very forthcoming about what that contradiction is. You seem to think that a spotlight Sun is impossible under EA, but you make no explanation as to why you think that's the case. We even drew it out for you.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 10:51:13 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #84 on: May 17, 2020, 11:44:26 PM »
I'm saying that the diagram disagrees with the idea expressed in several other places on the Wiki that the sun acts like a spotlight. 
I think I may have finally guessed what you're talking about. It's a shame you didn't just say it.

The diagram illustrates only the portion of the Earth that's currently affected by sunlight. You might notice how it ends at 6AM on one side, and 6PM on the other. It does not suggest that the entire Earth is covered by sunlight, and indeed illustrates only the area affected by the spotlight Sun. The supporting text clarifies what happens to the areas unaffected by sunlight, or, rather, why they are unaffected.

Did I divine your objection correctly? Does my answer help? If not, you're really going to have to go through your logic step by step.

The explanation for night/day requires sunlight to be pretty straight
This is false. Perhaps you could explain why you think this so we can set you straight?

Another way of summarizing everything I've been writing is that there are two different parts of the Wiki that contradict each other, and need to be resolved.
I fully understand that you think there's a contradiction. The problem is that you're not very forthcoming about what that contradiction is. You seem to think that a spotlight Sun is impossible under EA, but you make no explanation as to why you think that's the case. We even drew it out for you.


Pete,

The fallacy and issue with your Diagram from the Wiki is that it incorrectly depicts a limited area of a flat earth catching the rays of the globe Sun. In reality the globe Sun emits rays in all directions and thus on a flat earth one would see light no matter their position.

Yes, I know that one explanation you offer is that light rays from the Sun make a U-turn back into space, which is why the diagram is depicted as such. But, therein lies the flaw.

Ray's from the Sun don't just make U-Turns into space; it's not plausible and the evidence we have to know it's not plausible is that we are able to see Sun's / Star's that are light years away. Our Sun is not light years away.

For clarity, recommend you at least update the Diagram to show the Sun light Ray's making U-Turns back into space.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10885
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #85 on: May 17, 2020, 11:48:43 PM »
Right, so your objection is that you disagree with EA. That directly contradicts what you said before, but okay. Explain why you disagree.

Your "evidence" is nonsensical. There is nothing about the current description that would prevent us to see distant stars. Once again, you completely failed to specify why you think otherwise, you just stated that you do.

As for having a diagram with light rays u-turning: there already is one in the article. Why would you demand that we add something that's already there?

It would have been a good idea to read the article prior to complaining about it, don't you think?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 11:52:12 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #86 on: May 18, 2020, 12:12:12 AM »
Right, so your objection is that you disagree with EA. That directly contradicts what you said before, but okay. Explain why you disagree.

Your "evidence" is nonsensical. There is nothing about the current description that would prevent us to see distant stars. Once again, you completely failed to specify why you think otherwise, you just stated that you do.

As for having a diagram with light rays u-turning: there already is one in the article. Why would you demand that we add something that's already there?

It would have been a good idea to read the article prior to complaining about it, don't you think?


My summary was to help clarify what existoid was trying to convey. That sunlight should reach all parts of a flat earth.

Yes, you're right, there is an addendum diagram showing light rays making U-Turns and I read that; I was just suggesting that it be added to the first Diagram.

Existoid can add anything else to this or can feel free to disagree.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 12:15:58 AM by GoldCashew »

Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #87 on: May 18, 2020, 12:47:33 AM »
Nah, I’m done with this thread.

In my view a neutral observer reading this conversation would grasp that there are logical contradictions in what the articles on this site are saying based on what I’ve described and explained.

But I’m not a neutral observer and it’s going to go into endless circles.  So I prefer to leave it as is and let what I’ve already written stand for itself

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10885
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #88 on: May 18, 2020, 09:19:51 AM »
Yes, you're right, there is an addendum diagram showing light rays making U-Turns and I read that; I was just suggesting that it be added to the first Diagram.
The assumption is that people will read the entire page. So far, we haven't seen anyone have a problem with this.

In our experience, cramming too much information into one diagram tends to confuse laymen. It's a balancing act we've put a fair amount of work into.

In my view a neutral observer reading this conversation would grasp that there are logical contradictions in what the articles on this site are saying based on what I’ve described and explained.
Sadly, no. There is no contradiction there. A spotlight whose rays are slightly bent outward (or inward, if you prefer to think of it that way) is still a spotlight. You got confused somewhere, but you're refusing to lay out your logic in steps, which leaves me guessing. I can only guess that you've tunnel-visioned yourself into a certain image of the bent spotlight, one that differs from the diagrams I've asked you time and time again to address.

You say that the Sun emits rays in all directions. Granted, but this doesn't mean they'll reach the Earth. You will be looking at a few categories:
  • Rays going more or less downward, which will bend out slightly and hit the Earth.
  • Light rays which start a bit more "sideways", which will curve away from the Earth without reaching it
  • Rays which weren't initially aimed towards the Earth

You offered no objection to this. You claimed it makes sense to you conceptually, until you suddenly u-turned and stated that it's impossible for light to curve in this fashion. But, again, you didn't even try to explain why you think that.

I can't help you if you don't want to be helped, and grandstanding about how obvious this will all be to a "neutral" observer is the oldest trick in the book - very few people will fall for it.

So, unless you want to open up about your logic, I agree - this thread is pretty much dead.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 09:30:45 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #89 on: May 18, 2020, 11:43:40 AM »
Pete,

The basic fallacy with your Diagram is that it depicts one group of Sun rays bending and making U-Turns. In this fashion, you are attempting to explain the phases of the Moon, why sunlight can be reflected under clouds. Etc..

But, in reality, the Sun emits rays from its surface in all directions of it's globe surface. If you were to depict rays in this fashion, than on a flat Earth's surface one would see light no matter where they stood.

In your Diagram, you need to take the 2D set of rays shown in your first Diagram and then do a "revolve" of the those all around the globe Sun. You then end up with a more correct Diagram where the Sun is emitting rays from all directions, thus light reaching all surfaces of a Flat Earth.

Your argument to my above might then be that light bends and makes U-Turns in such a manner that at a certain distance away from the Sun this light doesn't make it to the areas of a Flat Earth that are further away, hence why we have day and night at the same time on a flat disk.

Light simply does not bend and make U-Turns in such drastic fashions such that at a certain distance I could not see the Sun.

We know that this is not true because we can see other Suns (Stars) that are light years away. If your EA Diagram were true, than we would not be able to see such far away bodies.

Unfortunately, FE theory does not believe that the celestial bodies we see are other Suns many light years away. FE theory suggests these as small points of light in the Firmament dome.

You can have the last word Pete. But, the fallacy with your Diagram has been summarized. Your Diagram is a hot mess of incorrect assumptions and incorrect depictions.

I've also recommended to you and Tom that you check // verify your light bending EA theory and Diagram with a Physicists. Couldn't hurt, right?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 11:52:25 AM by GoldCashew »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10885
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« Reply #90 on: May 18, 2020, 11:57:33 AM »
The basic fallacy with your Diagram is that it depicts one group of Sun rays bending and making U-Turns. In this fashion, you are attempting to explain the phases of the Moon, why sunlight can be reflected under clouds. Etc..

But, in reality, the Sun emits rays from its surface in all directions of it's globe surface. If you were to depict rays in this fashion, than on a flat Earth's surface one would see light no matter where they stood.
You really struggle to substantiate your claims. Allow me to repeat myself:

I understand that you think this is the case, but you need to explain why that is. It is not sufficient to say that this is the case "in reality".

You've made a mistake somewhere. I want to point at it and help you understand. However, this will only be possible once you've laid out your reasoning in steps.

In your Diagram, you need to take the 2D set of rays shown in your first Diagram and then do a "revolve" of the those all around the globe Sun. You then end up with a more correct Diagram where the Sun is emitting rays from all directions, thus light reaching all surfaces of a Flat Earth.
This is incorrect. If you created the same diagram in three dimensions, including the unilluminated part of the Earth, you would end up with a circular illuminated area, one that covers part, not all of the Earth.

If you think otherwise, you have to lay out your logic, in steps. Allow me to be perfectly clear: it will be insufficient for you to state that:
  • You think there's a fallacy
  • You are correct "in reality"
without any meaningful qualification of these claims.

Light simply does not bend and make U-Turns in such drastic fashions such that at a certain distance I could not see the Sun.
Of course it does. In the FE model, that's sunrise and sunset. At the time of these phenomena, you observe the Sun being partially obscured by the Earth. Move a little further, and boom, you're in an area of the Earth that's not reached by any sunlight - because all light rays are either obstructed by the Earth, or not hitting the Earth at all.

Once again, if you disagree with what's posited in the diagrams, you'll have to illustrate why. If you think drawing additional light rays may be helpful, draw them. Do not repeatedly state that there is a contradiction without explaining what it is.

We know that this is not true because we can see other Suns (Stars) that are light years away. If your EA Diagram were true, than we would not be able to see such far away bodies.
This also does not follow. Whether an EA light ray will reach the Earth or not depends on (broadly) two factors: the elevation of the source and the angle of incidence of the ray. You are arguing that we should be seeing wide-angle rays from the Sun, and backing it up with the height of other stars. This is a non-sequitur.

You can have the last word Pete. But, the fallacy with your Diagram has been summarized.
You have yet to state your objection in a way that's complete, coherent, and free of fallacies itself.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 12:04:23 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice