[anubisrwml]

Hey there,

This isn't by any means an attempt to um...display the ignorance of those of the Flat Earth Society, but rather a serious challenge based on the very same materials found within your wiki and common home appliances.

First, I present to you a picture found on the wiki which explains the rotation of the sun and the moon according to those who believe in this theory.



Now, in your own home do we not use lamps and lights to light up the room? Surely we've seen that, if you hold a light close to the surface of the floor, everything is dark, very similar to the picture above. But you have to hold it very close because your floor is flat, and the light spreads quite fast the farther up you go.

Based on this simple 5 year old experiment, you can see that the higher you lift the lamp, and this is by the way empirical evidence which is the foundation of the Flat Earth Theory, the farther the light spreads. Taking into account the size of the "flat" earth, even being a flat disc as portrayed, in order for the sun to rotate according to the picture above, it would need to be very very close to the earth in perspective.

Now. Lets stick our hand in the light of the shadow. You see a shadow of your hand right? The closer to the opposite surface away from the light you go, the smaller the shadow! Amazing, and completely empirical! Everyone can do this one too! Now...the closer to the light you go, the greater the shadow, right? Ok stay with me...we're getting complicated now. Based on this empirical evidence of shadow, and combined with what we know of how light spreads the further you it is from the surface of the object, be it the earth or your living room floor, the wider the effect. It doesn't take much to completely light up the entire house! Thus, when you see a plane flying you can sometimes see a shadow - and it's a very small shadow in comparison to the world and it's so very high up. Thus, the sun must be significantly further away! But hold up, if that were the case, due to the height of the sun in order for this to happen, the whole earth should be lit up all the time! Especially if it's flat! (With the exception of shadows from mountains and valleys).

Also, let's take in the size of the Sun - it's quite small really - and if it was so far away, how has it burned for as long as it has without running out of fuel? Surely it can't be all that big if it's so close to the earth as to only light up a small portion of it right? Again, try out the 5 year old experiment above for empirical evidence.

Thus, based on pure observation and empirical evidence and not a shred of actual scientific evidence, but pure 100% observation that any child can figure out, the world can't possibly be flat. My challenge is to argue this, but here's the deal! Before you can argue it, you HAVE to try the experiment above, and share your results. Then by all means argue.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell

[nametaken]

I welcome the challenge, but I think you're in the same boat I'm in, in not understanding the FE theory. Here is a link to Parallax's book.

I've heard this argument already, and generally it's the perspective argument that will come in reply; the sun is small and closer, not 93,000,000 miles away. As with your lamp/hand analogy, when a little light has a surface area to cover which makes it's own radius shamefully small... well, it reaches the vanishing point relatively fast ~and keeps going beyond it. I may not have completely understood your analogy, but this explains what you seem to be asking. With your analogy you'd have to take the lamp out of the house and go several miles away to account for the 'day time' in the other houses.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I don't quite follow what you're saying. But the overwhelmingly condescending tone is a non starter if you want anyone to want to hear what you have to say.

If your statement is that the sun should light up the entire earth at once, which is pretty much all I could deduce from that overly long, insulting diatribe, then you are wrong. Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset.

If I missed your point, then please try to be more concise and less rude. Thanks.

[rabinoz]

I don't quite follow what you're saying. But the overwhelmingly condescending tone is a non starter if you want anyone to want to hear what you have to say.

If your statement is that the sun should light up the entire earth at once, which is pretty much all I could deduce from that overly long, insulting diatribe, then you are wrong. Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset.

If I missed your point, then please try to be more concise and less rude. Thanks.

We get sunsets at a very predictable times, with the sun certainly appearing to set behind the horizon.

Please explain how you explanation "Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset" can possibly explain that. True it does explain the "reds and purples in the sky at sunset".

You claim "Light decays"! No, light travelling through a vacuum does not decay!
Travelling through a clear atmosphere the limit is about 340 km - the Rayleigh Limit due to scattering from Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules. The actual limit varies from only a few kilometres up to this figure, depending on the clarity of the air.

With the Flat Earth model at sunset the sun is (supposedly) around 5000 km high and on the equator at an equinox around 14,400 km away (horizontally). With this geometry, and the effective top of the atmosphere is at about 10 km high.

With these distances the effective path length for sunlight at sunset is only about 30 km! Unless you come up with some very "bendy light".
And while we are at it, the sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky, yet its distance from the observer varies from 5,000 km when overhead to roughly 15,000 km at sunset - why does perspective cause it to reduce it size to less than 1/3 the size it is when overhead? The explanation we are given is "atmospheric magnification" - sure, must be a big magnifying glass up there!

That model of the sun has so holes it it's a wonder all the "phlogiston[1]" doesn't leak out.

[1] Stop laughing! Someone DID suggest that (not on this site though).

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I don't quite follow what you're saying. But the overwhelmingly condescending tone is a non starter if you want anyone to want to hear what you have to say.

If your statement is that the sun should light up the entire earth at once, which is pretty much all I could deduce from that overly long, insulting diatribe, then you are wrong. Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset.

If I missed your point, then please try to be more concise and less rude. Thanks.

We get sunsets at a very predictable times, with the sun certainly appearing to set behind the horizon.

Please explain how you explanation "Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset" can possibly explain that. True it does explain the "reds and purples in the sky at sunset".

You claim "Light decays"! No, light travelling through a vacuum does not decay!
Travelling through a clear atmosphere the limit is about 340 km - the Rayleigh Limit due to scattering from Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules. The actual limit varies from only a few kilometres up to this figure, depending on the clarity of the air.

With the Flat Earth model at sunset the sun is (supposedly) around 5000 km high and on the equator at an equinox around 14,400 km away (horizontally). With this geometry, and the effective top of the atmosphere is at about 10 km high.

With these distances the effective path length for sunlight at sunset is only about 30 km! Unless you come up with some very "bendy light".
And while we are at it, the sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky, yet its distance from the observer varies from 5,000 km when overhead to roughly 15,000 km at sunset - why does perspective cause it to reduce it size to less than 1/3 the size it is when overhead? The explanation we are given is "atmospheric magnification" - sure, must be a big magnifying glass up there!

That model of the sun has so holes it it's a wonder all the "phlogiston[1]" doesn't leak out.

[1] Stop laughing! Someone DID suggest that (not on this site though).

Why do you feel an incessant need to speak for others? My post was clearly intended for the OP, as an invitation to elaborate his point of view, with less arrogance and more precision.

If you think the Sun looks the same at noon as it does prior to sunset, then you are lying to yourself. To me, when I see it at sunset, it clearly looks blurrier, hazier, with a large amount of flare going on.

Quick question: When you see an airplane going away into the distance, does it or does it not sink into the horizon, regardless of altitude?

[rabinoz]

We get sunsets at a very predictable times, with the sun certainly appearing to set behind the horizon.

Please explain how you explanation "Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset" can possibly explain that. True it does explain the "reds and purples in the sky at sunset".

You claim "Light decays"! No, light travelling through a vacuum does not decay!
Travelling through a clear atmosphere the limit is about 340 km - the Rayleigh Limit due to scattering from Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules. The actual limit varies from only a few kilometres up to this figure, depending on the clarity of the air.

With the Flat Earth model at sunset the sun is (supposedly) around 5000 km high and on the equator at an equinox around 14,400 km away (horizontally). With this geometry, and the effective top of the atmosphere is at about 10 km high.

With these distances the effective path length for sunlight at sunset is only about 30 km! Unless you come up with some very "bendy light".
And while we are at it, the sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky, yet its distance from the observer varies from 5,000 km when overhead to roughly 15,000 km at sunset - why does perspective cause it to reduce it size to less than 1/3 the size it is when overhead? The explanation we are given is "atmospheric magnification" - sure, must be a big magnifying glass up there!

That model of the sun has so holes it it's a wonder all the "phlogiston[1]" doesn't leak out.

[1] Stop laughing! Someone DID suggest that (not on this site though).

Why do you feel an incessant need to speak for others? My post was clearly intended for the OP, as an invitation to elaborate his point of view, with less arrogance and more precision.

If you think the Sun looks the same at noon as it does prior to sunset, then you are lying to yourself. To me, when I see it at sunset, it clearly looks blurrier, hazier, with a large amount of flare going on.

Quick question: When you see an airplane going away into the distance, does it or does it not sink into the horizon, regardless of altitude?

• I did not say "the Sun looks the same at noon as it does prior to sunset", I said "sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky". So I am NOT lying to myself or anyone else.
  Of course the sun looks redder and sometimes distorted and shimmery at sunset!
  But, it is absolutely true that (apart from a bit of distortion sunrise and sunset) the sun does stay the SAME SIZE as it moves across the sku!
• Yes, an aeroplane dose sink towards the horizon, it DOES NOT appear to sink BELOW the horizon.
  And their is a massive difference here the plane maybe at 10,000 m altitude and if the air is perfectly clear be visible (would need a telescope!) for up to hundreds of kilometres. At this distance it would be within a couple of degrees of the horizon.
  On the other hand, the FE sun is supposedly at 5,000 km altitude, and at sunset would be roughly (varies a lot depending on season and location) 14,400 km away. At this distance is is still at an elevation from the horizon of about 19°. BIG, BIG difference.
  So, YOU tell me how this magic FE sun of YOURS ever could appear to SET BEHIND THE HORIZON or even sink into the horizon?

The moon does essentially the same thing and is easier to observe because it is not so glaringly bright. So, please explain in words simple enough for an apparent dunder-head like me to understand just how this is possible!

Moonset

E&OE(xpected)

[atmoSPHERE]

We get sunsets at a very predictable times, with the sun certainly appearing to set behind the horizon.

Please explain how you explanation "Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset" can possibly explain that. True it does explain the "reds and purples in the sky at sunset".

You claim "Light decays"! No, light travelling through a vacuum does not decay!
Travelling through a clear atmosphere the limit is about 340 km - the Rayleigh Limit due to scattering from Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules. The actual limit varies from only a few kilometres up to this figure, depending on the clarity of the air.

With the Flat Earth model at sunset the sun is (supposedly) around 5000 km high and on the equator at an equinox around 14,400 km away (horizontally). With this geometry, and the effective top of the atmosphere is at about 10 km high.

With these distances the effective path length for sunlight at sunset is only about 30 km! Unless you come up with some very "bendy light".
And while we are at it, the sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky, yet its distance from the observer varies from 5,000 km when overhead to roughly 15,000 km at sunset - why does perspective cause it to reduce it size to less than 1/3 the size it is when overhead? The explanation we are given is "atmospheric magnification" - sure, must be a big magnifying glass up there!

That model of the sun has so holes it it's a wonder all the "phlogiston[1]" doesn't leak out.

[1] Stop laughing! Someone DID suggest that (not on this site though).

Why do you feel an incessant need to speak for others? My post was clearly intended for the OP, as an invitation to elaborate his point of view, with less arrogance and more precision.

If you think the Sun looks the same at noon as it does prior to sunset, then you are lying to yourself. To me, when I see it at sunset, it clearly looks blurrier, hazier, with a large amount of flare going on.

Quick question: When you see an airplane going away into the distance, does it or does it not sink into the horizon, regardless of altitude?

• I did not say "the Sun looks the same at noon as it does prior to sunset", I said "sun certainly appears to stay the same size as it appears to move over the sky". So I am NOT lying to myself or anyone else.
  Of course the sun looks redder and sometimes distorted and shimmery at sunset!
  But, it is absolutely true that (apart from a bit of distortion sunrise and sunset) the sun does stay the SAME SIZE as it moves across the sku!
• Yes, an aeroplane dose sink towards the horizon, it DOES NOT appear to sink BELOW the horizon.
  And their is a massive difference here the plane maybe at 10,000 m altitude and if the air is perfectly clear be visible (would need a telescope!) for up to hundreds of kilometres. At this distance it would be within a couple of degrees of the horizon.
  On the other hand, the FE sun is supposedly at 5,000 km altitude, and at sunset would be roughly (varies a lot depending on season and location) 14,400 km away. At this distance is is still at an elevation from the horizon of about 19°. BIG, BIG difference.
  So, YOU tell me how this magic FE sun of YOURS ever could appear to SET BEHIND THE HORIZON or even sink into the horizon?

The moon does essentially the same thing and is easier to observe because it is not so glaringly bright. So, please explain in words simple enough for an apparent dunder-head like me to understand just how this is possible!

Moonset

E&OE(xpected)

That's really weird. My brain is starting to hurt now. The FE model does not allow for this. Your photo is edited!

[BlueMoon]

Pretty sure that photo is edited.  The reflection of the moon shouldn't be brighter than the moon itself.  The moon shouldn't have a white ring around the edge like that either.  Conclusion: the moon was superimposed there by a non-professional, and doesn't belong in this image at all.  Second conclusion: the sun should be up even with the main cloud frill.  That's where the crepuscular rays point, right in the middle of the artificially darkened area. 

[atmoSPHERE]

Pretty sure that photo is edited.  The reflection of the moon shouldn't be brighter than the moon itself.  The moon shouldn't have a white ring around the edge like that either.  Conclusion: the moon was superimposed there by a non-professional, and doesn't belong in this image at all.  Second conclusion: the sun should be up even with the main cloud frill.  That's where the crepuscular rays point, right in the middle of the artificially darkened area.

Are you saying that it's impossible for the moon to dip down below the horizon?

[BlueMoon]

Are you saying that it's impossible for the moon to dip down below the horizon?

Why would I be saying that?  I'm just saying that this isn't a good picture.  Here are some better ones that aren't fake. 

[rabinoz]

Pretty sure that photo is edited.  The reflection of the moon shouldn't be brighter than the moon itself.  The moon shouldn't have a white ring around the edge like that either.  Conclusion: the moon was superimposed there by a non-professional, and doesn't belong in this image at all.  Second conclusion: the sun should be up even with the main cloud frill.  That's where the crepuscular rays point, right in the middle of the artificially darkened area. I put that photo there, but it's provenance is ? (unknown). There are at least 151 references easily accessible. The one that looks the most likely origin (I think) says (in Swedish) "What if I had been so good at taking photos that I managed to take this picture for example. Now I'm not the first to admit bluntly that it is stolen . . . . . " But it's still a nice picture.

[Venus]

Pretty sure that photo is edited.  The reflection of the moon shouldn't be brighter than the moon itself.  The moon shouldn't have a white ring around the edge like that either.  Conclusion: the moon was superimposed there by a non-professional, and doesn't belong in this image at all.  Second conclusion: the sun should be up even with the main cloud frill.  That's where the crepuscular rays point, right in the middle of the artificially darkened area. I put that photo there, but it's provenance is ? (unknown). There are at least 151 references easily accessible. The one that looks the most likely origin (I think) says (in Swedish) "What if I had been so good at taking photos that I managed to take this picture for example. Now I'm not the first to admit bluntly that it is stolen . . . . . " But it's still a nice picture.

I came across this one the other day when I was reading the news online ... it was taken in Australia (drivers on the left hand side of the road) and you can tell it is from the southern hemisphere because the moon looks different than what the moon looks like from the northern hemisphere (an observation for which I have yet to find a FE explanation)
The website was
http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/centralian-advocate/full-moon-rises-to-the-imagination-of-alice-springs/news-story/aacc0924459828df3e9906453182b60c#load-story-comments

[rabinoz]

I put that photo there, but it's provenance is ? (unknown). There are at least 151 references easily accessible. The one that looks the most likely origin (I think) says (in Swedish) "What if I had been so good at taking photos that I managed to take this picture for example. Now I'm not the first to admit bluntly that it is stolen . . . . . " But it's still a nice picture. I came across this one the other day when I was reading the news online ... it was taken in Australia (drivers on the left hand side of the road) and you can tell it is from the southern hemisphere because the moon looks different than what the moon looks like from the northern hemisphere (an observation for which I have yet to find a FE explanation) The website was http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/centralian-advocate/full-moon-rises-to-the-imagination-of-alice-springs/news-story/aacc0924459828df3e9906453182b60c#load-story-comments

Yes, for me the Alice Springs moon is obviously the "right one"!
These pictures fron "Woodlands Junior School" seem to illustrate the phases well:

Phases of the moon as seen in the Northern Hemisphere

Phases of the moon as seen in the Southern Hemisphere
From: The Moon, Woodlands Junior School

[Pete Svarrior]

OP needs to read the FAQ and parts of the wiki. Rabinoz needs to stop abusing the table BBCode. What's new?

[rabinoz]

OP needs to read the FAQ and parts of the wiki. Rabinoz needs to stop abusing the table BBCode. What's new?

So, I sttutter occasionally but TFES still can't work out how the sun rises and sets!

We have read the Wiki and a lot of the FAQ! But what we see with our own eyes seems to conflict with any explanations given.

When the sky is perfectly clear at sunrise I see the sun's disk going being completely hidden to fully visible over a period of only about 2 minutes, and at sunset going from fully visible to completely hidden over same period.

So OF COURSE we look up the Wiki!

How do you explain day/night cycles and seasons?
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves.

It unequivocally says The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves.
This might sort of explain the "sudden disappearance" (I'm not convinced, but who am I?).
But, it does not explain how the moon is illuminated, especially when full! In this post,
Re: Why should anyone believe the earth is flat? « Reply #81 on: March 17, 2016, 11:11:50 AM », I got nowhere trying to discuss this with Tom Bishop.

Tom Bishop seems to speak as though he has some authority in TFES and he says:

The sun shines light from all directions on its surface. It's not a lamp. It's light is limited in its duration across the earth's surface because of the not-perfectly-transparent atmosphere, and its decent(sic?) into the surface is an illusion of perspective.
The sun and moon at a level of about 3000 miles above the earth are not within the atmosphere of the earth, and so the light between those two objects is unimpeded.

This explanation can never explain the sharp transition we see as the sun rises and sets! On top of that, before sunrise and after sunset we often see sunlight shining on the underside of clouds near the horizon!
In addition "the not-perfectly-transparent atmosphere" simply cannot explain the quite precise predictions we can make of sunrise and sunset times (certainly within a couple of minutes at the most)!.
The obvious explanation of this that the sun is indeed below the horizon.

We are all waiting for explanations of these everyday events.

I've probably made numerous errors, but nothing compared to what we find in the Wiki!

[atmoSPHERE]

OP needs to read the FAQ and parts of the wiki. Rabinoz needs to stop abusing the table BBCode. What's new?

SexWarrior needs to stop being such an internet warrior and start having sex. What's new?

I concur with rabinoz. The things stated in the wiki and FAQ do not reflect observations of everyday events. OBSERVATIONS. OF EVERYDAY EVENTS. If you cannot understand this, then your credibility as a sentient being is hereby revoked. SexWarrior, you are the first.

[Pete Svarrior]

I mean, if you think you've already figured it all out, then what are you doing here? If you're so convinced you have all the answers, why are you still asking questions? And if it is because you're looking for our answers, why do you not even let us speak?

SexWarrior needs to stop being such an internet warrior and start having sex. What's new?

If you're offering... your place or mine?   

[atmoSPHERE]

SexWarrior needs to stop being such an internet warrior and start having sex. What's new?

If you're offering... your place or mine?   

Nah man I don't swing that way. To each their own. Also, if you want to get laid, it's best not to ask for handouts. And using more than one of the same emoji comes across as desperate. Play it cool, bro.

Anyway, I'm letting you speak now aren't I? As if I could block you out of the forum entirely. Just remember that even though you have a right to speak, it doesn't mean everyone is going to listen. In fact, the more bullshit you spew, the less people will listen.

[Round fact]

I don't quite follow what you're saying. But the overwhelmingly condescending tone is a non starter if you want anyone to want to hear what you have to say.

If your statement is that the sun should light up the entire earth at once, which is pretty much all I could deduce from that overly long, insulting diatribe, then you are wrong. Light decays. Also it would be affected by the atmosphere to some degree -- the reason we see reds and purples in the sky at sunset.

If I missed your point, then please try to be more concise and less rude. Thanks.

OMG light does NOT "decay" it spreads out. Google Inverse Square Law. The Sun is a -27 Magnitude Star. Or if you want it in watts, 380 Septillion watts, or 6.89x10³³ lumens.

Even if it was a "spotlight" the beam or in over cast locations, its glow, would be visible over then entire FE.

And I have covered this before in more detail but to save you timeNow the real math of an FE World triangle created by the sun and two observers on the ground. Side (a) is the distance from the observer (The observer is Angle C) on the ground at the Equator to the sun directly overhead at 3,150 miles (The Sun is Angle B). Side (b) is the distance on the ground between the two observers of the sun. For this proof, observer 2 (Angle A) can be thought of as standing directly under Polaris, the farthest point it is possible to be from Observer Angle C, which is a distance of 6,300 miles. Side (c) is the distance between observer 2 and the sun, 7,043 miles.

Angle C is 90 degrees as the sun is ALWAYS directly overhead and Observer Angle A is on the same plain as Angle C. Angle A to Angle B is 26.57 degrees.  This angle is the MINIMUM angle the sun would appear above the the plain in a FE. The maximum is 90 degrees.  Which means the closer Angle A is to Angle C the the Angle to B is STEEPER.

This makes prospective as the reason the sun seems to set below the horizon on a FE plain mathematically impossible. The Sun's angle to ANY observer is NEVER close to the plain/horizon.

The of course in a FE  world, the sun, traveling in a circle over the plain would appear in the morning to be traveling SOUTH and in the evening back NORTH as seen from anyplace above the equator.

Here is the online calculator one can use to see FE's use of prospective is fantasy and mathematically impossible; http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html

[Charming Anarchist]

My challenge is to argue this, but here's the deal! Before you can argue it, you HAVE to try the experiment above, and share your results.

I am having trouble re-creating the experiment in the dimensions of the earth.  Any ideas how to do that? 

Then by all means argue.

You are the 1 arguing with flat earthers.  Tell 10 of your friends "I argue with flat-earthers on the internet." and share your results.