These are pictures that I personally took

Quote

False. The edges of the sun's spotlight are not always circular. On the equinoxes, for example, the edge under FET would be a straight line.

Incorrect. The earth is not a globe. Applying Round Earth predictions to the Flat Earth map is not a valid method of inquiry. Entirely new data must be undertaken.

Then please provide the method of inquiry and the experimental results that allow you to conclude that the sunlit area is always circular, especial on the equinoxes, or yield.

Quote

False. The observer should only see the edge where the terminator is, not in the middle of a sunlit area.

The observer sees farther the higher he is.

Please provide evidence that this is true in the OP's photographs or yield.

Considering that the edges of the sun's spotlight upon the earth are circular, anywhere the observer looks he will see curvature to that spotlight.

Tom,

Can you please enlighten us on why the sun behaves like a "spotlight", when it is clearly spherical, radiating photos in all directions.

MS.

Quote

False. The edges of the sun's spotlight are not always circular. On the equinoxes, for example, the edge under FET would be a straight line.

Incorrect. The earth is not a globe. Applying Round Earth predictions to the Flat Earth map is not a valid method of inquiry. Entirely new data must be undertaken.

You realize that, round or flat, the lit area of the planet must be the same right?

Quote

False. The observer should only see the edge where the terminator is, not in the middle of a sunlit area.

The observer sees farther the higher he is.

So why is there a very distinct terminator that you say is the edge of the spotlight when it can't possibly be the edge since there isn't enough area to account for the rest of the day lit area.

Quote

First off, language. Unnecessary and not allowed in the upper fora.

Second off, what proof do you have that we can visit other planets. The laws of physics won't even let us leave our atmosphere, what makes you think we can visit other planets?  Huh

Third off, I can most certainly compare this universe to an unknown, or unreal one. Ever heard of the term, "potential world"? Look it up.

Mars. Look it up. Actually, nevermind, NASA faked landing on Mars multiple times for some reason.

Completely different to what I used as my example. Comparing our current Universe to an unreal Universe is in no way similar to comparing Earth to, say, Venus.

Now tell us why the Earth is flat, whereas every other planet we can study is spherical.

That's right. It's not flat.

If you actually lurked and didn't just post whatever came to mind you'd know NASA didn't fake them, "for some reason". Noob.

It is the same example. You based your argument on, "Where is the creator now? If Earth is so special we should be able to observe the special creator."

I submit the same thing for the entire universe.

Quote from: Vindictus on September 01, 2010, 12:28:05 AM

Quote

First off, language. Unnecessary and not allowed in the upper fora.

Second off, what proof do you have that we can visit other planets. The laws of physics won't even let us leave our atmosphere, what makes you think we can visit other planets?  Huh

Third off, I can most certainly compare this universe to an unknown, or unreal one. Ever heard of the term, "potential world"? Look it up.

Mars. Look it up. Actually, nevermind, NASA faked landing on Mars multiple times for some reason.

Completely different to what I used as my example. Comparing our current Universe to an unreal Universe is in no way similar to comparing Earth to, say, Venus.

Now tell us why the Earth is flat, whereas every other planet we can study is spherical.

That's right. It's not flat.

If you actually lurked and didn't just post whatever came to mind you'd know NASA didn't fake them, "for some reason". Noob.

It is the same example. You based your argument on, "Where is the creator now? If Earth is so special we should be able to observe the special creator."

I submit the same thing for the entire universe.

"for some reason" is correct, regardless of how long someone has lurked. I suggest that you review the definition of "some" before you post again.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 01, 2010, 07:50:20 AM

Quote from: Vindictus on September 01, 2010, 12:28:05 AM

Quote

First off, language. Unnecessary and not allowed in the upper fora.

Second off, what proof do you have that we can visit other planets. The laws of physics won't even let us leave our atmosphere, what makes you think we can visit other planets?  Huh

Third off, I can most certainly compare this universe to an unknown, or unreal one. Ever heard of the term, "potential world"? Look it up.

Mars. Look it up. Actually, nevermind, NASA faked landing on Mars multiple times for some reason.

Completely different to what I used as my example. Comparing our current Universe to an unreal Universe is in no way similar to comparing Earth to, say, Venus.

Now tell us why the Earth is flat, whereas every other planet we can study is spherical.

That's right. It's not flat.

If you actually lurked and didn't just post whatever came to mind you'd know NASA didn't fake them, "for some reason". Noob.

It is the same example. You based your argument on, "Where is the creator now? If Earth is so special we should be able to observe the special creator."

I submit the same thing for the entire universe.

"for some reason" is correct, regardless of how long someone has lurked. I suggest that you review the definition of "some" before you post again.

If you read the context, he was using it as "Some reason that you guys can't explain."

Why? Under the FE theory, the Earth is physically different relative to every other planet we can see and visit.

You're assuming that the earth should be like the planets. You're incorrect. The earth is not a planet.

One may as well ask "Why arent Sand Dollars like Coccles" or "Why isn't Sandstone like Limestone". A Sand Dollar is not a Coccle and Sandstone is not Limestone. It is not a given that every body in the universe exhibits same properties and no more.

Tom,

Can you please enlighten us on why the sun behaves like a "spotlight", when it is clearly spherical, radiating photos in all directions.

MS.

That would be for same reason the light from a lighthouse is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth's surface, despite the lighthouse shining in every direction around it.

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

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

Quote from: ClockTower on September 01, 2010, 07:54:46 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 01, 2010, 07:50:20 AM

Quote from: Vindictus on September 01, 2010, 12:28:05 AM

Quote

First off, language. Unnecessary and not allowed in the upper fora.

Second off, what proof do you have that we can visit other planets. The laws of physics won't even let us leave our atmosphere, what makes you think we can visit other planets?  Huh

Third off, I can most certainly compare this universe to an unknown, or unreal one. Ever heard of the term, "potential world"? Look it up.

Mars. Look it up. Actually, nevermind, NASA faked landing on Mars multiple times for some reason.

Completely different to what I used as my example. Comparing our current Universe to an unreal Universe is in no way similar to comparing Earth to, say, Venus.

Now tell us why the Earth is flat, whereas every other planet we can study is spherical.

That's right. It's not flat.

If you actually lurked and didn't just post whatever came to mind you'd know NASA didn't fake them, "for some reason". Noob.

It is the same example. You based your argument on, "Where is the creator now? If Earth is so special we should be able to observe the special creator."

I submit the same thing for the entire universe.

"for some reason" is correct, regardless of how long someone has lurked. I suggest that you review the definition of "some" before you post again.

If you read the context, he was using it as "Some reason that you guys can't explain."

I read his statment in context, and would not make the same baseless interfernce as you did. Why don't you try debating what he said instead of derailing the thread to discuss what you wildly assume he meant?

Quote

Why? Under the FE theory, the Earth is physically different relative to every other planet we can see and visit.

You're assuming that the earth should be like the planets. You're incorrect. The earth is not a planet.

One may as well ask "Why arent Sand Dollars like Coccles" or "Why isn't Sandstone like Limestone". A Sand Dollar is not a Coccle and Sandstone is not Limestone. It is not a given that every body in the universe exhibits same properties and no more.

Sandstone and limestone are both sedimentary rocks and share some characteristics.  Sand dollars and cockles are both salt water creatures and share some characteristics.  The earth and the planets are made of matter and share some characteristics.

Sandstone and limestone are both sedimentary rocks and share some characteristics.  Sand dollars and cockles are both salt water creatures and share some characteristics.  The earth and the planets are made of matter and share some characteristics.

Must the characteristics in question here be the ones shared?

Quote from: markjo on September 01, 2010, 08:30:04 AM

Sandstone and limestone are both sedimentary rocks and share some characteristics.  Sand dollars and cockles are both salt water creatures and share some characteristics.  The earth and the planets are made of matter and share some characteristics.

Must the characteristics in question here be the ones shared?

The characteristics involving being made of matter must.

Quote

Tom,

Can you please enlighten us on why the sun behaves like a "spotlight", when it is clearly spherical, radiating photos in all directions.

MS.

That would be for same reason the light from a lighthouse is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth's surface, despite the lighthouse shining in every direction around it.

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

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

I lighthouse has a lens which concentrates the light into a beam.  The lens rotates, causing the beam to sweep around.

Please remove the analogy from your Tiki, because it's misleading and wrong.

Also, the sun cannot be a spotlight for reasons I have said, so please also remove this from the Tiki.

EDIT:  The FE Sun, finally exposed:

Hey tom, if the sun is a spotlight, why don't you make us a little drawing of how the sun shines it's light. 
Shouldn't be hard for you, being the expert and all.

Be sure to include the various seasons.



Oh wait you can't.
No map.

Well, that and the fact that a 32 mile diameter spotlight at a distance of 3100 miles or so cannot do a very good job of illuminating 1/2 of the earth's surface.

Well, that and the fact that a 32 mile diameter spotlight at a distance of 3100 miles or so cannot do a very good job of illuminating 1/2 of the earth's surface.

There's probably a giant lens on the Sun to help with that.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2010, 08:18:37 AM

Quote

Tom,

Can you please enlighten us on why the sun behaves like a "spotlight", when it is clearly spherical, radiating photos in all directions.

MS.

That would be for same reason the light from a lighthouse is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth's surface, despite the lighthouse shining in every direction around it.

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

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

I lighthouse has a lens which concentrates the light into a beam.  The lens rotates, causing the beam to sweep around.

Please remove the analogy from your Tiki, because it's misleading and wrong.

Also, the sun cannot be a spotlight for reasons I have said, so please also remove this from the Tiki.

EDIT:  The FE Sun, finally exposed:

A lighthouse shines light all around it in the sense that the beam shines 360 degrees around it, despite the light of the lighthouse being constrained to a limited circular area on earth.

The light of the lighthose has a limited range for the same reason that the light from the sun is limited: perspective.

Hey tom, if the sun is a spotlight, why don't you make us a little drawing of how the sun shines it's light.  

The sun is a sphere. It shines light from every part of its body. The light from that body is limited due to perepsctive and the great amount of horizontal atmosphere it must pass through.

Quote from: Lorddave on September 01, 2010, 12:14:58 PM

Hey tom, if the sun is a spotlight, why don't you make us a little drawing of how the sun shines it's light.  

The sun is a sphere. It shines light from every part of its body. The light from that body is limited due to perepsctive and the great amount of horizontal atmosphere it must pass through.

So... There is no terminator in FE then, just a gradual fading due to the additional atmosphere. So the pictures prove FE false. Thanks.
[/FES]

A lighthouse shines light all around it in the sense that the beam shines 360 degrees around it, despite the light of the lighthouse being constrained to a limited circular area on earth.

A lighthouse rotates its spotlight beam 360 degrees.

Quote from: Lorddave on September 01, 2010, 12:14:58 PM

Hey tom, if the sun is a spotlight, why don't you make us a little drawing of how the sun shines it's light. 

The sun is a sphere. It shines light from every part of its body.

Umm...  Isn't that pretty much the opposite of a spotlight? 

Quote from: Lorddave on September 01, 2010, 12:14:58 PM

Hey tom, if the sun is a spotlight, why don't you make us a little drawing of how the sun shines it's light.  

The sun is a sphere. It shines light from every part of its body. The light from that body is limited due to perepsctive and the great amount of horizontal atmosphere it must pass through.

The optical density of air is not that great.  Water yes but not air.

Quote from: Lorddave on September 01, 2010, 12:14:58 PM

Hey tom, if the sun is a spotlight, why don't you make us a little drawing of how the sun shines it's light.  

The sun is a sphere. It shines light from every part of its body. The light from that body is limited due to perepsctive and the great amount of horizontal atmosphere it must pass through.

You just slapped yourself in the face with this comment lol. FE regressing to RE!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2010, 02:13:43 PM

A lighthouse shines light all around it in the sense that the beam shines 360 degrees around it, despite the light of the lighthouse being constrained to a limited circular area on earth.

A lighthouse rotates its spotlight beam 360 degrees.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2010, 02:15:38 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on September 01, 2010, 12:14:58 PM

Hey tom, if the sun is a spotlight, why don't you make us a little drawing of how the sun shines it's light.  

The sun is a sphere. It shines light from every part of its body.

Umm...  Isn't that pretty much the opposite of a spotlight?  

No one has ever stated that the sun itself was, physically, a spotlight. The sun is a sphere which shines light from every point on its body.

On a grand scale the sun's light is limited to a portion on the earth's surface due to perspective and atmospheric density. Hence, its light is limited to a spotlight upon the earth.

Please read the Wiki. I'm not sure where this "the sun is, physically, a spotlight" or "the sun shines light in only one direction" idea came from. There's nothing like that in the Wiki or ENAG.

The optical density of air is not that great.  Water yes but not air.

Actually the density of air is very significant across long distances.

Have you ever noticed that at noon when the sun is overhead it is incredibly intense and blinding, and that it is painful to look at?

Then, just before evening when the sun is near the horizon it becomes incredibly faded and its color diluted. When the sun is near the horizon it is possible to look at the sun casually without squinting or being blinded by its intensity. The sun has become dimmer by an order of magnitude.

This is because during its setting the rays of the sun must pass through much more horizontal atmosphere than when the sun is overhead at noonday. The more atmosphere the sun's light must pass through, the dimmer and more diluted it becomes.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 01, 2010, 08:05:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 01, 2010, 07:54:46 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 01, 2010, 07:50:20 AM

Quote from: Vindictus on September 01, 2010, 12:28:05 AM

Quote

First off, language. Unnecessary and not allowed in the upper fora.

Second off, what proof do you have that we can visit other planets. The laws of physics won't even let us leave our atmosphere, what makes you think we can visit other planets?  Huh

Third off, I can most certainly compare this universe to an unknown, or unreal one. Ever heard of the term, "potential world"? Look it up.

Mars. Look it up. Actually, nevermind, NASA faked landing on Mars multiple times for some reason.

Completely different to what I used as my example. Comparing our current Universe to an unreal Universe is in no way similar to comparing Earth to, say, Venus.

Now tell us why the Earth is flat, whereas every other planet we can study is spherical.

That's right. It's not flat.

If you actually lurked and didn't just post whatever came to mind you'd know NASA didn't fake them, "for some reason". Noob.

It is the same example. You based your argument on, "Where is the creator now? If Earth is so special we should be able to observe the special creator."

I submit the same thing for the entire universe.

"for some reason" is correct, regardless of how long someone has lurked. I suggest that you review the definition of "some" before you post again.

If you read the context, he was using it as "Some reason that you guys can't explain."

I read his statment in context, and would not make the same baseless interfernce as you did. Why don't you try debating what he said instead of derailing the thread to discuss what you wildly assume he meant?

How ironic since you are the first one that derailed the thread in order to do this in the first place. Instead of attacking my argument you went after my word choice.

Quote

The optical density of air is not that great.  Water yes but not air.

Actually the density of air is very significant across long distances.

Have you ever noticed that at noon when the sun is overhead it is incredibly intense and blinding, and that it is painful to look at?

Then, just before evening when the sun is near the horizon it becomes incredibly faded and its color diluted. When the sun is near the horizon it is possible to look at the sun casually without squinting or being blinded by its intensity. The sun has become dimmer by an order of magnitude.

This is because during its setting the rays of the sun must pass through much more horizontal atmosphere than when the sun is overhead at noonday. The more atmosphere the sun's light must pass through, the dimmer and more diluted it becomes.

So we would see a steady gradual fading away of the lit area over very large distances from space, not a sharp light/dark terminator. Thanks for disproving FET for us!

Quote from: markjo on September 01, 2010, 02:36:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2010, 02:13:43 PM

A lighthouse shines light all around it in the sense that the beam shines 360 degrees around it, despite the light of the lighthouse being constrained to a limited circular area on earth.

A lighthouse rotates its spotlight beam 360 degrees.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2010, 02:15:38 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on September 01, 2010, 12:14:58 PM

Hey tom, if the sun is a spotlight, why don't you make us a little drawing of how the sun shines it's light.  

The sun is a sphere. It shines light from every part of its body.

Umm...  Isn't that pretty much the opposite of a spotlight?  

No one has ever stated that the sun itself was, physically, a spotlight. The sun is a sphere which shines light from every point on its body.

On a grand scale the sun's light is limited to a portion on the earth's surface due to perspective and atmospheric density. Hence, its light is limited to a spotlight upon the earth.

Please read the Wiki. I'm not sure where this "the sun is, physically, a spotlight" or "the sun shines light in only one direction" idea came from. There's nothing like that in the Wiki or ENAG.

Clearly this is a total failure at particle physics, and snell's law. You are now desperately grasping at straws TOM

Quote

The optical density of air is not that great.  Water yes but not air.

Actually the density of air is very significant across long distances.

Have you ever noticed that at noon when the sun is overhead it is incredibly intense and blinding, and that it is painful to look at?

Then, just before evening when the sun is near the horizon it becomes incredibly faded and its color diluted. When the sun is near the horizon it is possible to look at the sun casually without squinting or being blinded by its intensity. The sun has become dimmer by an order of magnitude.

This is because during its setting the rays of the sun must pass through much more horizontal atmosphere than when the sun is overhead at noonday. The more atmosphere the sun's light must pass through, the dimmer and more diluted it becomes.

So again, why do we see a terminator in these pictures and not a gradual fade to gray?

What a joke this is. If the illuminated portion of the earth is from a spotlight, then why is every observer at the center of the spotlight? That makes no sense. Why is the spotlight circle's edge never closer on one side of you than another?

On the other hand, the observations are remarkably consistent with a round earth.

No one has ever stated that the sun itself was, physically, a spotlight. The sun is a sphere which shines light from every point on its body.

On a grand scale the sun's light is limited to a portion on the earth's surface due to perspective and atmospheric density. Hence, its light is limited to a spotlight upon the earth.

Tom, why don't you draw a scale diagram of the sun and the FE that demonstrates how perspective causes the sun to illuminate a limited "spotlight".

Please read the Wiki. I'm not sure where this "the sun is, physically, a spotlight" or "the sun shines light in only one direction" idea came from. There's nothing like that in the Wiki or ENAG.

Because you insist on using the spotlight metaphor to describe the sun.  A spotlight, by definition, shines light in a narrow beam.  The sun, as you just described it, is not a spotlight nor does it illuminate anything resembling a spotlight.

At the edge of the atmosphere the observer is looking down at the illuminated spotlight of the sun upon the earth.

Is that what you're implying?