The FE sun is impossible

Quote

Nope, the sun is not a spotlight in the Round Earth Reality.  The sun is a massive, luminous ball of plasma.

Actually, in the Round Earth Theory the sun's effect upon the earth is that of a spotlight.
Are you claiming that all of the earth is lit at one time in RET?

Hahaha! Your not serious... are you? 

Step 1: Shine a flashlight at a rubber ball. Only one side receives light.
Step 2: Turn the ball. Now the other side receives light.

In case you can't guess it, the ball represents Earth and the flashlight represents the sun. (The flashlight would be more accurately replaced by a candle because radiation from the sun isn't fixed only on Earth)

Step 1: Shine a flashlight at a rubber ball. Only one side receives light.
Step 2: Turn the ball. Now the other side receives light.

In case you can't guess it, the ball represents Earth and the flashlight represents the sun. (The flashlight would be more accurately replaced by a candle because radiation from the sun isn't fixed only on Earth)

Well yes, the sun in that case creates a distinct spotlight upon the ball.

Are you claiming that the sun does not create a spot of light in the Round Earth model?

Light leaving the atmosphere cannot be refracted into a U-Turn back down. Please cite your sources for this considerable claim.

U-Turn? Why would light make a U-Turn?

For my source I again invoke Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Except I have looked at the sun through dark glass to filter out the glare. I have seen its real size throughout the day.

How would a dark glass allow you to see past the atmosphere causing the effect?

Nope.  The sun of the Round Earth Reality is a star.  It is an object with a mass capable of producing enough energy to power up the entire planet, not a "spotlight" just to light a specific region.

Are you saying that the light of the sun in RE does not affect only a specific region at a time?

For my source I again invoke Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

You don't say.

*yawn*

Your Majesty, I believe the title of this thread is The FE sun is impossible. Stop turning this into an argument about the RE sun and make your case in answering the question asked.

The case against you is simple, firstly the FE sun is too small to deliver the required amount of energy to power the earth for such a long period of time whether it's powered by chemical or nuclear fuel.

Secondly, exactly what forces act upon the FE sun to keep it's circular motion above the FE, and how do seasons work?

Thirdly, explain with EVIDENCE exactly how this magical atmospheric effect that magically darkens the earth works, and explain how we see stars near the horizon at the same relative brightness to those directly above us even though this atmospheric effect should affect their light as well. (and if you truly believe the earth is flat, stop calling it the atmoSPHERE)

And as for Earth Not A Globe, I've read information about it, apparently attempts to duplicate his observations have in fact shown the earth to be round.

The suns light is limited to a spotlight

The sun is a sphere. It emits light in all directions

Lol.

Quote

The suns light is limited to a spotlight

Quote

The sun is a sphere. It emits light in all directions

Lol.

Pointing out my clone's contradictions is like doing the same thing to the bible, it's too damn easy.

Like shooting fish in a barrel, no, wait, more like shooting the fish on the morrison's fishmonger's display.

The case against you is simple, firstly the FE sun is too small to deliver the required amount of energy to power the earth for such a long period of time whether it's powered by chemical or nuclear fuel.

The sun is much closer to the earth than in the RE model. Hence it takes less energy to heat the earth. Due to its nearness, the sun may as well be powered by coal.

Secondly, exactly what forces act upon the FE sun to keep it's circular motion above the FE, and how do seasons work?

The Sun is in orbit around the multiple system which the stars and moon are in. The celestial bodies of the sky rotate around common barycenters above the earth. From a location on the earth's surface the stars in the sky might seem to scroll across the night sky with Polaris at the hub. The underlying cause for this rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of mass - an imaginary point completely compliant with the Newtonian system. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement.

Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another. The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The stars in the night sky trace almost perfect circles around the hub of the earth because by necessity the mechanics of a multiple system rely intimately on the movements and vectors of every member body. Circular movement is the most perfect, stable movement. If one celestial body is out of place or moves in a different fashion than the other bodies of the group the entire system becomes inherently imbalanced. Eddies, or stars that move out of tandem, will either leave the system entirely or are compelled by the stellar system to move back into its locked pace and apogee. This is why there are no elliptical orbits.

As for the seasons, The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.

Thirdly, explain with EVIDENCE exactly how this magical atmospheric effect that magically darkens the earth works, and explain how we see stars near the horizon at the same relative brightness to those directly above us even though this atmospheric effect should affect their light as well.

The sun's light is constrained to a spotlight due to Snell's Law of light bending as it passes through a medium.

For a striking example of Snell's Law we simply need to put a straw into a glass of water:



As we can see, the light from behind the glass is bent downwards as it passes through the thick medium of the water. While this is an extreme example, it shows that light is malleable, able to bend and conform based on existing conditions. When the light of the sun moves from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere of the earth all light rays except for rays which are vertical are gradually compelled downwards into the surface of the earth. The refractive index of air is a bit less than water, and so the effect will me more gradual, taking place over tens of thousands of miles instead of abruptly like the above image.

Pointing out my clone's contradictions is like doing the same thing to the bible, it's too damn easy.

There is no contradiction. Flat Earth Theory holds that the sun  is a sphere which emits light in all directions. Due to Snell's Law the light of the sun is constrained to a large spotlight upon the earth.

Are you claiming that the sun does not create a spot of light in the Round Earth model?

Well, yes, I am Tom,
As you are aware in RE the Earth is "bathed" in the radiated visible light so 100% of the Earth facing the Sun receives it .In no way does it resemble a spot light. In addition a round or oval spot light does not reflect observation. The closest shape would be a triangle with an exaggerated sinusoidal side (as we have discussed before)

The sun may as well be powered by coal.

LOL?

In addition a round or oval spot light does not reflect observation. The closest shape would be a triangle with an exaggerated sinusoidal side (as we have discussed before)

What observations would these be? The ones you made up just now when you were writing that post?

Well yes, the sun in that case creates a distinct spotlight upon the ball.
Are you claiming that the sun does not create a spot of light in the Round Earth model?

No, because a spotlight by definition only illuminates it's target. I would say that the Earth is not entirely illuminated at once in RE model. Either way its irrelevant.

U-Turn? Why would light make a U-Turn?
For my source I again invoke Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

I must have misunderstood your claim. Please include a rough diagram or some kind to communicate your point.
Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham's work in Earth Not a Globe is almost entirely without math. He sometimes refers to principals of physics only to exaggerate them to meet the conditions of his preconceived conclusions. He doesn't cite his work or sources.

How would a dark glass allow you to see past the atmosphere causing the effect?

Light glare by definition can be countered merely by reduction in brightness.

Quote

Nope.  The sun of the Round Earth Reality is a star.  It is an object with a mass capable of producing enough energy to power up the entire planet, not a "spotlight" just to light a specific region.

Are you saying that the light of the sun in RE does not affect only a specific region at a time?

Masamune wrote this, but I will point out that this demonstrates your method of altering the conversation to go off on tangents. I believe the point is the energy output of the sun.

Lastly, I received no response to:

The sun is a globe in FE. Its light is limited to a spotlight.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2007, 11:13:30 PM

The sun emits light in all directions.

...which also relates to the oval effect --- depending on how you answer.

Not to carry attention away from my previous post. But coal could not fuel the sun for a multitude of reasons.

You realize that heat is not given off by the sun to the Earth directly right? (oversimplified I know, because of the same problem that prevents attaining absolute zero) Radiation in many sorts is absorbed when it reaches Earth, but heat is lost to space. Climb a mountain sometime... It's plenty closer on your model yet freezing. 

By the way, what I said about Rowbotham seems to apply to you. Snell's law is a law of physics that you took and twisted to support your own preconceived notion. Its definition doesn't apply to gradual changes and is only present when changing between two media. Air to air is gradual and the same material. You can't use it as evidence and have it mean anything when it has been so stretched so ugly.

Quote

Thirdly, explain with EVIDENCE exactly how this magical atmospheric effect that magically darkens the earth works, and explain how we see stars near the horizon at the same relative brightness to those directly above us even though this atmospheric effect should affect their light as well.

The sun's light is constrained to a spotlight due to Snell's Law of light bending as it passes through a medium.

There is no contradiction. Flat Earth Theory holds that the sun  is a sphere which emits light in all directions. Due to Snell's Law the light of the sun is constrained to a large spotlight upon the earth.

False. Snell's Law is never related to nights and days of the Earth.  The word "Snell's Law" sounds very sophisticated to use, eh?

Quote

In addition a round or oval spot light does not reflect observation. The closest shape would be a triangle with an exaggerated sinusoidal side (as we have discussed before)

What observations would these be? The ones you made up just now when you were writing that post?

No Tom, I was referring to the fact that places of similar longitude receive light at similar times , I cant visualize a spot light doing this.
BTW Snells Law will never reinforce the FE stance. Remember it is observer, frequency and wavelength dependent.

Emailking, I realize that the FE sun does not set, and we see it set. That is one of the points I am trying to make in this topic.

As for Divito the fascist's post, I fail to see how the RE model defends the FE model...

Ok. But you had said "appears to set because a distancing object will do such as a law of perspective. While this is true" and I was just pointing out it isn't true.

Ok. But you had said "appears to set because a distancing object will do such as a law of perspective. While this is true" and I was just pointing out it isn't true.

Ahh Got it. Thanx for the tip.
Meant to say, "while it is true that it sets" or something.

The sun is much closer to the earth than in the RE model. Hence it takes less energy to heat the earth. Due to its nearness, the sun may as well be powered by coal.

No no no. The sun could be three inches from the Earth, closeness has nothing to do with it, the simple fact is that a sun the size the FE states just simply would not work. If it were powered by coal, firstly it would need air to burn and secondly it would have burnt out millions of years before humanity even existed. Even if powered in the same way as RE sun, it firstly isn't large enough to generate the required conditions and secondly even if it magically somehow managed to work then the nuclear fuel would have also burnt out long ago.

The Sun is in orbit around the multiple system which the stars and moon are in. The celestial bodies of the sky rotate around common barycenters above the earth. From a location on the earth's surface the stars in the sky might seem to scroll across the night sky with Polaris at the hub. The underlying cause for this rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of mass - an imaginary point completely compliant with the Newtonian system. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement.

Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another. The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The stars in the night sky trace almost perfect circles around the hub of the earth because by necessity the mechanics of a multiple system rely intimately on the movements and vectors of every member body. Circular movement is the most perfect, stable movement. If one celestial body is out of place or moves in a different fashion than the other bodies of the group the entire system becomes inherently imbalanced. Eddies, or stars that move out of tandem, will either leave the system entirely or are compelled by the stellar system to move back into its locked pace and apogee. This is why there are no elliptical orbits.

As for the seasons, The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.

Hang on, you state that gravity does not exist yet now you speak of orbits? Orbit is a state of perpetual free-fall powered by gravity. Even if you perform a spectacular U-turn and state gravity now exists because your pitiful explanation demands it, the sheer mass required to have the entire visible cosmos orbit it is huge, and such a gravitational field would be felt and easily detected from Earth.

The sun's light is constrained to a spotlight due to Snell's Law of light bending as it passes through a medium.

For a striking example of Snell's Law we simply need to put a straw into a glass of water:



As we can see, the light from behind the glass is bent downwards as it passes through the thick medium of the water. While this is an extreme example, it shows that light is malleable, able to bend and conform based on existing conditions. When the light of the sun moves from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere of the earth all light rays except for rays which are vertical are gradually compelled downwards into the surface of the earth. The refractive index of air is a bit less than water, and so the effect will me more gradual, taking place over tens of thousands of miles instead of abruptly like the above image.

Quote

Pointing out my clone's contradictions is like doing the same thing to the bible, it's too damn easy.

There is no contradiction. Flat Earth Theory holds that the sun  is a sphere which emits light in all directions. Due to Snell's Law the light of the sun is constrained to a large spotlight upon the earth.

You are horribly abusing snell's law. The amount of refraction depends on the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum compared to the speed of light in the medium. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458m/s, the speed of light in air is almost the same, so refraction from vacuum to air is a tiny angle, nowhere near what is required to bend the sun's (which never seems to stay the same shape for more than five minutes) light to the extent you need. Your image is the refractive index of water, which is significantly higher. I know that the speed of light in air will vary with factors like temperature, however even taking into account the temperature gradient from the top to the bottom of the atmosphere it is still not enough to avoid the whole FE being illuminated at once.

You still haven't explained why this magic refraction of your affects only the sun's light, not the light of stars.

No, because a spotlight by definition only illuminates it's target. I would say that the Earth is not entirely illuminated at once in RE model. Either way its irrelevant.

The Round Earth model has only a spot of light illuminated at any given time. Therefore the sun's effect on the earth takes the form of a spotlight.

I must have misunderstood your claim. Please include a rough diagram or some kind to communicate your point.
Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham's work in Earth Not a Globe is almost entirely without math. He sometimes refers to principals of physics only to exaggerate them to meet the conditions of his preconceived conclusions. He doesn't cite his work or sources.

Dr. Rowbotham has cited his work and sources throughout Earth Not a Globe. They are listed at the bottom of every single page. Did you even look at the book?

Light glare by definition can be countered merely by reduction in brightness.

The glare effect of the sun is upon the atmosphere only. Putting on sunglasses on a hot summer afternoon does not eliminate glares entirely, does it?

Lastly, I received no response to:

The sun is a sphere which emits light in all directions. Its light upon the earth is limited to a spot of light due to the main tenants of Snell's Law. There is no contradiction.

Even if powered in the same way as RE sun, it firstly isn't large enough to generate the required conditions and secondly even if it magically somehow managed to work then the nuclear fuel would have also burnt out long ago.

Proof? What makes you think that you know the density of the sun?

You are horribly abusing snell's law. The amount of refraction depends on the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum compared to the speed of light in the medium. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458m/s, the speed of light in air is almost the same, so refraction from vacuum to air is a tiny angle, nowhere near what is required to bend the sun's (which never seems to stay the same shape for more than five minutes) light to the extent you need.

Even a small change in an angle has a large effect over tens of thousands of miles. A change of three degrees may seem insignificant over a sheet of A1 paper. But that same change of angle projected over a square mile becomes extremely significant.

Remember it is observer, frequency and wavelength dependent.

Sure, Snell's Law is wavelength dependent. FE considers that factor. Red gets refracted slightly less, which is why sunsets have a reddish color.

You still haven't explained why this magic refraction of your affects only the sun's light, not the light of stars.

Snell's Law also applies to the light of the moon and stars. This is why the moon is not visible at all times over a twenty-four hour period. If stars were visible during the day they would also not be visible over a twenty-four hour period. When the celestial bodies are on the opposite side of the disk, tens of thousands of miles away, all of their light has been refracted into the surface of the earth. Therefore they are invisible to the observer.

Quote from: representative from uzbekistan on October 12, 2007, 05:10:33 PM

technically, in life, that is known as setting.

Very good! You pass Grade 1!

I'm just hat good, 2+2 here I come

The Round Earth model has only a spot of light illuminated at any given time. Therefore the sun's effect on the earth takes the form of a spotlight.

False. Like I said, Sun's effect or itself is never a spotlight.  A spotlight is just not the right size to produce enough energy powering both itself and our planet.  This is the same to the production of radiant energy.

Dr. Rowbotham has cited his work and sources throughout Earth Not a Globe. They are listed at the bottom of every single page. Did you even look at the book?

Did you even go out and ask your neighbors that the Earth is round?

The glare effect of the sun is upon the atmosphere only. Putting on sunglasses on a hot summer afternoon does not eliminate glares entirely, does it?

False. The glare effect of the sun not only affects upon the atmosphere but the surface of the Earth as well.  That's why there's glare on the surface of reflective cars, windshields, and floors.

The sun is a sphere which emits light in all directions. Its light upon the earth is limited to a spot of light due to the main tenants of Snell's Law. There is no contradiction.

Nope, sun's light is never limited to a spot of light, not even with Snell's law.

Proof? What makes you think that you know the density of the sun?

What makes you think that you know scientific facts don't exist?

Sure, Snell's Law is wavelength dependent. FE considers that factor. Red gets refracted slightly less, which is why sunsets have a reddish color.

Quote

You still haven't explained why this magic refraction of your affects only the sun's light, not the light of stars.

Snell's Law also applies to the light of the moon and stars. This is why the moon is not visible at all times over a twenty-four hour period. If stars were visible during the day they would also not be visible over a twenty-four hour period. When the celestial bodies are on the opposite side of the disk, tens of thousands of miles away, all of their light has been refracted into the surface of the earth. Therefore they are invisible to the observer.

Snell's law this and Snell's law that.  So, let me see, the two sources that you ever used to support your claims in this site are ENaG and Snell's Law.  Does your keyboard only have two buttons? One is "ENaG" and the other is "Snell's Law"? I'm curious.

The sun is a sphere which emits light in all directions. Its light upon the earth is limited to a spot of light due to the main tenants of Snell's Law. There is no contradiction.

Some sort of diagram of how a sphere radiating light in all directions appears as a spotlight may be informative amusing.

Proof? What makes you think that you know the density of the sun?

Quite simple, you just need to know the size and mass, easily found in many sources on the internet and in books. However, if you have to ask me to spell it out for you I shall in a new topic. The average deinsity of the sun is however about 1.4g/cm³. You still haven't explained how such a small FE sun can initiate and sustain fusion, and before you ask if I know the density of RE sun, how about showing how you know the density of FE sun.

Even a small change in an angle has a large effect over tens of thousands of miles. A change of three degrees may seem insignificant over a sheet of A1 paper. But that same change of angle projected over a square mile becomes extremely significant.

But you claim the sun is now spherical, therefore it emits light in spherical wavefronts. Refraction is a result of light slowing down/speeding up as it passes from one medium to another, but the shape of the wave front remains spherical. That means that if the sun were hovering at the other side of the flat earth, light would hit the atmosphere further and further from the sun at an ever decreasing angle, so the overall refraction would be less and less, so the light would reach the ground anyway. Light from the sun would hit the top of the atmosphere above my head at a shallow angle, only after it enters the atmosphere would refraction begin. Refraction can only bend the light to the normal, since after it becomes vertical it doesn't refract, so the light hitting above my head, even if it did magically super-refract, it would still land on me.

So night could not possibly happen in FE. The suns light, since it travels in all directions, will hit the atmosphere at the right angle in the right place to get to the ground on the side of the earth that should be "dark".

Snell's Law also applies to the light of the moon and stars. This is why the moon is not visible at all times over a twenty-four hour period. If stars were visible during the day they would also not be visible over a twenty-four hour period. When the celestial bodies are on the opposite side of the disk, tens of thousands of miles away, all of their light has been refracted into the surface of the earth. Therefore they are invisible to the observer.

Yes, but I extend my argument as above. I have seen the moon during the day, near the horizon (where the sun would appear at night in FE theory, so the same magic superefraction should apply). But at night, the same magic superefraction should apply to the light of stars near the horizon. But guess what, it doesn't!! During a solar eclipse you can still see stars, even though they are "on the other side of the flat earth." That's how they measured the bending of light around the sun, by looking at stars near the sun during an eclipse.

The sun's effect on the RE is like a spotlight, however it illuminates half of the earth exactly. FE sun could not do this, since a) the reasons stated above and even if you invent some more fantasy science to explain this, and b) a circular light cannot exactly illuminate half of the FE. You can't illuminate exactly half a circle with a circle, and I don't mean half the area, I mean half the circle itself.

It looks like everyone else got to bashing you first Tom so I only have little to add... 

Even a small change in an angle has a large effect over tens of thousands of miles. A change of three degrees may seem insignificant over a sheet of A1 paper. But that same change of angle projected over a square mile becomes extremely significant.

How did you get an angle as large as 3 degrees? What tens of thousands of miles are you talking about? The FAQ says the sun is 3000 miles high and 32 miles wide.

Dr. Rowbotham has cited his work and sources throughout Earth Not a Globe. They are listed at the bottom of every single page. Did you even look at the book?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm#page_128
(NO CITATIONS OR MATH)

On the pages with citations, everyone I tried are circular links on http://www.sacred-texts.com. Each is an alleged quote which is then cited to itself. I took the liberty of copying a good 6 or 7 random quotes and text, (which was all opinions or poetry as far as could see) and searching for them on Google. They all came up with the same result:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6SzbFECSlK4C&pg=PP1&dq=Earth+not+a+Globe&ei=ACoVR6P7KYjm6wK93Y2ZDw&sig=X7-zKDzaFH8NDy10k7JbLSev_-k#PPP6,M1
Not one result other than the same book, returned the texts the same way or in the same context or at all. While this could be coincidence, it also matters that you most likely have not read the sources for Rowbatham's claims, in which case you are blindly following his claims.

Just for fun, lets try another random page.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm has 1 source for the claim which is incorrectly used. Finding the distance in which a small object becomes imperceptible is different than a selected area being imperceptible. Looking at any part of an object from too far away would not select an area to have the ground overlap onto it or the object to move down to cover. If that was true, simply changing your gaze could eliminate someones hat from far down a street when you didn't see their feet. Light has no reason to target the bottom of a boat and neither does your eyes.

This entire concept is then reduced to nothing but unrealistic and unobserved, speculation.

I have still to recieve an explanation or counter argument to my point, don't forget FE'ers, this isn;t slipping into the back pages so easily.

The effect is due to Sun-Aether refraction.

I'll suggest that the layer that the sun is situated in is denser that the layer between sun and atmosphere, possibly due to plasma/particulate/gas burnoff. Therefore, when the angle of refraction into the in-between layer (which is probably just vacuum) is greater than 90, the sunlight simply reflects instead.

There has also been discovered materials that have a negative refractive index.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/68/2/R06
Such a substance could theoretically be occupying the layer between atmosphere and sun. This sounds unlikely, but if I could be arsed doing some calculations, might actually give a better solution than the above suggestion.

Edited for linkage.

If the layer was denser, then surely it would fall under the less dense air due to gravity/UA (whichever theory you follow). If this medium somehow managed to stay up, then when sunlight crossed into air it would refract away from the normal, so lighting up a larger area, and Tom's magic superefraction would fail. (although your total-internal-reflection theory, whilst unstable, would explain this)

EDIT: This reflection would also effect the light of stars whose light hits the atmolayer at shallow angles, e.g. those that appear near the horizon, so we should not see them.

Tom Bishop, I dare say your attention is required here. Basically everything posted since your last post is directed to you.

Yes, the denser material at the top thing was pretty stupid. Can't believe I didn't think of that. That'll have to leave the negative refraction thing.

I'm not certain, but it think only the denser material on top example can achieve the half sun effect seen at sunrise/sunset. Though given a great enough negative refractive index, I guess you can make it appear as if the sun is sitting on the horizon. And then not at all.

The wavelength scattering could easily be managed due to layer inhomogeneities.

The star thing is a massive problem though. It's alright for those at the south to not be able to see those stars in the north. And people should only be able to see one particular so-called "hemisphere" at any time of day in any case, so the fact that some of the southern constellations are on the other side of the world would not matter.