The Sun

I had a question about our sun and the way that it effects life.  If in fact there were moon and sun shrimp radiating light upon our earth, what is supplying these shrimp with energy?  I mean, this is one of the principle reasons for why the majority of astronomers believe that the sun is composed of highly compressed hydrogen and helium.

All life on our planet requires some sort of energy source, be it light, food energy, or heat.  What could these shrimp be eating?  And be careful in what you say, as very few forms of energy are efficient enough to provide the kinds of luminosity that fusion could provide.  Things like the burning of fossil fuels or consumption of plants by glowing life forms can not explain why the sun has persisted for as long as it has.

On a slightly different note, as i was reading the FAQ, I saw that the sun is explained in two ways quite clearly

1.)  The sun acts as a spotlight, as lighthouse does, it produces a concentrated area beam of light that only hits certain areas of the earth, which gives us our day cycle.

       -  Lights are not naturally concentrated.  In order to produce a beam the light has to be concentrated, usually by some sort of reflective material.  For example.  A campfire or a lightbulb will shine light equally in all directions.  in order to turn that fire or bulb into a beam some sort of reflective material must redirect the light, in other words focus it.  Does this means that the sun has some sort of reflective material that focuses its light?

2.)  The sun appears to set, but it simply gets to far away to be visible anymore.

      -  According to flat earth FAQ, the sun is a flat circle that does not set, it simply gets further away.  If the sun were indeed flat, then its shape would change depending on the angle at which it was viewed, unless it were a sphere, in which case it would look like a circle when viewed from any angle.

The sun is a sphere, and shines a wide circle of light illuminating half of the earth that is inside the barrier at one time. I believe the FAQ states it is a sphere, but the part about the spotlight is WAY off. 

You are correct, the sun can not be a spotlight disc and illuminate 1/2 of our world.
the shape would also change when it appeared to set which is does not.

1. There isn't anything about shrimp in Flat Earth Theory.

2. The sun is a sphere. It shines light in all directions.

3. The light of the sun is limited in duration across the surface of the earth due to perspective and atmospheric density. This is why we call it a spotlight. The sun's light makes a circle of light upon the earth. The sun is not a literal spotlight.

4. The activities of the sun are described here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun

if the sun is not a spotlight why does the FAQ state

"the sun is a spotlight"?

sounds very confusing.

if the sun is not a spotlight why does the FAQ state

"the sun is a spotlight"?

sounds very confusing.

The sun is a spotlight in the sense that its light is limited to a circular area upon the earth.

It does not imply that the sun is a flat disk or only shines light in one direction. The sun is a sphere. It shines light in all directions around it. It's just that light cannot travel for tens of thousands of miles across the surface of the earth without being impeded by the thickness of the atmosphere. The sun is also very close to the earth. Natural perspective also limits its visibility across great distances.

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

FE sun:



RE sun:

The sun is a spotlight in the sense that its light is limited to a circular area upon the earth.

It does not imply that the sun is a flat disk or only shines light in one direction. The sun is a sphere. It shines light in all directions around it. It's just that light cannot travel for tens of thousands of miles across the surface of the earth without being impeded by the thickness of the atmosphere. The sun is also very close to the earth. Natural perspective also limits its visibility across great distances.

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

FE bogus perspective you mean. 

For example, at midnight the FE sun would be 14,000 miles away from the observer, 3000 miles up.

That would be tan^-1 (3000/14000) degrees = 12^o above the horizon at midnight.


Perspective would not limit the visibility of the sun, you see.

and as our perspective changes in relation to the suns movement, it would distort into an eclipse shape, so please explain this to me FE'ers

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 03, 2011, 09:45:00 AM

The sun is a spotlight in the sense that its light is limited to a circular area upon the earth.

It does not imply that the sun is a flat disk or only shines light in one direction. The sun is a sphere. It shines light in all directions around it. It's just that light cannot travel for tens of thousands of miles across the surface of the earth without being impeded by the thickness of the atmosphere. The sun is also very close to the earth. Natural perspective also limits its visibility across great distances.

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

FE bogus perspective you mean.  

For example, at midnight the FE sun would be 14,000 miles away from the observer, 3000 miles up.

That would be tan^-1 (3000/14000) degrees = 12^o above the horizon at midnight.


Perspective would not limit the visibility of the sun, you see.

Rowbotham has demonstrated that the type of perspective taught in art schools is wrong.

Rowbotham also thought the sun was a disc,
so he can not be quoted for relevant evidence of the sun.

Rowbotham is retarded and has proven nothing, hence him being the 0.001% of his profession who believe he is right and not the other 99.9% who are right, hence his principle being widely disregarded and not taught in schools.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 03, 2011, 11:10:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 03, 2011, 09:45:00 AM

The sun is a spotlight in the sense that its light is limited to a circular area upon the earth.

It does not imply that the sun is a flat disk or only shines light in one direction. The sun is a sphere. It shines light in all directions around it. It's just that light cannot travel for tens of thousands of miles across the surface of the earth without being impeded by the thickness of the atmosphere. The sun is also very close to the earth. Natural perspective also limits its visibility across great distances.

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

FE bogus perspective you mean.  

For example, at midnight the FE sun would be 14,000 miles away from the observer, 3000 miles up.

That would be tan^-1 (3000/14000) degrees = 12^o above the horizon at midnight.


Perspective would not limit the visibility of the sun, you see.

Rowbotham has demonstrated that the type of perspective taught in art schools is wrong.

That isn't perspective, it's simple trigonometry.  Are you suggesting that Rowbotham proved that all our maths are wrong?

but what holds the Sun in place and moves it across the sky? why can't I get any answers on this forum? 

Rowbotham also thought the sun was a disc,
so he can not be quoted for relevant evidence of the sun.

Rowbotham did not say that the sun was a disk.

That isn't perspective, it's simple trigonometry.  Are you suggesting that Rowbotham proved that all our maths are wrong?

That trigonometry is based on art school perspective. The underlying assumptions art schools have about perspective are wrong. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham was a drug addled retard with no more a grasp of mathematics as you have of physics, the trigonometry exemplified above is solid, factual and provable, in any context you wish to put it, it uses parameters the FE theorists provided in the Q&A section, it cannot be argues with unless you remove a significant section of fact and logic from the equation.

inb4 angles are lies shitstorm

That trigonometry is based on art school perspective.

No it is not. It's just simple trigonometry, with no subjectivity.  You FAIL.

Quote from: markjo

That isn't perspective, it's simple trigonometry.  Are you suggesting that Rowbotham proved that all our maths are wrong?

That trigonometry is based on art school perspective. The underlying assumptions art schools have about perspective are wrong. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Art school perspective is based on trigonometry, not the other way around.  Are you suggesting that the ancient Greeks were wrong about trigonometry too?

well, if the two distance parameters are correct, they are provided from the chest of secrets the FE'ers have after all, then that leave just the angle to be incorrect, so, I guess the answer is yes, the Greeks got it wrong, and the pinpoint accuracy of modern weapons & space craft placement are incorrect and all part of the conspiracy. seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on May 03, 2011, 12:44:39 PM

Rowbotham also thought the sun was a disc,
so he can not be quoted for relevant evidence of the sun.

Rowbotham did not say that the sun was a disk.

Quote from: markjo

That isn't perspective, it's simple trigonometry.  Are you suggesting that Rowbotham proved that all our maths are wrong?

That trigonometry is based on art school perspective. The underlying assumptions art schools have about perspective are wrong. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Trigonometry has absolutely nothing to do with art school perspective, it is entirely based upon triangles.  One could argue that the atmosphere prevents light from shining past a certain point (However I do not know of any evidence to support this, and this seems much more complicated than simply believing that the earth is a rotating sphere), but in terms of angle to the sun and distance it should be seen.  But one simple observation makes that whole point make no sense, and that is that the sun does not get smaller as it gets "further" away, it simply sinks into the horizon.

if it were simply moving away it should get proportionally smaller as it grew in distance, but instead it maintains the same relative size until it gets to the horizon, at which point it rapidly becomes no longer visible.

After reading the wiki, it says that the sun descends into the vanishing point like a flock of birds or a ship on the horizon, except, when a ship is next to you it is by comparison much larger than when it is setting on the horizon, the sun does not adequateness's show me a size change prior to setting.

Its just much simpler to explain the sun setting by accepting that the earth is round and rotating.

now that's just crazy talk, next thing you'll be telling us that satellites are actually being simulated from huge radio masts and that a great ice wall encircles the earth to keep us all in it's icy prison

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 03, 2011, 01:27:19 PM

Quote from: markjo

That isn't perspective, it's simple trigonometry.  Are you suggesting that Rowbotham proved that all our maths are wrong?

That trigonometry is based on art school perspective. The underlying assumptions art schools have about perspective are wrong. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Art school perspective is based on trigonometry, not the other way around.  Are you suggesting that the ancient Greeks were wrong about trigonometry too?

What art schools say about perspective is wrong. Art school perspective and the diagram assumes that the Vanishing Point is an infinite distance away, and that overhead bodies will approach but never reach the horizon, no matter how far they get from the observer, that they will always be some distance above the horizon despite distance.

This is false. Bodies merge with the horizon a relatively close distance to the observer. Just look at a perspective picture of train tracks stretching into the distance. Where the rails merge is not an infinite distance away from the observer.

If you calculate out the geometry of how far the rails should be apart, you would find that the rails will always be some distance apart with pure geometric examples. But geometric examples do not match reality. The ideas about how bodies behave at long distances are fundamentally wrong. Please read Earth Not a Globe.

Earth Not a Globe is a crock full of shit, inspired by a crack pot heroin addict in the 1800's, and show me where the diagram, or mathematical perspective, puts the vanishing point an infinite distance away.

do you just sit and make this stuff up  because that's easier to front up to and perpetuate than admitting you're utterly, and unequivocally wrong.

you never answer questions without "Please read *insert random nonsense here*", and every time it some crap spouted and unproven by an unknown looser with no other means with which to make themselves known, other than crazy conspiracy theories like flying metal discs in space, and you just gobble it all up, hook, line & sinker

so, tell me this, and using real world, testable physics; why doesn't the sun decrease in size as it moves away from us? after all, a 31 mile wide disc is going to look pretty fecking small at 14,000 miles, yet, somehow, miraculously, it retains the exact same size from one side of the sky to the other.

also, explain why our perspective view of it doesn't distort into an elliptical shape as the disc recedes in the distance.

also, please explain what force moves the sun in its circular motion above the disc world, what keeps it there?

Earth Not a Globe is a crock full of shit, inspired by a crack pot heroin addict in the 1800's, and show me where the diagram, or mathematical perspective, puts the vanishing point an infinite distance away.

If you haven't seen the diagrams, then you can't have read the book. If you haven't read the book, you are in no position to make such pronouncements about it.

diagrams? are you for real? drawings from a lunatic are more conclusive evidential material than actual photographs and testable, provable physics? one man and his pictures are right and the weight of the combined scientific community are wrong? deluded doesn't even begin to describe your reasoning. and no, I have no tread the book, I don't need to, you lot spout enough of its sentiment to give me a fairly good idea of its content, and I have much better things to read than that discredited and false drivel.

no, I have no tread the book, I don't need to

If you're not going to read the evidence, stop asking for it.

it is not 'evidence', don't be such a moron, what you propose, and got from the book, is impossible. provide evidence of your assertions.

it is not 'evidence', don't be such a moron, what you propose, and got from the book, is impossible. provide evidence of your assertions.

How do you know it's not evidence if you haven't read it?

because it is based on fallacy, and is one persons singular opinion, if there was the evidence you claim in it, it wouldn't be hidden away in some loons book and being ignored by the rest of the world

I know what's in the Bible & the Quoran without having read them, they have equally deluded followers of an outdated and widely disproved book who rant about it in such a way as to describe the contents with no need to read

because it is based on fallacy, and is one persons singular opinion

This is not only factually incorrect, but is also impossible for you to know if you have not read the book.

I know what's in the Bible & the Quoran without having read them

This is a ridiculous statement.


You have asked us for evidence. You have been directed to evidence, but then claim to know it's not evidence without having read it. Why are you asking for evidence if you're not going to read it?

evidence is not found in works of fiction, simple as that, and a strictly religious upbringing gives me as much insight into the conternt and gist of Bible and Quoran without reading them as I care for, similarly with the Earth Not a Globe book, I know what to expect, and it is nonsense, just like EastEnders or Coronation Street, I don't watch them, but know enough about them to make a valid assessment of them.