[NorseMythology]

I am sure this has been brought up before but I haven't seen it nor could I find any info on wiki.

What do the Sun and Moon orbit, and why is the Moons orbit relatively circular meanwhile the Suns is quite irregular and eccentric?

For simplicities sake, if we assume Newtonian physics, they have to be acted on by another force in order to change direction (of velocity).

Has anyone taken a stab at explaining this?

We cannot say the Sun and Moon are co-orbitting for the reason of orbital regularity mentioned above, so there must be another mechanism of force.

[Curious Squirrel]

They both orbit the central pole of the Earth (or in the bipolar model...ok not sure on the moon, but the sun orbits the North pole for 6 months, and then the South pole for 6 months) in some fashion. Then all of the planets orbit the sun (hence why Tom likes to keep calling it a heliocentric model, which is technically correct even if it's a bit closer to a bastardization of heliocentric and geocentric imo). What keeps the sun/moon in their orbits around the pole(s)? The only answer beyond "We don't know" that I've ever really seen was someone suggesting there's a giant pole that comes up out of the North pole, with arms that have the sun and moon on the ends of them, and them spinning is what moves the sun and moon. Because if we're going do disbelieve that anyone's ever been to the South pole may as well do the same for the North pole right?

I think the general consensus though is simply they don't know. Or maybe something to do with the 'celestial gears' that are the reason the stars spin through the sky.

[Ratboy]

As mentioned a number of times on this site, if you actually watch the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars of the zodiac, they all follow the same basic path.  During the equinox, they are all directly overhead people living along the equator.  During the solstice, the full moon and the sun follow the opposite paths, namely the moon will be over the tropic of capricorn in June and cancer in December.  The new moon follows the exact same path as the sun.  The planets are always in one of the zodiac constellations and Mercury and Venus follow the sun generally and the other planets do not.  So all these heavenly bodies bounce around between being overhead of the people between the two tropics.  I do not seen how one can say any of them have different orbits.  They all behave the same way, only their cycle times are different.  One of the zodiac constellations is always overhead someone on the equator.  The flat earth model has a very complicated zipping around behavior to explain.  As noted by me many times, if a flat earther is forced to admit that some people might live south of the equator, these paths are basically impossible to map.  So long as we stay in England, we can make a model that works for anyone that matters.  A geocentric round earth makes sense from a simple observational perspective a lot more than a flat earth and that is why the heliocentric model was so difficult to win people over with.  To the person that simply watches the night sky closely without complex instruments, a geocentric round earth pretty much works. If you watch the night sky closely a flat earth just makes your head hurt trying to figure out what you are seeing.

[NorseMythology]

I realize this question cannot really be answered, well it could but would require some sophisticated mathematical ability which I don't expect most of us have (on either side of the debate).

I also, as I am sure many of us do, wonder how they explain why te sun only appears to arc perpendicular to the surface instead of parallel

[Rounder]

Perpendicular isn’t right either.  The arc is at the angle of your latitude.

[NorseMythology]

Perpendicular isn’t right either.  The arc is at the angle of your latitude.

TY for the correction.

[spoonbow]

Additionally, there needs to be an accounting of the force required to change the velocity of the sun as its orbit changes in the single pole model, no? Since it's traversing a larger circle during a daily orbit during winter, the speed of the sun must gradually accelerate between summer and winter equinox, then decelerate as the circle becomes smaller once again.

[NorseMythology]

Additionally, there needs to be an accounting of the force required to change the velocity of the sun as its orbit changes in the single pole model, no? Since it's traversing a larger circle during a daily orbit during winter, the speed of the sun must gradually accelerate between summer and winter equinox, then decelerate as the circle becomes smaller once again.

Precisely, I tried getting that across in my OP but was afraid the more basic point would be lost, so i deleted it. Yours is nicely more concise.

[spoonbow]

Additionally, there needs to be an accounting of the force required to change the velocity of the sun as its orbit changes in the single pole model, no? Since it's traversing a larger circle during a daily orbit during winter, the speed of the sun must gradually accelerate between summer and winter equinox, then decelerate as the circle becomes smaller once again.

You're unlikely to get a cogent reply to the original question, much less to this one, which is much more difficult to explain away.

This is yet another example of why the flerfers should stay away from using Occam's Razor to support their stance. Theirs is a much too complex and unwieldy theory, having to constantly introduce new and always "unknown" sources of energy to jury rig an explanation for the next flaw in their theory which should crop up. It is entertaining, though.

Quite honestly I had come to TFES in the hopes of finding some intelligent conversation, robust theory, and good science in support of their position. I've been fairly disappointed so far having found only a strange, single-minded fixation on an atmospheric parlor trick (The Bishop Experiment) as modern experimental "proof", some maps that are so far removed from what is experienced in the real world that I find it hard to believe they even have them posted (while admitting they are "flawed"), a woefully sparse FAQ and wiki that primarily refer to dated and inaccurate texts, and a flat refusal to accept any photographic evidence presented that runs contrary to their beliefs. They'd be much better off developing a sense of humor and at least having a little fun with their visitors. Then perhaps those guests would be compelled to buy some merchandise in the shop, and TFES would at last have some funds to conduct proper research.   

[Scroogie]

This may be slightly off topic, but this is the nearest "Moon" thread I found.

I remember Tom Bishop's mention of the partially lit moon "pointing" upward, to use Tom's terminology, which it needs to do in order to corroborate the FE view of the location of the sun and moon above the horizon at all times. It seems to me that one, and only one, instance of the moon's lit portion "pointing" below the horizon would negate and nullify any such theory.

Well, I just went outside and noticed the half moon in the southeastern sky. It is presently near Jupiter, and its lit face points below the horizon.

Over to you, Tom.

[Scroogie]

Saw the moon again just now (4:40 AM) and it's still "pointing" below the horizon. How is it that Tom always seems to see the moon "pointing" above the horizon yet I always see it "pointing" below the horizon? Must be some hitherto unknown property of "perspective".

[SpaceCadet]

Saw the moon again just now (4:40 AM) and it's still "pointing" below the horizon. How is it that Tom always seems to see the moon "pointing" above the horizon yet I always see it "pointing" below the horizon? Must be some hitherto unknown property of "perspective".

By the time I abandoned that thread, Tom had demanded a diagram/an illustration from every one who had an opinion on his opinion (and gotten them by the way) while refusing to provide a diagram/an illustration to explain his own point all the while insisting  opposing opinions didn't understand his position, didn't understand what he meant by the moon pointing up/down. Has anything changed since then?

But then seeing as this thread started mid February and this is almost mid March and not a single flat earther has responded, I doubt there are any real flat earthers on this site.