Unanswered FE questions

Only one way to find out

Its accurate for predicting for the most part yes, but rather I meant it does not fully describe what is really happening.

How's that then? What isn't described?

Its a neive view grinded into the populaces skull by popular science and the government(s).

This is an evidence-free opinion. The use of emotive language is nice, but it doesn't mean anything. The right words make anything sound bad.

"A flat earth view is unquestioningly accepted by a bunch of idiots who worship Samuel Rowbotham and his writings. Rowbotham was a quack without an ounce of scientific credibility and the Flat Earthers are either too scared to reproduce his experiments, or falsify their results to support their indoctrinated religious belief in a Flat Earth"

- I can do it too!

*claps wildly*

Why hasn't anybody answered my questions yet? 
The beginning of this topic has been completely ignored. I was promised responses if I summarized these questions into another thread. Are they too hard to answer?

Sokarul principle clearly applies here. Sorry, L0gic, they are really good questions.

Too hard to answer methinks L0gic.

Everything has been answered on this forum in full.

- The sun is very dense and works via fusion.

- Gravity does not exist. Only gravitation.

- Spectroscopy calculations assume a 93 million mile distant sun.

- The sun is a sphere.

- The setting of the sun is a perspective effect. See Earth Not a Globe.

- The sun appears larger near the horizon compared to zenith because of the effect described in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

- Illuminated clouds appear because the clouds are located at a vantage point with a perspective where they can see the tip of the rising sun.

Honestly. No one thinks or reads the book anymore. When you guys have a new question which hasn't been brought up hundreds of times on this forum wake us up.

How about you open your eyes to the distinct possibility that some of these arguments might not be correct.

No scientist can get EVERYTHING right. Therefore, Rowbotham will obviously have something wrong.
Fortunately for RE, we have the combined work and knowledge of a LOT of scientists, so there will be proportionately less mistakes.

You just keep referring to the same, 200 year old arguments, most of which have been demonstrated to be possible for reasons other than a flat earth. A viable alternative has been offered for all of Rowbotham's assertions, by a LOT of different people over the course of history. Observe this Tom, and realise you are basing yourself on the ideas of one man out of millions. That speaks of a profound disrespect for science and society. Wake up.

If the sun works via fusion, it would have exploded instantly.

Spectroscopy that determines the suns' material constituents is NOT based on distance, just spectra emitted.

The setting the sun is a Round Earth effect. See "Earth: The Real Thing"

The sun doesn't appear larger at the horizon, merely slightly flattened.

Illuminated clouds are also proof of RE, your explanation is inadequate.

Please see my diagram (note, DIAGRAM not perspective drawing) for reasons behind the clouds/sunset phenomenon's innacuracy.

The experiments in Earth: Not A Globe have been reproduced and shown to prove RE, by 2 different people at least.

See "Earth: The Real Thing"

Then see Coca Cola, cos it's also the real thing

Sorry...

And er good posts roundearthguymandudewoman and Gin

The setting the sun is a Round Earth effect. See "Earth: The Real Thing"

Yay! Someone liked my idea! Although it was "Earth: Not a Book, the Real Thing".

I thought it looked familiar once I wrote it. Apologies, please accept this line of smileys as a rental payment for it.

 

Everything has been answered on this forum in full.

- The sun is very dense and works via fusion.

All the laws of physics we know about fusion tell us that the sun would supernova without gravity holding it together.

- Gravity does not exist. Only gravitation.

Why? Can you prove gravity doesn't exist? On that note: gravitation from the moon and sun attract us at high altitudes right? So why doesn't the warping of spacetime due to acceleration attract us to the Earth in addition to the 9.8 m/s/s?

- Spectroscopy calculations assume a 93 million mile distant sun.

Umm no. Where did you get that?   

- The sun is a sphere.

So how is it a spotlight? Perhaps it is round with a flat surface and everywhere there is curvature in the sun, a black tarp covers it so we can't see. 

- The setting of the sun is a perspective effect. See Earth Not a Globe.

I did. It doesn't seem to answer the need for the sun to accelerate along its path to maintain the same change in rate for the angle.

- The sun appears larger near the horizon compared to zenith because of the effect described in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

I don't recall saying that the sun appears larger. Just that simple trig shows that the illusion of setting would require even more distance than the diameter of the FE. While looking through certain lenses that filter out the glare of the sun, we can see that it never actually changes size. While looking through it while the sun sets or rises, we can clearly see the sun fall beneath the horizon as it gets cut in half. The clouds are still illuminated because they are over the curvature enough to still have an angle in which direct light can reach them.

- Illuminated clouds appear because the clouds are located at a vantage point with a perspective where they can see the tip of the rising sun.

See above.

Honestly. No one thinks or reads the book anymore. When you guys have a new question which hasn't been brought up hundreds of times on this forum wake us up.

The hundreds of disproofs for FE through a variety of ingenious observations constitute as 'thinking'. Books which are hard to get, bias, rambling, and have no scientific basis are a waste of time. I read plenty. I even read most of the chapters in your religiously biased favorite. (Earth: Not a Globe)

These questions were asked previously BY ME. You had no problem answering them until you were unable to. Then you stated that the flaws were unclear and cluttered in the posts. You told me to reorganize them and summarize them in a new thread. Now you respond by saying that they were answered? That's evidence enough that you're not serious.