Dual-flat-earth theory

This is my new flat earth theory. It took a great deal of work to come up with, but it answers every flaw. I refer you to the usual disproofs of a round earth, to focus on keeping this post concise. I have had to reject many of my favoured principles for the construction of this, but this model seems a far more accurate assessment.
I won’t dwell on evidence, most of it should be readily apparent: it matches observations with no unnecessary assumptions. It departs from a lot of flat earth theory I’ve seen, but it is the only answer I have seen to many questions (such as, for example, the matter of circumpolar stars).
I do not think my old theories were flawed, but to answer several objections (especially now I have been made aware of instantaneous aetheric transmission) a radical rethinking was necessary. Some details may be the same, some may be very different. I offer this as an alternative, not a replacement, both models have strengths and weaknesses. Without more data I cannot say conclusively which is true: this one answers more questions, but I feel it is based on more assumptions.

If that was too much to read: this alternative model refines many aspects of my previous beliefs, and defines some parts more. It’s in early stages, so there will be some gaps, but I’m sure I can answer them.

The earth is, approximately speaking, a flat disk. Clearly it is not completely flat, there are geographical quirks. It is around 20000km in diameter, and is suspended by what I call aether (which will be better defined later). The main departure from mainstream flat earth theory is here: the earth is occupied on both sides. The upper half is the northern ‘hemisphere’, as round earthers call it, the lower is the southern. This explains distances, and circumpolar stars. I can’t give the exact mechanics and equations, as I said, this is the early stages of a theory, but I hope it’s clear that it is far more possible.
The aether is what keeps people to each surface. For an example of how this is possible, the normal flat earth acceleration has a force on the underside, and an acceleration on the top. By equal and opposite reaction, these would give a similar effect.
This is not completely accurate, though. To better define aether, I think it may be more like a force than a stream. It is, essentially, immaterial, and I can see two possible origins. It may be everywhere, flow interrupted by the presence of matter, which it then imparts force on as a means to try and compress. This idea is clearer, and more in line with my previous theories, but does not explain how a world could come about. Alternatively, aether is produced by material bodies. Aether is not fully understood, but science takes time. I can’t give equations, as one person in particular repeatedly insists on, without further study and data: I can only guess at the variables I believe are relevant.
I can’t say whether or not the earth spins as well as moves. I don’t believe it’s necessary, but if I’m wrong, there is still nothing stopping it.

Next, there is the sun, with which there are two options. It moves around the earth, caught in the aetheric flow produced, or the sun is larger than is commonly held in flat earth theory, and in another departure, the earth moves around its aetheric flow (an aetheric whirlpool, to reuse terminology, generated by the presence of the sun or earth). I am not certain. The sun would be at the sides of the flat earth: where the equator is, and the earth or it moves up and down to cause the seasons. This allows the sun to give light to both sides of the earth, and creates the sunset effect as the sun goes around the circumference of the disk, or the disk moves and hides it from view.
There is a slight bulge on each side of the earth: only enough to give the sun more access to each side. As I said, it is not perfectly flat, any more than it could be with the existence of hills. This may also explain so-called curvature photos from amateurs: we instead see the bulge, and people ignore the fact the earth is flat, bulge aside, along the equator. After all, the so-called curvature is far to small to honestly be part of a round earth.

The obvious question is what happens at the equator: many people have been there. This is entirely to do with aether.  The slight bulge partially conceals the edge, while aether ensures anyone who reaches it stays against the earth, and can move from one side to the other. They wouldn’t even notice: this is a variation on instantaneous aetheric transmission, a theory already espoused.

The evidence is there by observation. There are some questions I don’t yet have answers to, science takes time, but every question proposed by round earthers is answered by this model.

Any further questions for the sake of refinement will be appreciated. This was put in debate to receive better input.
I know I have other personal theories, this isn’t the place to talk about them, I’m not yet sure how many will adapt. Science takes time, but I’m working on it. This is a radical change, but it seems to answer all issues (or could do, with minor tweaking, it’s hard to understand many round earther points).
Once I realized aetheric transmission allowed for life on both sides of a disk, a lot began to fall into place (such as plane journey times). While aetheric whirlpools could not exist in the same form, everything otherwise works. It is also clearer how people could be so wrong about the shape of the earth. Without knowledge of aether, you can see where the mistakes came about.

Poor old Aussies, stuck on the underside 

The sun gets quite high in the sky at the same time in both northern and southern latitudes, so the bulge must be really big yes?

Poor old Aussies, stuck on the underside 

The sun gets quite high in the sky at the same time in both northern and southern latitudes, so the bulge must be really big yes?

i haven't done the calculations, i can't tell you the details. it's possible, or there's still a refractive property of aether at work. it's hard to say.
as i said, this theory is in early days.

This is my new flat earth theory. It took a great deal of work to come up with, but it answers every flaw. I refer you to the usual disproofs of a round earth, to focus on keeping this post concise. I have had to reject many of my favoured principles for the construction of this, but this model seems a far more accurate assessment.
I won’t dwell on evidence, most of it should be readily apparent: it matches observations with no unnecessary assumptions. It departs from a lot of flat earth theory I’ve seen, but it is the only answer I have seen to many questions (such as, for example, the matter of circumpolar stars).
I do not think my old theories were flawed, but to answer several objections (especially now I have been made aware of instantaneous aetheric transmission) a radical rethinking was necessary. Some details may be the same, some may be very different. I offer this as an alternative, not a replacement, both models have strengths and weaknesses. Without more data I cannot say conclusively which is true: this one answers more questions, but I feel it is based on more assumptions.

If that was too much to read: this alternative model refines many aspects of my previous beliefs, and defines some parts more. It’s in early stages, so there will be some gaps, but I’m sure I can answer them.

The earth is, approximately speaking, a flat disk. Clearly it is not completely flat, there are geographical quirks. It is around 20000km in diameter, and is suspended by what I call aether (which will be better defined later). The main departure from mainstream flat earth theory is here: the earth is occupied on both sides. The upper half is the northern ‘hemisphere’, as round earthers call it, the lower is the southern. This explains distances, and circumpolar stars. I can’t give the exact mechanics and equations, as I said, this is the early stages of a theory, but I hope it’s clear that it is far more possible.
The aether is what keeps people to each surface. For an example of how this is possible, the normal flat earth acceleration has a force on the underside, and an acceleration on the top. By equal and opposite reaction, these would give a similar effect.
This is not completely accurate, though. To better define aether, I think it may be more like a force than a stream. It is, essentially, immaterial, and I can see two possible origins. It may be everywhere, flow interrupted by the presence of matter, which it then imparts force on as a means to try and compress. This idea is clearer, and more in line with my previous theories, but does not explain how a world could come about. Alternatively, aether is produced by material bodies. Aether is not fully understood, but science takes time. I can’t give equations, as one person in particular repeatedly insists on, without further study and data: I can only guess at the variables I believe are relevant.
I can’t say whether or not the earth spins as well as moves. I don’t believe it’s necessary, but if I’m wrong, there is still nothing stopping it.

Next, there is the sun, with which there are two options. It moves around the earth, caught in the aetheric flow produced, or the sun is larger than is commonly held in flat earth theory, and in another departure, the earth moves around its aetheric flow (an aetheric whirlpool, to reuse terminology, generated by the presence of the sun or earth). I am not certain. The sun would be at the sides of the flat earth: where the equator is, and the earth or it moves up and down to cause the seasons. This allows the sun to give light to both sides of the earth, and creates the sunset effect as the sun goes around the circumference of the disk, or the disk moves and hides it from view.
There is a slight bulge on each side of the earth: only enough to give the sun more access to each side. As I said, it is not perfectly flat, any more than it could be with the existence of hills. This may also explain so-called curvature photos from amateurs: we instead see the bulge, and people ignore the fact the earth is flat, bulge aside, along the equator. After all, the so-called curvature is far to small to honestly be part of a round earth.

The obvious question is what happens at the equator: many people have been there. This is entirely to do with aether.  The slight bulge partially conceals the edge, while aether ensures anyone who reaches it stays against the earth, and can move from one side to the other. They wouldn’t even notice: this is a variation on instantaneous aetheric transmission, a theory already espoused.

The evidence is there by observation. There are some questions I don’t yet have answers to, science takes time, but every question proposed by round earthers is answered by this model.

Any further questions for the sake of refinement will be appreciated. This was put in debate to receive better input.
I know I have other personal theories, this isn’t the place to talk about them, I’m not yet sure how many will adapt. Science takes time, but I’m working on it. This is a radical change, but it seems to answer all issues (or could do, with minor tweaking, it’s hard to understand many round earther points).
Once I realized aetheric transmission allowed for life on both sides of a disk, a lot began to fall into place (such as plane journey times). While aetheric whirlpools could not exist in the same form, everything otherwise works. It is also clearer how people could be so wrong about the shape of the earth. Without knowledge of aether, you can see where the mistakes came about.

I think it is an original idea. I have been wondering about similar scenarios as well. Anyway, it is difficult to prove either one, but at least you're trying to come up with something new. So isn't the equator the edge of the disc then? Basically when the Sun sets at the equator it simply moves below the upper side of the disc, that is why it gets dark so quickly at the equator. I don't believe the Earth accelerates upward either. In your scenario, does Antarctica exist?

Have you considered the possibility of two suns, perpendicular to each other, both orbiting the disc in opposite directions, so that one is always over some part of each side?

My brain hurts.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 02:34:41 AM

This is my new flat earth theory. It took a great deal of work to come up with, but it answers every flaw. I refer you to the usual disproofs of a round earth, to focus on keeping this post concise. I have had to reject many of my favoured principles for the construction of this, but this model seems a far more accurate assessment.
I won’t dwell on evidence, most of it should be readily apparent: it matches observations with no unnecessary assumptions. It departs from a lot of flat earth theory I’ve seen, but it is the only answer I have seen to many questions (such as, for example, the matter of circumpolar stars).
I do not think my old theories were flawed, but to answer several objections (especially now I have been made aware of instantaneous aetheric transmission) a radical rethinking was necessary. Some details may be the same, some may be very different. I offer this as an alternative, not a replacement, both models have strengths and weaknesses. Without more data I cannot say conclusively which is true: this one answers more questions, but I feel it is based on more assumptions.

If that was too much to read: this alternative model refines many aspects of my previous beliefs, and defines some parts more. It’s in early stages, so there will be some gaps, but I’m sure I can answer them.

The earth is, approximately speaking, a flat disk. Clearly it is not completely flat, there are geographical quirks. It is around 20000km in diameter, and is suspended by what I call aether (which will be better defined later). The main departure from mainstream flat earth theory is here: the earth is occupied on both sides. The upper half is the northern ‘hemisphere’, as round earthers call it, the lower is the southern. This explains distances, and circumpolar stars. I can’t give the exact mechanics and equations, as I said, this is the early stages of a theory, but I hope it’s clear that it is far more possible.
The aether is what keeps people to each surface. For an example of how this is possible, the normal flat earth acceleration has a force on the underside, and an acceleration on the top. By equal and opposite reaction, these would give a similar effect.
This is not completely accurate, though. To better define aether, I think it may be more like a force than a stream. It is, essentially, immaterial, and I can see two possible origins. It may be everywhere, flow interrupted by the presence of matter, which it then imparts force on as a means to try and compress. This idea is clearer, and more in line with my previous theories, but does not explain how a world could come about. Alternatively, aether is produced by material bodies. Aether is not fully understood, but science takes time. I can’t give equations, as one person in particular repeatedly insists on, without further study and data: I can only guess at the variables I believe are relevant.
I can’t say whether or not the earth spins as well as moves. I don’t believe it’s necessary, but if I’m wrong, there is still nothing stopping it.

Next, there is the sun, with which there are two options. It moves around the earth, caught in the aetheric flow produced, or the sun is larger than is commonly held in flat earth theory, and in another departure, the earth moves around its aetheric flow (an aetheric whirlpool, to reuse terminology, generated by the presence of the sun or earth). I am not certain. The sun would be at the sides of the flat earth: where the equator is, and the earth or it moves up and down to cause the seasons. This allows the sun to give light to both sides of the earth, and creates the sunset effect as the sun goes around the circumference of the disk, or the disk moves and hides it from view.
There is a slight bulge on each side of the earth: only enough to give the sun more access to each side. As I said, it is not perfectly flat, any more than it could be with the existence of hills. This may also explain so-called curvature photos from amateurs: we instead see the bulge, and people ignore the fact the earth is flat, bulge aside, along the equator. After all, the so-called curvature is far to small to honestly be part of a round earth.

The obvious question is what happens at the equator: many people have been there. This is entirely to do with aether.  The slight bulge partially conceals the edge, while aether ensures anyone who reaches it stays against the earth, and can move from one side to the other. They wouldn’t even notice: this is a variation on instantaneous aetheric transmission, a theory already espoused.

The evidence is there by observation. There are some questions I don’t yet have answers to, science takes time, but every question proposed by round earthers is answered by this model.

Any further questions for the sake of refinement will be appreciated. This was put in debate to receive better input.
I know I have other personal theories, this isn’t the place to talk about them, I’m not yet sure how many will adapt. Science takes time, but I’m working on it. This is a radical change, but it seems to answer all issues (or could do, with minor tweaking, it’s hard to understand many round earther points).
Once I realized aetheric transmission allowed for life on both sides of a disk, a lot began to fall into place (such as plane journey times). While aetheric whirlpools could not exist in the same form, everything otherwise works. It is also clearer how people could be so wrong about the shape of the earth. Without knowledge of aether, you can see where the mistakes came about.

I think it is an original idea. I have been wondering about similar scenarios as well. Anyway, it is difficult to prove either one, but at least you're trying to come up with something new. So isn't the equator the edge of the disc then? Basically when the Sun sets at the equator it simply moves below the upper side of the disc, that is why it gets dark so quickly at the equator. I don't believe the Earth accelerates upward either. In your scenario, does Antarctica exist?

the equator is the edge of the disc: the sun sets as it moves around the outside (up or down movement causes the seasons). the curve of the outside of the disk causes the setting motion.
i'm not sure whether the earth or the sun moves. the earth does not accelerate, certainly, the force of the aether fills that purpose even with no motion.
i think antarctica would exist. it would be on the lower side of the earth.

Have you considered the possibility of two suns, perpendicular to each other, both orbiting the disc in opposite directions, so that one is always over some part of each side?

My brain hurts.

i did consider that, but it's not necessary. as each side of the disk is inhabited, it's too complex to explain why two suns wouldn't always be visible, i think my solution makes more sense.

In this model, for 12 hours a day it would be dark everywhere in the Northern hemisphere. That doesn't happen. What path is the sun meant to be following, does it circle round the whole disc? If this was the case it would pass directly over the arctic everyday. It would follow a completely different route to what it is observed to do.

The simplest model that fits all the observable facts is a round Earth.

In this model, for 12 hours a day it would be dark everywhere in the Northern hemisphere. That doesn't happen. What path is the sun meant to be following, does it circle round the whole disc? If this was the case it would pass directly over the arctic everyday. It would follow a completely different route to what it is observed to do.

The simplest model that fits all the observable facts is a round Earth.

i didn't say that. the sun rotates around the equator, the circumference of the earth. it is to the sides of the earth, casting light to the top and bottom.

The aether is what keeps people to each surface... To better define aether, I think it may be more like a force than a stream... aether is produced by material bodies. Aether is not fully understood, but science takes time.
...
I can’t say whether or not the earth spins as well as moves. I don’t believe it’s necessary, but if I’m wrong, there is still nothing stopping it.
...
the sun is larger than is commonly held in flat earth theory, and in another departure, the earth moves around its aetheric flow (an aetheric whirlpool, to reuse terminology, generated by the presence of the sun or earth). I am not certain. The sun would be at the sides of the flat earth: where the equator is, and the earth or it moves up and down to cause the seasons.
...
There is a slight bulge on each side of the earth: only enough to give the sun more access to each side.

A force, generated by matter, that keeps people against it: the same force causing the Earth to rotate around the Sun, while the Earth has a curved bulge above and below the equator.
You have just described a Round Earth.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 02:34:41 AM

The aether is what keeps people to each surface... To better define aether, I think it may be more like a force than a stream... aether is produced by material bodies. Aether is not fully understood, but science takes time.
...
I can’t say whether or not the earth spins as well as moves. I don’t believe it’s necessary, but if I’m wrong, there is still nothing stopping it.
...
the sun is larger than is commonly held in flat earth theory, and in another departure, the earth moves around its aetheric flow (an aetheric whirlpool, to reuse terminology, generated by the presence of the sun or earth). I am not certain. The sun would be at the sides of the flat earth: where the equator is, and the earth or it moves up and down to cause the seasons.
...
There is a slight bulge on each side of the earth: only enough to give the sun more access to each side.

A force, generated by matter, that keeps people against it: the same force causing the Earth to rotate around the Sun, while the Earth has a curved bulge above and below the equator.
You have just described a Round Earth.

i did not. as i said, i am not certain on several details, but the earth is quite clearly flat.

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:06:39 AM

In this model, for 12 hours a day it would be dark everywhere in the Northern hemisphere. That doesn't happen. What path is the sun meant to be following, does it circle round the whole disc? If this was the case it would pass directly over the arctic everyday. It would follow a completely different route to what it is observed to do.

The simplest model that fits all the observable facts is a round Earth.

i didn't say that. the sun rotates around the equator, the circumference of the earth. it is to the sides of the earth, casting light to the top and bottom.

So the equator is the edge of the disc, the place where you change from the upper to the lower face. The sun revolves more or less around this edge? If this was the case the sun would never be more than a few degrees above the horizon except right at the equator.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 03:10:06 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:06:39 AM

In this model, for 12 hours a day it would be dark everywhere in the Northern hemisphere. That doesn't happen. What path is the sun meant to be following, does it circle round the whole disc? If this was the case it would pass directly over the arctic everyday. It would follow a completely different route to what it is observed to do.

The simplest model that fits all the observable facts is a round Earth.

i didn't say that. the sun rotates around the equator, the circumference of the earth. it is to the sides of the earth, casting light to the top and bottom.

So the equator is the edge of the disc, the place where you change from the upper to the lower face. The sun revolves more or less around this edge? If this was the case the sun would never be more than a few degrees above the horizon except right at the equator.

there are several explanations to that. one i brought up in the main post was that of a slight bulge, able to allow light over more of each side. alternatively, the sun may be larger than it seems, or not exactly a sphere.
weatherwax's suggestion of two suns, each rotating about the equator, one higher one lower, is also possible, though i'm not sure why only one is visible at the equator, so i'm not sticking to it just yet.

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:17:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 03:10:06 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:06:39 AM

In this model, for 12 hours a day it would be dark everywhere in the Northern hemisphere. That doesn't happen. What path is the sun meant to be following, does it circle round the whole disc? If this was the case it would pass directly over the arctic everyday. It would follow a completely different route to what it is observed to do.

The simplest model that fits all the observable facts is a round Earth.

i didn't say that. the sun rotates around the equator, the circumference of the earth. it is to the sides of the earth, casting light to the top and bottom.

So the equator is the edge of the disc, the place where you change from the upper to the lower face. The sun revolves more or less around this edge? If this was the case the sun would never be more than a few degrees above the horizon except right at the equator.

there are several explanations to that. one i brought up in the main post was that of a slight bulge, able to allow light over more of each side. alternatively, the sun may be larger than it seems, or not exactly a sphere.
weatherwax's suggestion of two suns, each rotating about the equator, one higher one lower, is also possible, though i'm not sure why only one is visible at the equator, so i'm not sticking to it just yet.

None of the explains how the sun could be directly overhead in places both North and South of the equator. It's impossible if the Earth is a disc and the sun is revolving around the edge of it.

There's also the question of the huge sudden changes in the angle of elevation of the sun near the equator in this model. In a very short distance it would go from being low in the sky, to being directly overhead to being low on the opposite horizon.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 03:21:04 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:17:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 03:10:06 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:06:39 AM

In this model, for 12 hours a day it would be dark everywhere in the Northern hemisphere. That doesn't happen. What path is the sun meant to be following, does it circle round the whole disc? If this was the case it would pass directly over the arctic everyday. It would follow a completely different route to what it is observed to do.

The simplest model that fits all the observable facts is a round Earth.

i didn't say that. the sun rotates around the equator, the circumference of the earth. it is to the sides of the earth, casting light to the top and bottom.

So the equator is the edge of the disc, the place where you change from the upper to the lower face. The sun revolves more or less around this edge? If this was the case the sun would never be more than a few degrees above the horizon except right at the equator.

there are several explanations to that. one i brought up in the main post was that of a slight bulge, able to allow light over more of each side. alternatively, the sun may be larger than it seems, or not exactly a sphere.
weatherwax's suggestion of two suns, each rotating about the equator, one higher one lower, is also possible, though i'm not sure why only one is visible at the equator, so i'm not sticking to it just yet.

None of the explains how the sun could be directly overhead in places both North and South of the equator. It's impossible if the Earth is a disc and the sun is revolving around the edge of it.

There's also the question of the huge sudden changes in the angle of elevation of the sun near the equator in this model. In a very short distance it would go from being low in the sky, to being directly overhead to being low on the opposite horizon.

the bulge explains that neatly, and i suspect the others do too. as i said, this is still in early days. it is not exactly like other flat earth theories, however.
if the sun is a little further away than usually stated, your second question is answered simply.

I didn't mean the suns are orbiting around the equator, I meant orbit perpendicular to to the earths surface (at an angle to explain temperature differences). So one sun is over the top side while the other is over the under side, then they "switch sides" every day. They are exactly the same size, so no way of knowing there are two.

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:26:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 03:21:04 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:17:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 03:10:06 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:06:39 AM

In this model, for 12 hours a day it would be dark everywhere in the Northern hemisphere. That doesn't happen. What path is the sun meant to be following, does it circle round the whole disc? If this was the case it would pass directly over the arctic everyday. It would follow a completely different route to what it is observed to do.

The simplest model that fits all the observable facts is a round Earth.

i didn't say that. the sun rotates around the equator, the circumference of the earth. it is to the sides of the earth, casting light to the top and bottom.

So the equator is the edge of the disc, the place where you change from the upper to the lower face. The sun revolves more or less around this edge? If this was the case the sun would never be more than a few degrees above the horizon except right at the equator.

there are several explanations to that. one i brought up in the main post was that of a slight bulge, able to allow light over more of each side. alternatively, the sun may be larger than it seems, or not exactly a sphere.
weatherwax's suggestion of two suns, each rotating about the equator, one higher one lower, is also possible, though i'm not sure why only one is visible at the equator, so i'm not sticking to it just yet.

None of the explains how the sun could be directly overhead in places both North and South of the equator. It's impossible if the Earth is a disc and the sun is revolving around the edge of it.

There's also the question of the huge sudden changes in the angle of elevation of the sun near the equator in this model. In a very short distance it would go from being low in the sky, to being directly overhead to being low on the opposite horizon.

the bulge explains that neatly, and i suspect the others do too. as i said, this is still in early days. it is not exactly like other flat earth theories, however.
if the sun is a little further away than usually stated, your second question is answered simply.

You haven't given any account of what I have asked. The "bulge" explains nothing. What you would observe on this Earth would be radically different to what we observe on the real Earth. The size and distance of the sun isn't relevant. It's the path it follows. If it was rotating around the rim of a disc we wouldn't see what we see. The experience of crossing the equator would be totally different as well.

I didn't mean the suns are orbiting around the equator, I meant orbit perpendicular to to the earths surface (at an angle to explain temperature differences). So one sun is over the top side while the other is over the under side, then they "switch sides" every day. They are exactly the same size, so no way of knowing there are two.

During winter and summer the sun can easily be tracked following a path that crosses from the Northern and Southern hemisphere. There is no evidence what-so-fucking-ever that there are two suns.

I am only giving ideas for JRowes new model.

I also just thought that higher temperatures nearer to the equator can be explained by the sun(s) heating the edges of the disc between sunset and sunrise.

I didn't mean the suns are orbiting around the equator, I meant orbit perpendicular to to the earths surface (at an angle to explain temperature differences). So one sun is over the top side while the other is over the under side, then they "switch sides" every day. They are exactly the same size, so no way of knowing there are two.

i would agree with herewegoaround in this case, there's no way to maintain the two orbits, especially with people on the equator who might be able to see both.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 03:28:46 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:26:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 03:21:04 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:17:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 03:10:06 AM

Quote from: herewegoround on March 10, 2015, 03:06:39 AM

In this model, for 12 hours a day it would be dark everywhere in the Northern hemisphere. That doesn't happen. What path is the sun meant to be following, does it circle round the whole disc? If this was the case it would pass directly over the arctic everyday. It would follow a completely different route to what it is observed to do.

The simplest model that fits all the observable facts is a round Earth.

i didn't say that. the sun rotates around the equator, the circumference of the earth. it is to the sides of the earth, casting light to the top and bottom.

So the equator is the edge of the disc, the place where you change from the upper to the lower face. The sun revolves more or less around this edge? If this was the case the sun would never be more than a few degrees above the horizon except right at the equator.

there are several explanations to that. one i brought up in the main post was that of a slight bulge, able to allow light over more of each side. alternatively, the sun may be larger than it seems, or not exactly a sphere.
weatherwax's suggestion of two suns, each rotating about the equator, one higher one lower, is also possible, though i'm not sure why only one is visible at the equator, so i'm not sticking to it just yet.

None of the explains how the sun could be directly overhead in places both North and South of the equator. It's impossible if the Earth is a disc and the sun is revolving around the edge of it.

There's also the question of the huge sudden changes in the angle of elevation of the sun near the equator in this model. In a very short distance it would go from being low in the sky, to being directly overhead to being low on the opposite horizon.

the bulge explains that neatly, and i suspect the others do too. as i said, this is still in early days. it is not exactly like other flat earth theories, however.
if the sun is a little further away than usually stated, your second question is answered simply.

You haven't given any account of what I have asked. The "bulge" explains nothing. What you would observe on this Earth would be radically different to what we observe on the real Earth. The size and distance of the sun isn't relevant. It's the path it follows. If it was rotating around the rim of a disc we wouldn't see what we see. The experience of crossing the equator would be totally different as well.

the bulge explain everything you're asking, i suggest you look up what a bulge is. when the sun is level with the equator, the bulge lets its light reach more of the earth. when you are near the equator, the bulge conceals just what's happening as the approach appears smoother, and aether keeps you close.
if you are going to reject what i have to say on principle, don't add anything.

I'm still sticking with "You're literally just describing RET."
Your aether is now gravity, and the Sun shines directly above the equator, and the Earth 'bulges' up and down either side, to give the sun further access. In what way is that not RET?

Okay I'll keep my double-sun theory for myself. I think it could be a winner  .

I'm still sticking with "You're literally just describing RET."
Your aether is now gravity, and the Sun shines directly above the equator, and the Earth 'bulges' up and down either side, to give the sun further access. In what way is that not RET?

no, it's not. just because you're obsessed with your gravity and round earth doesn't mean you get to force it on to everyone else. the earth is flat.

no, it's not. just because you're obsessed with your gravity and round earth doesn't mean you get to force it on to everyone else. the earth is flat.

This is nothing to do with obsession. Your aether attracts things towards matter, or mass: that's gravity. Your Earth rotates around the Sun, approximately over the equator. That's an orbit. Your Earth has a curved bulge above and below the equator. That's round.
What part of this is not going to be a sphere? Or, rather oblate spheroid.

Nice try but fail.

Why can people in the northern hemisphere see southern constellations?

Why do equatorial telescope mounts still need to be aligned parallel with the polar axis dependent upon latitude?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 06:00:40 AM

no, it's not. just because you're obsessed with your gravity and round earth doesn't mean you get to force it on to everyone else. the earth is flat.

This is nothing to do with obsession. Your aether attracts things towards matter, or mass: that's gravity. Your Earth rotates around the Sun, approximately over the equator. That's an orbit. Your Earth has a curved bulge above and below the equator. That's round.
What part of this is not going to be a sphere? Or, rather oblate spheroid.

what part of 'flat' are you struggling with? everything i've described is entirely accurate and possible with the flat model i've described.

Nice try but fail.

Why can people in the northern hemisphere see southern constellations?

Why do equatorial telescope mounts still need to be aligned parallel with the polar axis dependent upon latitude?

the first is obvious. the visible constellations will be closer to the sides of the earth, and would give light to the top and bottom. the bulge explains the rest.

i have no idea what the gibberish of your second question means, but i suspect it's answered similarly.

what part of 'flat' are you struggling with? everything i've described is entirely accurate and possible with the flat model i've described.

Apart from the fact it's not flat. You're appealing to the 'bulge' so much it only makes sense if it's a hemispherical bulge: you know, making the world round.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 10, 2015, 06:09:11 AM

what part of 'flat' are you struggling with? everything i've described is entirely accurate and possible with the flat model i've described.

Apart from the fact it's not flat. You're appealing to the 'bulge' so much it only makes sense if it's a hemispherical bulge: you know, making the world round.

i've answered your question. please stop questioning my answer.