Flat Earth model of sun's movement is false

I was looking at the example linked (Thanks Gotham.)
It would appear that sunlight only covers a quarter of the disk at any time.
Therefore the solstices would be non-existent. At the equator during what would be commonly known as the solstice, when the sun's path corresponds to the equatorial circle, those at the equator would experience 8 hours of Sunlight and 16 of darkness, (assuming that the sun still goes round in 24 hours at a relatively steady angular velocity), as the disk of sunlight extends only across 120 degrees of the equator at that time.

 Indeed only those latitudes within the arctic circle would experience a solstice and each latitude on different days throughout the year, and everywhere else, never!

In that model, the Sun actually only covers 1/3 the area of the FE (think of pi).  Anyway, the model is used is false not only because of what you posted, but because it would heat the Earth differently than what is observed.

Quote from: wecl0me12 on December 02, 2010, 04:00:19 PM

two things wrong.
1. the sun suddenly disappears. However, it's explanation, saying that light gradually diminishes, is wrong, as the sun is visible and a minute later, it has sunk below the horizon.
2. The earth is not symmetrical, and that page just assumes that it's the sun that causes this. This assumption is wrong. 

1. You can see daylight dimming as the day approaches sunset, the and twilight remains for some time afterward. It is not a sudden disappearance.
2. In either both RET and FET, the earth is more or less symmetrical in shape, ignoring comparatively small local anomalies such as mountains etc. A disk shaped earth is symmetrical about any plane which passes through the center and runs perpendicular to the ground, and a spherical earth is symmetrical about any plane which passes through the center.

1. according to the article, light gradually diminishes. However, the sun itself does suddenly disappear. The surroundings might slowly fade, but the sun itself disappears

2. The local anomalies are exactly what causes the temperature differences that EnaG says is impossible on round earth.

In that model, the Sun actually only covers 1/3 the area of the FE (think of pi).  Anyway, the model is used is false not only because of what you posted, but because it would heat the Earth differently than what is observed.

  The disk of sunlight shown in the model has a diameter of about half that of the FE (maybe even smaller), and therefore it's radius too. Pi*r^2 gives the area of a circle, if the FE has radius R and the sunlight ½R, then the FE will have a radius of Pi*R^2
and the sunlight will have an area of Pi*(½R^2) = ¼Pi*R^2 = ¼(FE area). Since 0.5 squared is 0.25.

To cover a third of the FE the disk of sunlight radius would have to be 0.577 of the FE radius (The square root of one third). This would still cause insurmountable problems to anyone attempting to explain the equinox.

 I obviously believe the model to be false, but I am fascinated why others believe it to be true. If there are different or more accurate FE models of the sunlight please provide them.

Correction: - I wrote 'solstice' instead of 'equinox' in the last post. I have since rectified the error, but any quotes still contain the error. Apologies.
  Thank you.

You're right, my bad.  If the area of a circle with diameter x is y, then the area of a circle with diameter x/2 is about y/5.

Anyway, the Sunlight model is terribly faulty because at the equinoxes (and possibly other times, though I didn't check) 1/2 of the (flat) Earth would have to be lit up at once.  Sunrise/sunset times support this, yet the FE model uses a spot/floodlight Sun.  And unless that Sun has magical filters that change the area it lights up, FE'ers better think of a more accurate Sun model.

You're right, my bad.  If the area of a circle with diameter x is y, then the area of a circle with diameter x/2 is about y/5.

Anyway, the Sunlight model is terribly faulty because at the equinoxes (and possibly other times, though I didn't check) 1/2 of the (flat) Earth would have to be lit up at once.  Sunrise/sunset times support this, yet the FE model uses a spot/floodlight Sun.  And unless that Sun has magical filters that change the area it lights up, FE'ers better think of a more accurate Sun model.

No such "magical filter" is required, the atmosphere will do perfectly well here. Tom Bishop has explained these phenomena very well:

1. The Sun is a sphere. It is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun

2. The sun's path travels roughly over the equator, circling the earth once every 24 hours. As the sun moves in its circular path it also moves Northward and Southward throughout the year, at its northern annulus during the northern summer and at its southern annulus during the southern summer.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Seasons

3. The sun does not "dip below the edge". Its disappearance at sunset caused by natural laws of perspective.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun

4. The sun's light acts as a spotlight upon the earth, creating a circular illuminated area. But it does not follow that the sun is flat. The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions around it. Its light is diluted and bounded in its extent as it travels across the surface of the earth by the simple fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Viewing+Distance

An interesting point this raises is the shape of the sun's spotlight effect. Because it is effectively bounded by the earth's atmosphere, the shape of the spotlight depends heavily on the shape and density of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere of the flat earth were a dome shape, as I have often seen it represented, then the sun's light would be less restricted the further south one goes. This is due to the fact that the sun's light would have to pass through more atmosphere in the north and therefore is therefore diluted more rapidly, while in the south it would pass through less atmosphere and would travel further in the south due to a lower restriction. This would result in a skewed shape of the "spotlight", with the illuminated area being considerably larger in the south and smaller in the north.

so a sphere with a light in all directions can still make a spotlight?
and also, if the sun looks like it dissappears under  the horizon, how does athmospheric conditions solve it

Quote from: Hessy on December 08, 2010, 09:31:17 AM

You're right, my bad.  If the area of a circle with diameter x is y, then the area of a circle with diameter x/2 is about y/5.

Anyway, the Sunlight model is terribly faulty because at the equinoxes (and possibly other times, though I didn't check) 1/2 of the (flat) Earth would have to be lit up at once.  Sunrise/sunset times support this, yet the FE model uses a spot/floodlight Sun.  And unless that Sun has magical filters that change the area it lights up, FE'ers better think of a more accurate Sun model.

No such "magical filter" is required, the atmosphere will do perfectly well here. Tom Bishop has explained these phenomena very well:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 09, 2010, 06:56:33 PM

1. The Sun is a sphere. It is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun

2. The sun's path travels roughly over the equator, circling the earth once every 24 hours. As the sun moves in its circular path it also moves Northward and Southward throughout the year, at its northern annulus during the northern summer and at its southern annulus during the southern summer.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Seasons

3. The sun does not "dip below the edge". Its disappearance at sunset caused by natural laws of perspective.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun

4. The sun's light acts as a spotlight upon the earth, creating a circular illuminated area. But it does not follow that the sun is flat. The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions around it. Its light is diluted and bounded in its extent as it travels across the surface of the earth by the simple fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Viewing+Distance

An interesting point this raises is the shape of the sun's spotlight effect. Because it is effectively bounded by the earth's atmosphere, the shape of the spotlight depends heavily on the shape and density of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere of the flat earth were a dome shape, as I have often seen it represented, then the sun's light would be less restricted the further south one goes. This is due to the fact that the sun's light would have to pass through more atmosphere in the north and therefore is therefore diluted more rapidly, while in the south it would pass through less atmosphere and would travel further in the south due to a lower restriction. This would result in a skewed shape of the "spotlight", with the illuminated area being considerably larger in the south and smaller in the north.

However, none of this explains why observers on or near the equator experience very nearly 12 hours of daylight every day of the year.  Even Tom couldn't come up with an explanation when directly confronted with this trivial detail.

Markjo just pointed out a pretty big hole, I couldn't find an answer for why areas near the equator get 12 hours of sunlight in any of that text.

In response to Terra Plana:


http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h442/RyanHessy/UnequalHeating.jpg

That model represents what the flat Earth should look like at the equinoxes.  And, just for kicks, here's some more stuff (based on the FAQ's map) which I may very well just put in another thread:

------------------------------

Further Inspection of the Heating of the Earth as Pertaining to the Sun's Orbit
Debunk of the FAQ's map (and likely any others)

(sunrises and sunsets taken on September 21)

Buenos Aires, Argentina
34.61S, 58.37W  (2388 mi South of equator)  sunlight is 51 degrees angle when over longitudinal line
High/Low Temperatures: 59F/66F
Sunrise: 6:36:02 am
Sunset: 6:50:48 pm
-- About 12 hours day/night --

Beijing, China
39.93N, 116.4E  (2755 mi North of equator) sunlight is 47 degrees angle when over longitudinal line
High/Low Temperatures: 55F/64F
Sunrise: 6:02:06 am
Sunset: 6:15:43 pm
-- About 12 hours day/night --

Now, taking into account time differences, this shows that (approximately) the sun set in one city as it rose in another city, and vice versa.  This means that, on the FAQ's map, approximately 1/2 of the map would have to be lit up at one time to coordinate properly with the sunrise and sunset times taken above.  (observe the diagram)

Note the drastic change in the angle of the Sun with the cities.

In response to Terra Plana:


http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h442/RyanHessy/UnequalHeating.jpg

That model represents what the flat Earth should look like at the equinoxes.  And, just for kicks, here's some more stuff (based on the FAQ's map) which I may very well just put in another thread:

------------------------------

Further Inspection of the Heating of the Earth as Pertaining to the Sun's Orbit
Debunk of the FAQ's map (and likely any others)

(sunrises and sunsets taken on September 21)

Buenos Aires, Argentina
34.61S, 58.37W  (2388 mi South of equator)  sunlight is 51 degrees angle when over longitudinal line
High/Low Temperatures: 59F/66F
Sunrise: 6:36:02 am
Sunset: 6:50:48 pm
-- About 12 hours day/night --

Beijing, China
39.93N, 116.4E  (2755 mi North of equator) sunlight is 47 degrees angle when over longitudinal line
High/Low Temperatures: 55F/64F
Sunrise: 6:02:06 am
Sunset: 6:15:43 pm
-- About 12 hours day/night --

Now, taking into account time differences, this shows that (approximately) the sun set in one city as it rose in another city, and vice versa.  This means that, on the FAQ's map, approximately 1/2 of the map would have to be lit up at one time to coordinate properly with the sunrise and sunset times taken above.  (observe the diagram)

Note the drastic change in the angle of the Sun with the cities.

so, now light that is from a sphere that hits all directions, stops at a straight line?

why?

so, now light that is from a sphere that hits all directions, stops at a straight line?

why?

Great question.   

Edit: Just so you know, I think technically (most) FE'ers believe the Sun is a flat disc that acts as a spotlight/floodlight.  Not a sphere.  Yet your question still stands.

from FAQ

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.
----

    SO, the sun and moon are spotlights, but it doesn't really say if they are spheres or not, unless they are classed as celestial bodies. But we know from our experience that it does not matter what time of day we observe the sun, it always appears as a disk. If only we knew of a particular shape that appears disk-like from any angle. (Apologies for the sarcasm, you'd think it should be beneath me. BUt... no)
   Therefore how can the light be a spotlight, when it faces us directly until it sets, and presumably those who are seeing at midday at that time too? And of course, again, how can there be a flat line terminator across the disk from a spotlight, or sphere? You cannot argue diffusion of light for its propagation over the daylight area and then expect it to have different properties when it hits a magical shadow wall at 180 degrees.


Off
<Cold easing up here: phew! Hope the rest of you are all keeping warm!>

...hence my point.

1. The Sun is a sphere. It is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun

2. The sun's path travels roughly over the equator, circling the earth once every 24 hours. As the sun moves in its circular path it also moves Northward and Southward throughout the year, at its northern annulus during the northern summer and at its southern annulus during the southern summer.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Seasons

3. The sun does not "dip below the edge". Its disappearance at sunset caused by natural laws of perspective.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun

4. The sun's light acts as a spotlight upon the earth, creating a circular illuminated area. But it does not follow that the sun is flat. The sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions around it. Its light is diluted and bounded in its extent as it travels across the surface of the earth by the simple fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

See: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Viewing+Distance

this is from some other thread.  tom bishop states that the sun is a sphere

We can assume that the sun is closest to the hottest locations on Earth (equator). Take the FE map and trace around the equator locations. That should be the sun's path of travel. If the path is narrow enough to appear as east and west moments it's likely true.

You say there is a problem with the flat earth model, yet you fail to show the exact model you are looking at. Without knowing what model you are looking at, it's pointless to discuss. There are several FE models out there...if you knew this, you should have REALLY specified which one you are talking about. If you did not know this, maybe you don't have the info needed to hold a conversation on this subject.


" Unless you can provide an accurate, detailed, coherent model, then we have nothing but assumptions to go on"

EXACTLY.    Globers have NOTHING but ASSUMPTIONS to go on.

It's like someone telling you a car can be powered by water, but they don't tell you how its done, so you don't believe it can be done. so you just create a pile of assumptions and come up with every reason in the world why a car running on water just wont work. To claim the water car model is impossible, without seeing the blueprints and tech behind the build, is FLAT out STUPID.

You say there is a problem with the flat earth model, yet you fail to show the exact model you are looking at. Without knowing what model you are looking at, it's pointless to discuss. There are several FE models out there...if you knew this, you should have REALLY specified which one you are talking about. If you did not know this, maybe you don't have the info needed to hold a conversation on this subject.

Yes, there are several models, wish just push the problem around.
No FE model can address it.

" Unless you can provide an accurate, detailed, coherent model, then we have nothing but assumptions to go on"
EXACTLY.    Globers have NOTHING but ASSUMPTIONS to go on.

No, that would be the FEers with nothing but assumptions.
REers have an accurate, detailed, coherent model which is capable of predicting and explaining phenomena.

It's like someone telling you a car can be powered by water, but they don't tell you how its done, so you don't believe it can be done. so you just create a pile of assumptions and come up with every reason in the world why a car running on water just wont work. To claim the water car model is impossible, without seeing the blueprints and tech behind the build, is FLAT out STUPID.

No it isn't.
People saying you can use electrolysis to split water and use that hydrogen and oxygen for combustion to fuel the car, powering the car by water are full of shit.
It doesn't matter what specific set up they use, it wont work, and all the evidence in the world shows that.
It takes more energy to split the water than you get out of it by combustion.
Best case scenario you don't lose any energy to the environment and just break even, but that means the car isn't being fuelled by water.

Just like it doesn't matter what speific model you want to make for a FE, it won't work.
It cannot explain the apparent position of the sun and other stars.
The simple fact that we have 2 celestial poles always 180 degrees apart, solidly disproves all FE models except those where Earth is limited to a tiny section of it, where then instead of the sun and stars being the problem, the rest of the Earth not existing is.

Yes, there are several models, wish just push the problem around.
No FE model can address it.

you avoid answering the question.
WHICH MODEL are you talking about specifically, AND WHY are you using THAT model?
I'm waiting...

"NO FE model can address the suns movement"
so, You ASSUME, that you have closely examined EVERY FE model out there?
You ASSUME , your info on the suns movement , size, positioning, orbit, etc is correct..( without any verification whatsoever ) and trying to line up your thoughts about the sun with a fe model is not working out for you right? When your mind is made up already, it's easy to understand why.
I have SEEN models that DO address the suns movement, the eclipses, etc...put in the time..

"Unless you can provide an accurate, detailed, coherent model, then we have nothing but assumptions to go on"
There are flaws in the globe model as well, and you need to ASSUME a lot to believe a globe earth.
to ignore that fact is silly. If it was such a great model..there would be no room for anything else.
being oblivious to flaws in your own model really shows your inability to think for yourself.




"REers have an accurate, detailed, coherent model.."
according to who? RE'ers? lol wow ..no surprise there.

I think you should reevaluate what you believe to be evidence for a globe.

if it was so detailed and accurate, then why do most sites use the wrong math for finding "curvature"? LMAO
engineers, scientists, geomappers, etc..you name it..there are sites galore using MATH, that prove the curvature having a drop or 8" first mile..ETC... yadda yadda... but that's Not correct is it...lol
if there formulas were correct, we would not see cities across lakes, they would be completely "over and under your imaginary horizon line... you should have a meeting with RE' folks and get that situated before pretending you understand the shape if the earth with such certainty.
so all these people have been using the wrong math formulas, etc..all these years?
are they THAT STUPID?...and all of this comes about only after flat earth hits the scene again ten years ago...

weird...

" People saying you can use electrolysis to split water and use that hydrogen and oxygen for combustion to fuel the car, powering the car by water are full of shit.

...you have horribly selective hearing/reading skills...

I CLEARLY say... THEY DON'T TELL YOU HOW ITS DONE....
so you can't ASSUME you understand...but as an RE'er..that's EXACTLY what you are doing. smh..
it was an analogy that went over your head...
the point is.. you look unintelligent to claim something is impossible, when in reality, you have no idea what the possibilities truly are. 

if we talked about ufo's and how they can zip around the air , folks like you would claim " flying  and turning at such great speeds is impossible !! no matter what setup they use!!!! "LMAO
 get it?
you'd go into talking about engines and BS never imagining that maybe the tech is FAR beyond your minute ability to comprehend it!

you go on to say...
It doesn't matter what specific set up they use, it wont work, and all the evidence in the world shows that.
says who, you ? lol
have YOU tried EVERY SETUP? 
seen all the evidence in the world have you ?  haha... just stop already kid..
do you understand how such blanket statements destroy any credibility you think you might have?

do you understand that certain laws of physics that have to do with energy can be are are broken in certain situations, even though typical academia will shout THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE!


"Just like it doesn't matter what speific model you want to make for a FE, it won't work"

wow. So, before studying the models, or seeing future models, you automatically shut it down as if it's not possible and to you, it will always be wrong!?  That is proof in itself, that your brain has been officially brainwashed to the point where evidence presented to someone like you won't make much of a difference will it..
= Discussion with a closed mind that was made up long before Fe came around is pointless.
as good as you are at pretending, I'm surprised you don't pretend to be at least a little more open minded...
no need to let your brain fall out...

Thank you for the laughs.

Yes, there are several models, wish just push the problem around.
No FE model can address it.

you avoid answering the question.

No, it isn't avoiding it.
It is pointing out it applies to all models.

The OP specifically appears to be referring to the NP AEP FE model.
But as I said, it applies to ALL FE models (which have the entire Earth).

One fact mentioned in the OP is the direction of sunrise and sunset.
On the equinox, the sun is observed to rise from due east along a line of longitude.
Just focusing on that, and going from the north pole to the south pole (20 000 km) allowing an error of 1 degree, would mean the sun needs to be at least 500 000 km away, putting it well off any FE model making it impossible for the sun to be above any point on Earth, while it is directly above a point on Earth.

No FE model can explain this.
The only way out (keeping Earth flat) is to shrink Earth to just a tiny portion of Earth.

It does not address a specific model, it addresses all models.
If you think a FE model doesn't have this issue, then provide it.

so, You ASSUME, that you have closely examined EVERY FE model out there?

No, as I don't need to.
It is a general disproof.
Just like if I want to say the observed curvature or distances is incompatible with Earth being flat I don't need to specifically address a particular FE model.

If the argument needs to focus on a particular one it is a rather weak argument which only disproves that specific not all models and does nothing to prove the opposite.

You ASSUME , your info on the suns movement , size, positioning, orbit, etc is correct..( without any verification whatsoever )

No, I learn about the sun's movement and verify it.

I have SEEN models that DO address the suns movement, the eclipses, etc...put in the time..

Then provide them.

There are flaws in the globe model as well, and you need to ASSUME a lot to believe a globe earth.

Care to provide an example, either of the flaw or the assumption?

If it was such a great model..there would be no room for anything else.

There is no room in rational thought for anything else, other than fine tuning it, such as getting the radius more accurate or the eccentricity and so on.
There is no room for Earth to be flat in any rational thought.

"REers have an accurate, detailed, coherent model.."
according to who? RE'ers? lol wow ..no surprise there.

According to every sane person on the planet that has bothered looking into it.

if it was so detailed and accurate, then why do most sites use the wrong math for finding "curvature"? LMAO

Because they are FEers that are dishonestly presenting it to pretend the curvature is missing.
Or, because they are providing the correct math and FEers just lie about the math by misapplying it.

engineers, scientists, geomappers, etc..you name it..there are sites galore using MATH, that prove the curvature having a drop or 8" first mile..ETC... yadda yadda... but that's Not correct is it...lol

They show it is an approximation.

if there formulas were correct, we would not see cities across lakes

There you go completely ignoring what the math is showing.
Put your eyes at sea level and see if you can still see them.
You also need to understand refraction and how that bends light, and that the curvature of Earth isn't all there is to it.

you should have a meeting with RE' folks and get that situated before pretending you understand the shape if the earth with such certainty.

No, it seems to be you that needs that meeting so you actually understanding what you are discussing.

so all these people have been using the wrong math formulas, etc..all these years?
are they THAT STUPID?...and all of this comes about only after flat earth hits the scene again ten years ago...

No, it wasn't ten years ago.
The FEers have been around misusing those formulas for much longer.
And I'm not sure if they are that stupid or just that dishonest that they will happily lie to people.
Which are you?

Flat Earth was the original idea behind the shape of Earth, based upon people just assuming it.
It was only when there was evidence showing that to be wrong that people discarded their false belief in a flat Earth.

...you have horribly selective hearing/reading skills...
I CLEARLY say... THEY DON'T TELL YOU HOW ITS DONE....

So?
I made no mention of how the electrolysis was achieved, nor how the gasses are delivered to the engine, or what kind of engine and so on.
I only kept it as splitting water to burn the products which just produces more water.
Something which a fair amount of con men pretend you can do.

You can't use it directly as chemical fuel to burn either.

This is like saying FE is wrong, rather than a particular model.
What you are saying now is akin to suggesting we are saying all models of Earth are wrong.

so you can't ASSUME you understand

I don't assume. I know.

you look unintelligent to claim something is impossible, when in reality, you have no idea what the possibilities truly are.

Good thing I do know the possibilities.

if we talked about ufo's and how they can zip around the air , folks like you would claim

There you go assuming crap about me.
Good job showing that all these negativity you are spouting about me actually applies to you.

do you understand how such blanket statements destroy any credibility you think you might have?

Do you understand how such blanket statements can be actually be correct and based upon actual knowledge, and that you don't need to address every single possible option specifically?

do you understand that certain laws of physics that have to do with energy can be are are broken in certain situations, even though typical academia will shout THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE!

Yes, typically dealling with quantum mechanics, where conservation of energy can be violated for a short time, but only at the quantum level, not at the macroscopic level.

So, before studying the models, or seeing future models, you automatically shut it down as if it's not possible

Nope, even after seeing the models and the pathetic excuses they have made, I still accept the mountains of evidence for a round Earth complete with numerous issues the FEers cannot rationally and honestly address.

That is proof in itself, that your brain has been officially brainwashed to the point where evidence presented to someone like you won't make much of a difference will it..

No it isn't.
It is proof that I am rational human being that has seen and understood the evidence and wont be thrown into massive doubt because some moron comes up with crap.
I base my position on the evidence that shows Earth to be round, not flaws with specific FE models.

If people say you aren't a human, do you need to consider every possibility for what you might otherwise be, including species we haven't encountered yet, or can you conclude you are a human?

Does that mean you are brainwashed?

= Discussion with a closed mind that was made up long before Fe came around is pointless.

That would be impossible unless you think I am several thousand years old.

as good as you are at pretending, I'm surprised you don't pretend to be at least a little more open minded...
no need to let your brain fall out...

But you seem to want me to let my brain fall out.
If you can provide evidence of a FE model which actually works which addresses the multitude of problems which the FE models currently face, which works better than the RE model, I will accept it.
Until you do, I'm not going to pretend that the FE is viable just to be "open minded". That would require ignoring the mountains of evidence showing Earth is round.
That isn't being open minded, that is being stupid.

Yes, there are several models, wish just push the problem around.
No FE model can address it.

you avoid answering the question.
WHICH MODEL are you talking about specifically, AND WHY are you using THAT model?
I'm waiting...

"NO FE model can address the suns movement"
so, You ASSUME, that you have closely examined EVERY FE model out there?

Your very implication that there are many FE models out there is very good evidence to me that the earth is not flat.
Were the earth really flat, it would be simply a matter of making observations and measurements and building the one true model up from there.
As is is the observations and measurements made on the real earth all seem to fit a spherical earth.
They can only be shoe-horned to fit a flat earth by claiming that most of the actual measurements are deceptive and made by deceivers - so no go.

You ASSUME , your info on the suns movement , size, positioning, orbit, etc is correct..( without any verification whatsoever ) and trying to line up your thoughts about the sun with a fe model is not working out for you right? When your mind is made up already, it's easy to understand why.
I have SEEN models that DO address the suns movement, the eclipses, etc...put in the time..

No, you made the claim that, you "have SEEN models that DO address the suns movement, the eclipses".

Put your money where your mouth is and present all those models.