The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.

It is a straight line.
As the pictures show, a shadow on a sphere will be straight on the curved surface. This isn't new.

That's not straight. It will only be straight if you are perpendicular to the object sphere with respect to the light source.

That's not straight. It will only be straight if you are perpendicular to the object sphere with respect to the light source.

Two spheres will always be "perpendicular" to each other.

No, you need to observe from perpendicular to see a straight shape.

>--------O
             |
             |
             |
             x

You are x. > is light source. If you are not perpendicular to the object with respect to the light source, you will not see a straight shadow.

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.

But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 14, 2011, 11:21:02 PM

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.

But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.

The point that I was trying to make by my disproval of geometric shadows is that night does not suddenly turn into day. It is a gradual transition. The area of the earth which is fully lit at any one time under RET would never be a precise hemisphere, and thus the diagrams are irrelevant.

Quote from: markjo on October 15, 2011, 09:11:40 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 14, 2011, 11:21:02 PM

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.

But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.

The point that I was trying to make by my disproval of geometric shadows is that night does not suddenly turn into day. It is a gradual transition. The area of the earth which is fully lit at any one time under RET would never be a precise hemisphere, and thus the diagrams are irrelevant.

Only because of light scattered through the atmosphere, not because the physics of light on a sphere cause a gradual transition.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on October 15, 2011, 09:31:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on October 15, 2011, 09:11:40 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 14, 2011, 11:21:02 PM

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.

But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.

The point that I was trying to make by my disproval of geometric shadows is that night does not suddenly turn into day. It is a gradual transition. The area of the earth which is fully lit at any one time under RET would never be a precise hemisphere, and thus the diagrams are irrelevant.

Only because of light scattered through the atmosphere, not because the physics of light on a sphere cause a gradual transition.

Irrelevant. Either way, the line of argument in the OP is rendered redundant.

The point that I was trying to make by my disproval of geometric shadows is that night does not suddenly turn into day. It is a gradual transition. The area of the earth which is fully lit at any one time under RET would never be a precise hemisphere, and thus the diagrams are irrelevant.

I see nothing in your original post that addressed gradual transition.  You specifically attacked straightness, not sharpness.

Those are very bad images. Provide evidence that shadows on a sphere produce a straight-line boundary between light and dark.

Who are you to judge a bad diagram when you make quick ms paint diagrams which utterly fail to show what it is you're trying to demonstrate?

Anyway, sharpness is irrelevant.  A sharp line can represent the position that is seeing exactly half a sun.

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 15, 2011, 09:34:00 AM

Only because of light scattered through the atmosphere, not because the physics of light on a sphere cause a gradual transition.

Irrelevant. Either way, the line of argument in the OP is rendered redundant.

No, sorry, the claim that night doesn't turn suddenly into day as an aspect of light distribution on a geometric shape rather than an aspect of atmospheric effects is very very relevant. See Parsifal for lessons on how to use the word "irrelevant" properly.

No, you need to observe from perpendicular to see a straight shape.

>--------O
             |
             |
             |
             x

You are x. > is light source. If you are not perpendicular to the object with respect to the light source, you will not see a straight shadow.

What I said is correct. But now I see what you were really saying.
In you picture half of O wil be lit up. You could say that the end of light ends on the prime meridian. The prime meridian will look straight from any angle, why wouldn't the light/ shadow line?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 14, 2011, 11:21:02 PM

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.

But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.

Sorry, how does that affect CidTheKid's original claim that it's a straight line?

Quote from: markjo on October 15, 2011, 09:11:40 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 14, 2011, 11:21:02 PM

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.

But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.

Sorry, how does that affect CidTheKid's original claim that it's a straight line?

Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?

Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?

In Euclidean geometries, It's impossible to plot a straight line on a curved surface. This should be elementary for someone who claims to hold a science degree.

Quote from: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 05:39:45 PM

Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?

In Euclidean geometries, It's impossible to plot a straight line on a curved surface. This should be elementary for someone who claims to hold a science degree.

You know what we are talking about. Don't derail the thread.

You know what we are talking about.

I do know what we're talking about because I've started what we are talking about. This line is not a straight line. I'm waiting for CidTheKid's response.

Quote from: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 05:39:45 PM

Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?

In Euclidean geometries, It's impossible to plot a straight line on a curved surface. This should be elementary for someone who claims to hold a science degree.

FE semantic #1 - definition of "straight" 

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 15, 2011, 05:47:09 PM

Quote from: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 05:39:45 PM

Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?

In Euclidean geometries, It's impossible to plot a straight line on a curved surface. This should be elementary for someone who claims to hold a science degree.

FE semantic #1 - definition of "straight" 

His argument has run out. Nothing else he can do.

cid's sphere's lit section definitely has curve to it.  This one does not:

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 15, 2011, 04:00:19 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 15, 2011, 09:11:40 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 14, 2011, 11:21:02 PM

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.

But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.

Sorry, how does that affect CidTheKid's original claim that it's a straight line?

Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?

I can

Quote from: sokarul on October 15, 2011, 05:39:45 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 15, 2011, 04:00:19 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 15, 2011, 09:11:40 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 14, 2011, 11:21:02 PM

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.

But it is similar to the day/night illumination pattern predicted by RET.

Sorry, how does that affect CidTheKid's original claim that it's a straight line?

Are you going to back up your claim that it is not a straight line on a curved surface?

I can

That line doesn't follow anything. The line should follow the curvature of the sphere.

The equator on a globe is an example of a straight line on a sphere.

The line connects the two places on either end of the boundary where it meets the edge of the sphere.  the centre of said boundary clearly does not follow the straight line I've drawn.

I see your confusion.  You believe we are discussing the geodesic, but in fact we are discussing apparent straightness, which cids picture does not show.

Eh, that was just the first sphere that came up on image search that I liked. I've got more constructive things to do than argue with people on the internet, though the debate that incurred was quite entertaining.

Nolhekh's Example is much better.



As an aside, none of this answers the points raised by the OP.

1. According to RET, the rising and setting of the sun can be consistently predicted, and the light behaves in a manner expected from a sphere. This is Illustrated in the OP.

a: Evidence that puts "Sun Calculators" into doubt has not been brought up.
b: A sphere with a single light source will only have one shadow; whether the edge has a curved line, or a straight line depends on the angle upon which the sphere is viewed. A straight line is possible, but only from a 90 degree angle. Evidence that this is not the case has not been brought up.

2. FET does not have any consistency regarding the subject of solar illumination since there is no commonly accepted Flat Earth map that matches the current predictions of Sunrise and Sunset.

3. Therefore, RET is better.



While I'm here, I'll just leave a picture for you to look at. I think it's quite nice, though it should have no bearing on my argument.

If you feel it's somehow fake, I'd be glad to here how you came to this conclusion. Send me a Message. 

I see nothing in your original post that addressed gradual transition.  You specifically attacked straightness, not sharpness.

If it is not sharp, there is no straight line. There is no line.

Who are you to judge a bad diagram when you make quick ms paint diagrams which utterly fail to show what it is you're trying to demonstrate?

Irrelevant.

Anyway, sharpness is irrelevant.  A sharp line can represent the position that is seeing exactly half a sun.

wtf?

1. According to RET, the rising and setting of the sun can be consistently predicted, and the light behaves in a manner expected from a sphere. This is Illustrated in the OP.

Of course, this also applies to FET.

a: Evidence that puts "Sun Calculators" into doubt has not been brought up.

The results aren't put into doubt. The method of deriving them is.

b: A sphere with a single light source will only have one shadow; whether the edge has a curved line, or a straight line depends on the angle upon which the sphere is viewed. A straight line is possible, but only from a 90 degree angle. Evidence that this is not the case has not been brought up.

Sorry, what?

2. FET does not have any consistency regarding the subject of solar illumination since there is no commonly accepted Flat Earth map that matches the current predictions of Sunrise and Sunset.

Incorrect.

3. Therefore, RET is better.

Better for what purposes? If you mean it's more convenient to believe it, definitely so. If you mean it's more true, nnnnope.

Apparently, stars don't exist, and the Moon's horizon is pink. Might that little pink trail be a remnant of "magic pink" a colour commonly used for transparency in CGI?

Apparently, stars don't exist, and the Moon's horizon is pink. Might that little pink trail be a remnant of "magic pink" a colour commonly used for transparency in CGI?

Why would you expect to see stars in that picture? I don't see a pink trail either.

Of course, this also applies to FET.

I'm willing to listen to your explanation.

The results aren't put into doubt. The method of deriving them is.

I'm certain you have evidence to back up this claim.

Sorry, what?

This is covered in basic art class. Read this, Page two:http://www.huevaluechroma.com/021.php

Incorrect.

You can do better than simply claiming I'm wrong. Providing a FE map that matches the prediction of sunrise and sunset across the world will be good enough.

Better for what purposes? If you mean it's more convenient to believe it, definitely so. If you mean it's more true, nnnnope.

Better, in the form of being a more consistent, Less Hole-ridden explanation. It also happens to be true, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 15, 2011, 09:53:34 PM

Apparently, stars don't exist, and the Moon's horizon is pink. Might that little pink trail be a remnant of "magic pink" a colour commonly used for transparency in CGI?

Why there are no stars:http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html
Find the CGI Borders in a film made almost entirely in CGI:" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Color distortions were quite common back when Film was still used instead of digital photography.



As you can see, Ronald Reagan is clearly wearing a green suit, identical to the one he always wore.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 16, 2011, 04:14:37 AM

Apparently, stars don't exist, and the Moon's horizon is pink. Might that little pink trail be a remnant of "magic pink" a colour commonly used for transparency in CGI?

Why would you expect to see stars in that picture? I don't see a pink trail either.

Kindly shut up and let me debate my own points. If anything, you lead the debate onto a tangent completely unrelated to the OP.

I suggest you make a separate thread for this argument, so we can continue debating this subject there.

Of course, this also applies to FET

Light behaves in a manner expected on a sphere in a flat Earth model? Why is this?

The results aren't put into doubt. The method of deriving them is.

What's wrong with the method of deriving them? It seems far simpler than the flat Earth method, with it's bendy light, perspective making things disappear when reaching a certain distance, and other forces that no doubt have a significant effect on the distribution of light.

Just to add some data into this thread, here's a collection of webcams from various Antarctica bases run by Australia. I think these ones are quite good as they include a time lapse of the past few days, so you can get a rough idea of how long the days and nights are. As of the time of witing(mid October), the days where very slightly longer than the nights. This is much what you would expect with a round Earth model just after the September equinox, but as far as I can tell you would only expect 6 hours or so of light under a flat Earth model, unless there's another phenomena that's being kept from us.

webcams from various Antarctica bases run by Australia.

Webcams from rim-continent bases run by imagination?

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 15, 2011, 11:48:03 AM

I see nothing in your original post that addressed gradual transition.  You specifically attacked straightness, not sharpness.

If it is not sharp, there is no straight line. There is no line.

incorrect.  Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 15, 2011, 11:48:03 AM

Who are you to judge a bad diagram when you make quick ms paint diagrams which utterly fail to show what it is you're trying to demonstrate?

Irrelevant.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 15, 2011, 11:48:03 AM

Anyway, sharpness is irrelevant.  A sharp line can represent the position that is seeing exactly half a sun.

wtf?

The line in the op could represent the position where an observer will see the sun with half of it hidden behind the horizon.