Round earther acknowledges the sun

Is there a believer in Round Earth who acknowledges that if the Earth is flat the sun and moon will operate as described by the FE theory? In other words FE could be correct in theory (regarding the sun and the moon).

see more http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The%20Cosmos

Is there a believer in Round Earth who acknowledges that if the Earth is flat the sun and moon will operate as described by the FE theory? In other words FE could be correct in theory (regarding the sun and the moon).

see more http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The%20Cosmos

Probably not, no.

It's been shown that for a spotlight Sun to light the observed area, would mean its daylight at the north pole all the time.

-which would, by almost everyone's logic, melt the north pole. hmm

-which would, by almost everyone's logic, melt the north pole. hmm

Not when the heating is low (and the airco is on  )

There is no consensus on the theory of the moon, and I've yet to hear one that explains the phases realistically (to say nothing of eclipses).

The FET model of the Sun is more likely, though I'm not completely convinced, due to bits and pieces I've seen around the forum. Haven't thought about those details too much, though; they're relatively minor.

Is there a believer in Round Earth who acknowledges that if the Earth is flat the sun and moon will operate as described by the FE theory? In other words FE could be correct in theory (regarding the sun and the moon).

see more http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The%20Cosmos

No. My understanding of the flat earth sun model is that the sun must be considerably closer, and directional, allowing them to explain time zones and seasons. However there has been no explanation for how the sun can be a directional light, like a spotlight, while still always appearing to be circular from every angle. A spotlight is an omni-directional light which is covered on all sides but one. How can the sun act the same without a cover?

Nor does this model explain sunsets, where the sun clearly passes behind the horizon without a change in angular size.

FET can't explain sunsets, so I definitely don't think that it's possible.

Not only sunsets, but the Flat Earth Theory has trouble with eclipses,  it needs shadow objects  anti-moon,  and  transparent moon, heat resistant aether etc.

The flat earth also has  insurmountable problems with the southern hemisphere,  the south pole,  upside down moon,  south celestial pole,  magnetic fields,  just creating a flat earth map that reflects the distances in the southern hemisphere is impossible,  midnight sun in antarctica.   and on it goes. 

Motion of the earth around the sun, is never going to be adequately described when you dig deeper into it  watch this...   " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So far all flat earth sun ideas are terribly flawed.
 - sunlight times in the different hemispheres can not be explained
 - the sun not getting larger due to it getting closer during the day is not explained
 - the shape of the sun staying round from sunrise to sunset and not flattening (becoming oval) as it would on low horizon points on FET is not explained.
 - the spot light as a whole is not explained
 - sun spots are not explained
 - Heat distributing from the sun in north vs southern hemispheres not explained.

Just some of the things that FET fails to show concerning the sun.

So far all flat earth sun ideas are terribly flawed.
 - sunlight times in the different hemispheres can not be explained
 - the sun not getting larger due to it getting closer during the day is not explained
 - the shape of the sun staying round from sunrise to sunset and not flattening (becoming oval) as it would on low horizon points on FET is not explained.
 - the spot light as a whole is not explained
 - sun spots are not explained
 - Heat distributing from the sun in north vs southern hemispheres not explained.

Just some of the things that FET fails to show concerning the sun.

Have you ever bothered to read the flat Earth wiki or FAQ?  All of your points are noob questions that have been answered over and over again. 

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on May 24, 2015, 11:07:57 PM

So far all flat earth sun ideas are terribly flawed.
 - sunlight times in the different hemispheres can not be explained
 - the sun not getting larger due to it getting closer during the day is not explained
 - the shape of the sun staying round from sunrise to sunset and not flattening (becoming oval) as it would on low horizon points on FET is not explained.
 - the spot light as a whole is not explained
 - sun spots are not explained
 - Heat distributing from the sun in north vs southern hemispheres not explained.

Just some of the things that FET fails to show concerning the sun.

Have you ever bothered to read the flat Earth wiki or FAQ?  All of your points are noob questions that have been answered over and over again.

I have read the wiki, but the wiki does not explain these things.
If I use the wiki version of the earth map to try and model these things I am told there is no acceptable flat earth map.
How am I to use the wiki if Flat Earth people tell me it is not reliable?

I dont believe the wiki is complete until it has an acceptable map of the flat earth, right now it leaves too many holes and places for interpretation. Resulting in these disagreements including the birth of dual earth.

My noob questions have never been answered on dedicated threads to them, suggesting they are not so noob.