FE predict a maximum day length of 1/4 of day cycle (6 hrs)

Incorrect.

So the sun has an observed diameter different to the one observed. Interesting.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 18, 2010, 05:08:53 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 18, 2010, 05:04:30 PM

And, in actuality, the angular diameter of the FE Sun would be the same as the RE Sun.

Incorrect, see http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39735.0

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Quote from: parsec on June 18, 2010, 11:37:31 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 18, 2010, 05:08:53 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 18, 2010, 05:04:30 PM

And, in actuality, the angular diameter of the FE Sun would be the same as the RE Sun.

Incorrect, see http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39735.0

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

No one says WHY is incorrect. This simply kill a forum making it useless. Oh wait, this forum is about FLAT EARTH. Go on.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 18, 2010, 05:08:53 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 18, 2010, 05:04:30 PM

And, in actuality, the angular diameter of the FE Sun would be the same as the RE Sun.

Incorrect, see http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39735.0

Incorrect.

what he's saying I believe, is that if you take the 32 miles thing, and match it with the 3000 miles,
your angular diameter is off

I'd really like at least one valid response.

The entire sky, including the Sun, is a projection by the Conspiracy onto an enormous canvas sheet 3000 miles high.

The entire sky, including the Sun, is a projection by the Conspiracy onto an enormous canvas sheet 3000 miles high.

Oh stop it, this is ridiculous.

The entire sky, including the Sun, is a projection by the Conspiracy onto an enormous canvas sheet 3000 miles high.

Yes, it certainly is irrelevant. The entire purpose of your existence has nothing to do with the non-irrelevancy of this matter.

The entire sky, including the Sun, is a projection by the Conspiracy onto an enormous canvas sheet 3000 miles high.

Mods, can we get a ruling on whether this constitutes low content posting?

Quote from: Parsifal on June 21, 2010, 02:45:27 AM

The entire sky, including the Sun, is a projection by the Conspiracy onto an enormous canvas sheet 3000 miles high.

Mods, can we get a ruling on whether this constitutes low content posting?

If I were an FE believer, that kind of thing would make me mad because it would make us look bad.

The entire sky, including the Sun, is a projection by the Conspiracy onto an enormous canvas sheet 3000 miles high.

uhm, the projection of light on the surface is still semi circular, which would imply that the light doesn't come from the sun.
yet the angle of light would suggest otherwise. futhermore, this phenomena has been there since the dawn of man, how do you suggest that the conspiracy did this at say during 2000B.C.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 21, 2010, 02:45:27 AM

The entire sky, including the Sun, is a projection by the Conspiracy onto an enormous canvas sheet 3000 miles high.

uhm, the projection of light on the surface is still semi circular, which would imply that the light doesn't come from the sun.
yet the angle of light would suggest otherwise. futhermore, this phenomena has been there since the dawn of man, how do you suggest that the conspiracy did this at say during 2000B.C.

Man... you cannot argue even on this post!

uhm, the projection of light on the surface is still semi circular, which would imply that the light doesn't come from the sun.
yet the angle of light would suggest otherwise.

A light ray doesn't have an angle.

futhermore, this phenomena has been there since the dawn of man, how do you suggest that the conspiracy did this at say during 2000B.C.

Please provide evidence that there was a sky in 2000 BC.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 12:47:40 PM

uhm, the projection of light on the surface is still semi circular, which would imply that the light doesn't come from the sun.
yet the angle of light would suggest otherwise.

A light ray doesn't have an angle.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 12:47:40 PM

futhermore, this phenomena has been there since the dawn of man, how do you suggest that the conspiracy did this at say during 2000B.C.

Please provide evidence that there was a sky in 2000 BC.

the chinese word tian. means heavens/sky, and has been around since the Xia dynasty.
the path of light has an angle with the surface of the earth, that line up with the sun, i.e. it seems like light is coming from the Sun

the chinese word tian. means heavens/sky, and has been around since the Xia dynasty.

How do you know the word had the same meaning then as it does now?

the path of light has an angle with the surface of the earth, that line up with the sun, i.e. it seems like light is coming from the Sun

Incorrect. Daylight comes from all across the sky.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 09:46:36 PM

the chinese word tian. means heavens/sky, and has been around since the Xia dynasty.

How do you know the word had the same meaning then as it does now?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 09:46:36 PM

the path of light has an angle with the surface of the earth, that line up with the sun, i.e. it seems like light is coming from the Sun

Incorrect. Daylight comes from all across the sky.

Parsifal sorry, you look like a stupid troll. Or maybe you are a stupid troll. Why we have to prove that the sky always exist? And why we have to prove everything, while you dont prove anything till now. Prove that the sky was not there in 2000 BC. Logic make us thoughts that the sky was there many many years before that date. So, for one time, prove what you are saying.

And the light is a radiation, so it has an angle. If you dont believe me, believe in your eyes:

Parsifal sorry, you look like a stupid troll. Or maybe you are a stupid troll. Why we have to prove that the sky always exist? And why we have to prove everything, while you dont prove anything till now. Prove that the sky was not there in 2000 BC. Logic make us thoughts that the sky was there many many years before that date. So, for one time, prove what you are saying.

Logic doesn't make us think anything about the physical world. Since none of us were around in 2000 BC, we have no reason to believe that the sky existed back then.

And the light is a radiation, so it has an angle. If you dont believe me, believe in your eyes:

Exactly where in this picture does light have an angle? I am intrigued by your claim.

Quote from: SSSavio on June 22, 2010, 12:54:57 AM

Parsifal sorry, you look like a stupid troll. Or maybe you are a stupid troll. Why we have to prove that the sky always exist? And why we have to prove everything, while you dont prove anything till now. Prove that the sky was not there in 2000 BC. Logic make us thoughts that the sky was there many many years before that date. So, for one time, prove what you are saying.

Logic doesn't make us think anything about the physical world. Since none of us were around in 2000 BC, we have no reason to believe that the sky existed back then.

Quote from: SSSavio on June 22, 2010, 12:54:57 AM

And the light is a radiation, so it has an angle. If you dont believe me, believe in your eyes:

Exactly where in this picture does light have an angle? I am intrigued by your claim.

Good trolling. Since we have not seen that the earth is infinite, the earth is not infinite. So the FE theory is crap.

A ray doesn't have an angle.



If you adjust your statement you may have more luck.

A ray doesn't have an angle.



If you adjust your statement you may have more luck.

A ray has an angle when hitting the surface of the earth. Is it ok now?

Quote from: John Davis on June 22, 2010, 05:05:45 AM

A ray doesn't have an angle.



If you adjust your statement you may have more luck.

A ray has an angle when hitting the surface of the earth. Is it ok now?

Yeah., hopefully  Its not me quibling about this, its them.  Sorry.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on June 15, 2010, 02:08:38 PM

This is incorrect.

Correct it, with reference to a flat earth map.

I know I'm a little late to reply, but...



There is your circle of light you requested.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 09:46:36 PM

the chinese word tian. means heavens/sky, and has been around since the Xia dynasty.

How do you know the word had the same meaning then as it does now?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 09:46:36 PM

the path of light has an angle with the surface of the earth, that line up with the sun, i.e. it seems like light is coming from the Sun

Incorrect. Daylight comes from all across the sky.

because of chinese legend.
the emperors ruled for the sake of the heavens...this, and the modern theory of the atmosphere is evidence for the sky

and I want you to do an experiment for me, look directly where the sun appears. then look 20 degrees in any direction away. notice the change in intensity

Quote from: Crustinator on June 16, 2010, 10:49:17 AM

Quote from: EnigmaZV on June 15, 2010, 02:08:38 PM

This is incorrect.

Correct it, with reference to a flat earth map.

I know I'm a little late to reply, but...



There is your circle of light you requested.

wait, I'm confused, at equinox, the sun should always be a semi circle

There is your circle of light you requested.

That's good except something magical appears to be happening to the sun.

1) It appears to be giving off some non-circular, non-spotlight, time variable light.
2) It disappears and the reappears instantly on the other side of the world.
3) It appears to be able to generate a ring of light.

The entire sky, including the Sun, is a projection by the Conspiracy onto an enormous canvas sheet 3000 miles high.

Okay, so the sun doesn't actually exist.  A number of problems with this.

1) Where does all energy on Earth actually come from then?
2) Fossil evidence of plantlife existing well before projectors were invented sort of screw up that theory. (Yes, plants DO need light to survive.  I once put a plant in a dark cupboard.  It died, and went a funny colour. Because there was no light.  Obviously.)
Also
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees  Pretty sure most of those were already rather large before projectors were invented.  How did they grow without light?  Peculiar, don't you think?    Oh wait, no, it's obvious...   "The Conspiracy" has actually secretly invented time travel unbeknownst to us mere mortals. They've gone back in time and created life and held a projector to the sky for 4 billion years to make sure it grows big and strong.
4) You know, all light from the sun is unpolarised.  But as soon as it reflects off of anything, it becomes polarised.  This is how 3d cinema works.  If the entire sky was a projection, then whenever we put on 3d glasses, we wouldn't be able to see the sun unless our heads were tilted at the right angle.   Hey, you know what that means! They could show 3d films on the friggin sky! Man that'd be awesome.  They could make loads from advertising, don't you think?  I need to get in touch with these conspiritor guys, I gotta sell them my idea!
5) This would also mean that anything flying infront of the "projector" (assuming it's on Earth) would put a shadow on the sky. Such as a bird. Or an insect, or, you know... dust, debris, or... you know... clouds....(unless clouds are also part of the projection? THEN WHO WAS RAIN?) I Dunno about you, but I haven't seen many shadows on the sky. That would be a dead giveaway!  I reckon if I was a "conspirator" I'd just take the piss with the whole world and put a "Batman" sticker over the projector... would be fricken hilarious.  I'd probably get sacked though... although these guys are pretty ruthless, they'd probably just take me out to the "Ice Wall" and shoot me. 

Neon, please consider my following words: Parsifal is a troll on this site and anything he says should be ignored.

Day length of 1/4 of a day cycle (6 hrs) according to today's time or when?

Using the lunisolar, the lunar, or solar calendar?

If I correctly understand, the flat earth model is an attempt to explain most of the observable phenomenon on the earth. All the observation from outerspace are called hoax or conspiracy.

However, even if all the explanation for phenomena as the disappearing of a boat or terrestrial gravitation are acceptable the FE model still fail to explain the primary phenomenon it is suppose to explain: day cycle.

The ancient flat earth model supposed that the far sun revolve around the flat earth in 24 hours. The days are the time when the sun is above the horizon line and night is when it is under. However this was inconsistent with the various angle the sun makes with the earth depending the on the place we are on the planet. Ancient Greek even deduce the diameter of the earth from this phenomenon.

In order to solve this problem the modern FE model suggest a small sun revolving above the earth disc around the polar axis. This explain the different angles, seasons, variation in day length but fails where the previous one succeed: explaining a 24 hrs day. If the sun act as a spotlight projecting a circular area of light on the earth, the diameter of this circle would need to be close to half of the diameter of the earth and can cover only 1/4 of the earth surface at a time (A=Pi*r^2 --> Pi*(r/2)^2=(1/4)Pi*r^2=A/4). The sun would therefore cover only one quarter of the equator line at solstice. If the sun have a constant speed (scalar) it would mean that the longest day of the year at equator would be of 6 hours. Moreover, this length would decrease toward zero as we approach zero toward the north pole and Antartica.

I don't want to underestimate the creative minds of flat earther but I think this is a tough one. Only the round earth model can explain both the annual and daily phenomena at the same time.

 

Quote from: SSSavio on June 22, 2010, 12:54:57 AM

Parsifal sorry, you look like a stupid troll. Or maybe you are a stupid troll. Why we have to prove that the sky always exist? And why we have to prove everything, while you dont prove anything till now. Prove that the sky was not there in 2000 BC. Logic make us thoughts that the sky was there many many years before that date. So, for one time, prove what you are saying.

Logic doesn't make us think anything about the physical world. Since none of us were around in 2000 BC, we have no reason to believe that the sky existed back then.

Quote from: SSSavio on June 22, 2010, 12:54:57 AM

And the light is a radiation, so it has an angle. If you dont believe me, believe in your eyes:

Exactly where in this picture does light have an angle? I am intrigued by your claim.

How do you know none of us were around in 2000 BC? I'd say that's more likely than the sun being a projection since then.

Day length of 1/4 of a day cycle (6 hrs) according to today's time or when?

Using the lunisolar, the lunar, or solar calendar?

Quote from: lon445 on June 02, 2010, 02:15:13 PM

If I correctly understand, the flat earth model is an attempt to explain most of the observable phenomenon on the earth. All the observation from outerspace are called hoax or conspiracy.

However, even if all the explanation for phenomena as the disappearing of a boat or terrestrial gravitation are acceptable the FE model still fail to explain the primary phenomenon it is suppose to explain: day cycle.

The ancient flat earth model supposed that the far sun revolve around the flat earth in 24 hours. The days are the time when the sun is above the horizon line and night is when it is under. However this was inconsistent with the various angle the sun makes with the earth depending the on the place we are on the planet. Ancient Greek even deduce the diameter of the earth from this phenomenon.

In order to solve this problem the modern FE model suggest a small sun revolving above the earth disc around the polar axis. This explain the different angles, seasons, variation in day length but fails where the previous one succeed: explaining a 24 hrs day. If the sun act as a spotlight projecting a circular area of light on the earth, the diameter of this circle would need to be close to half of the diameter of the earth and can cover only 1/4 of the earth surface at a time (A=Pi*r^2 --> Pi*(r/2)^2=(1/4)Pi*r^2=A/4). The sun would therefore cover only one quarter of the equator line at solstice. If the sun have a constant speed (scalar) it would mean that the longest day of the year at equator would be of 6 hours. Moreover, this length would decrease toward zero as we approach zero toward the north pole and Antartica.

I don't want to underestimate the creative minds of flat earther but I think this is a tough one. Only the round earth model can explain both the annual and daily phenomena at the same time.

6hrs, as you would only receive daylight for a maximum of 6 hours the definite unit of time.
night would then be a minimum of 18hrs. this is based of of the spotlight theory that is most prominent in FE. In reality the Sun at the equinox should shine a semicircle that rotates around the center, if the world were flat