The sun doesn't work as a spotlight

In the current model for a flat earth, the sun and moon are supposedly spotlights that circle around above the earth. This cannot be, as the sun looks like a circle in the sky no matter what time of day it is. As the sun rotates away, and my perspective changes, it should look like an oval in the evenings and mornings according to FET.

Please explain.

of course it doesnt, any Zetetic can easily determine it is a sphere emitting light in all directions.
The FAQ is flawed

of course it doesnt, any Zetetic can easily determine it is a sphere emitting light in all directions.
The FAQ is flawed

So then cleverclogs, where does the sun go at night on a flat earth?

And he ran away.

There is no point telling everyone to change the FAQ when you have no suggestion as to what to change it to. There are reasons that the theories are as they are. Because those are the ones based on how earth works.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on January 06, 2012, 08:19:55 AM

of course it doesnt, any Zetetic can easily determine it is a sphere emitting light in all directions.
The FAQ is flawed

So then cleverclogs, where does the sun go at night on a flat earth?

Great point! Thanks Thork. ITT: Thork argues well that the Earth is not flat, as the Sun disappears at night.

I am merely pointing out why FET has the spot light theory in the simplest terms. It explains night time. With a "sphere emitting light in all directions" it isn't going to get very dark, is it?

I am merely pointing out why FET has the spot light theory in the simplest terms. It explains night time. With a "sphere emitting light in all directions" it isn't going to get very dark, is it?

Exactly right! Darkness shows FET false, every night. Awesome support there Thork!

Did you need to use a special pleading fallacy to explain the spot light theory? Perhaps a magical reshaping blinder around the Sun to block its rays to match reality?

You should read ENaG.

You should read ENaG.

I have. It makes no more sense that you.

Isn't the spotlight effect due to the atmospheric optical density causing the sunlight to not reach when the sun is a certain distance away from a point on Earth?

Isn't the spotlight effect due to the atmospheric optical density causing the sunlight to not reach when the sun is a certain distance away from a point on Earth?

Correct. The author of that section of the FAQ got things wrong in this aspect. The sun is a sphere which shines light from all points of its surface. The sun's light creates a spot of light upon the earth, which is what we call a spotlight.

The term "spotlight" is in reference to the spot of light upon the earth, not the sun.

It is unfortunate that the FAQ was not written by an author more familiar with Flat Earth Theory. The sun and moon were never disks in any Flat Earth model over the last 150 years of the society's existence.

Quote from: Lorddave on January 06, 2012, 11:13:07 AM

Isn't the spotlight effect due to the atmospheric optical density causing the sunlight to not reach when the sun is a certain distance away from a point on Earth?

Correct. The author of that section of the FAQ got things wrong in this aspect. The sun shines light in all directions from its spherical surface. The sun's light creates a spot of light upon the earth, which is what we call a spotlight.

The term "spotlight" is in reference to the spot of light upon the earth, not the sun.

Do tell us then how this atmospheric optical density causes sunlight to not reach when the Sun is a certain distance away from a point. Do you need magic again? Surely you're not making such a claim without evidence beyond a special pleading fallacy, right?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2012, 11:54:14 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on January 06, 2012, 11:13:07 AM

Isn't the spotlight effect due to the atmospheric optical density causing the sunlight to not reach when the sun is a certain distance away from a point on Earth?

Correct. The author of that section of the FAQ got things wrong in this aspect. The sun shines light in all directions from its spherical surface. The sun's light creates a spot of light upon the earth, which is what we call a spotlight.

The term "spotlight" is in reference to the spot of light upon the earth, not the sun.

Do tell us then how this atmospheric optical density causes sunlight to not reach when the Sun is a certain distance away from a point. Do you need magic again? Surely you're not making such a claim without evidence beyond a special pleading fallacy, right?

Look at the sun at noonday when it is directly overhead and look at it again when it is off in the distance just before setting. You will notice that the noonday sun is quite bright and difficult to look at. In contradiction, the sunset sun has much less intensity and can be looked at directly without a straining of the eye. This is an illustration of the atmolayer's great effect on the sun's light.

After the sun sets the sky is still relatively bright. It takes several hours for the sky to fade into a deep blackness.

The density of the atmolayer describes why the sky dims in the evening, but it is not a description of how the sun sets into (but not below) the horizon. If you are interested further in the subject I suggest you consult the appropriate chapter in the work Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 06, 2012, 11:59:56 AM

Do tell us then how this atmospheric optical density causes sunlight to not reach when the Sun is a certain distance away from a point. Do you need magic again? Surely you're not making such a claim without evidence beyond a special pleading fallacy, right?

Look at the sun at noonday when it is directly overhead and look at it again when it is off in the distance just before setting. You will notice that the noonday sun is quite bright and difficult to look at. In contradiction, the sunset sun has much less intensity and can be looked at directly without a straining of the eye. This is an illustration of the atmolayer's great effect on the sun's light.

After the sun sets the sky is still relatively bright. It takes several hours for the sky to fade into a deep blackness.

The density of the atmolayer describes why the sky dims in the evening, but it is not a description of how the sun sets into (but not below) the horizon. If you are interested further in the subject I suggest you consult the appropriate chapter in the work Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Tom, do you really want to try that?

Let me show you how quickly I can disprove it.

First, I recommend this site for watching real-time results: http://www.moonglowtech.com/products/AllSkyCam/index.shtml

Second, I recommend this video for a one-night time-lapse result: http://www.astrosurf.com/sguisard/Anim-astro/P63-P68/P63-P68.html

These prove your idea to be false. You can see stars rise from the horizon and maintain their brightness as the night progresses.

Since both the Sun and the stars must shine through the same 'atmolayer', they both should be affected by your claim. Since they're not, we know you're wrong.

Please don't both with any special pleadings, straw man fallacies, or 'we don't know the details' excuses.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2012, 12:06:30 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 06, 2012, 11:59:56 AM

Do tell us then how this atmospheric optical density causes sunlight to not reach when the Sun is a certain distance away from a point. Do you need magic again? Surely you're not making such a claim without evidence beyond a special pleading fallacy, right?

Look at the sun at noonday when it is directly overhead and look at it again when it is off in the distance just before setting. You will notice that the noonday sun is quite bright and difficult to look at. In contradiction, the sunset sun has much less intensity and can be looked at directly without a straining of the eye. This is an illustration of the atmolayer's great effect on the sun's light.

After the sun sets the sky is still relatively bright. It takes several hours for the sky to fade into a deep blackness.

The density of the atmolayer describes why the sky dims in the evening, but it is not a description of how the sun sets into (but not below) the horizon. If you are interested further in the subject I suggest you consult the appropriate chapter in the work Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Tom, do you really want to try that?

Let me show you how quickly I can disprove it.

First, I recommend this site for watching real-time results: http://www.moonglowtech.com/products/AllSkyCam/index.shtml

Second, I recommend this video for a one-night time-lapse result: http://www.astrosurf.com/sguisard/Anim-astro/P63-P68/P63-P68.html

These prove your idea to be false. You can see stars rise from the horizon and maintain their brightness as the night progresses.

Since both the Sun and the stars must shine through the same 'atmolayer', they both should be affected by your claim. Since they're not, we know you're wrong.

Please don't both with any special pleadings, straw man fallacies, or 'we don't know the details' excuses.

Well said ClockTower. You seem very well-educated. What do you have a degree in?

I enjoyed the time-lapse videos, they were a great link.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 06, 2012, 11:59:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2012, 11:54:14 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on January 06, 2012, 11:13:07 AM

Isn't the spotlight effect due to the atmospheric optical density causing the sunlight to not reach when the sun is a certain distance away from a point on Earth?

Correct. The author of that section of the FAQ got things wrong in this aspect. The sun shines light in all directions from its spherical surface. The sun's light creates a spot of light upon the earth, which is what we call a spotlight.

The term "spotlight" is in reference to the spot of light upon the earth, not the sun.

Do tell us then how this atmospheric optical density causes sunlight to not reach when the Sun is a certain distance away from a point. Do you need magic again? Surely you're not making such a claim without evidence beyond a special pleading fallacy, right?

Look at the sun at noonday when it is directly overhead and look at it again when it is off in the distance just before setting. You will notice that the noonday sun is quite bright and difficult to look at. In contradiction, the sunset sun has much less intensity and can be looked at directly without a straining of the eye. This is an illustration of the atmolayer's great effect on the sun's light.

After the sun sets the sky is still relatively bright. It takes several hours for the sky to fade into a deep blackness.

The density of the atmolayer describes why the sky dims in the evening, but it is not a description of how the sun sets into (but not below) the horizon. If you are interested further in the subject I suggest you consult the appropriate chapter in the work Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

So why can i not see the sun with a significant increase in altitude?

Tom, do you really want to try that?

Let me show you how quickly I can disprove it.

First, I recommend this site for watching real-time results: http://www.moonglowtech.com/products/AllSkyCam/index.shtml

Second, I recommend this video for a one-night time-lapse result: http://www.astrosurf.com/sguisard/Anim-astro/P63-P68/P63-P68.html

These prove your idea to be false. You can see stars rise from the horizon and maintain their brightness as the night progresses.

Since both the Sun and the stars must shine through the same 'atmolayer', they both should be affected by your claim. Since they're not, we know you're wrong.

Please don't both with any special pleadings, straw man fallacies, or 'we don't know the details' excuses.

Your examples are invalid for the following reasons:

1. None of those videos actually shows the horizon. The terrain is very mountainous.
2. The camera is set to high contrast

In reality, stars typically fade out before hitting the horizon line:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0712/2007_09_14-orion-lq_vanGorp1200.jpg

http://blog.pictopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/9880804_600.jpg

http://www.squidgallery.com/Death%20Valley%202010/Star-Trails.jpg

So why can i not see the sun with a significant increase in altitude?

If you increase your altitude significantly right after the sun sets, you actually can reverse the effect and see the sun again.

It takes longer for the sun to reach the vanishing point of higher points, as at higher altitudes your perspective in relation to the earth's surface is different.

The sun is a sphere which shines light from all points of its surface. The sun's light creates a spot of light upon the earth, which is what we call a spotlight.

Tom, how can you apply the same type of light source to a differently shaped surface (FE vs RE) and get the same result?

Are you saying that a spherical sun will produce the same "spot of light" pattern on a flat Earth as on a spherical Earth? Yes or no.

If yes, then we should be able to reproduce the effects with a model. However this has never been observed -- light is always distributed differently on a curved surface than a flat one. Please provide a repeatable experiment that suggests otherwise.

If no, then the sunlight patterns must be different in FET and RET. If they support FET, then they must not be valid in RET and you should be able to demonstrate the flaw in RET's model. Please show us what the daylight map should look like if the Earth is a sphere.

Otherwise, shove off.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 06, 2012, 01:56:12 PM

Tom, do you really want to try that?

Let me show you how quickly I can disprove it.

First, I recommend this site for watching real-time results: http://www.moonglowtech.com/products/AllSkyCam/index.shtml

Second, I recommend this video for a one-night time-lapse result: http://www.astrosurf.com/sguisard/Anim-astro/P63-P68/P63-P68.html

These prove your idea to be false. You can see stars rise from the horizon and maintain their brightness as the night progresses.

Since both the Sun and the stars must shine through the same 'atmolayer', they both should be affected by your claim. Since they're not, we know you're wrong.

Please don't both with any special pleadings, straw man fallacies, or 'we don't know the details' excuses.

Your examples are invalid for the following reasons:

1. None of those videos actually shows the horizon. The terrain is very mountainous.
2. The camera is set to high contrast

In reality, stars typically fade out before hitting the horizon line:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0712/2007_09_14-orion-lq_vanGorp1200.jpg

http://blog.pictopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/9880804_600.jpg

http://www.squidgallery.com/Death%20Valley%202010/Star-Trails.jpg

1) Yes, they do. I don't even understand how you could say that the area in mountainous (You admit you can see land) and not see the horizon. Isn't your definition of horizon where the sky meets the ground (whether a lake, a glacier, an ocean, a salt flat, or a mountain range)? Second, if there's no horizon for the stars to appear dimmer then how can day break in Chile?

2) That would be special pleading. You have to admit that would be a very special camera to have 'high constant' at the horizon (which you say isn't in the video) but not overhead.

3) Sorry, but you examples fail. You see my side needs only one counter-example to disprove your idea conclusively, and we gave you two.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 06, 2012, 02:42:28 PM

So why can i not see the sun with a significant increase in altitude?

If you increase your altitude significantly right after the sun sets, you actually can reverse the effect and see the sun again.

It takes longer for the sun to reach the vanishing point of higher points, as at higher altitudes your perspective in relation to the earth's surface is different.

At 29000 feet you should be able to see the sun at all times tom... 

Tom, in the following image, is light emitted by the "bottom" of the Sun blocked by the atmosphere of by the horizon?

Quote from: ClockTower on January 06, 2012, 01:56:12 PM

Tom, do you really want to try that?

Let me show you how quickly I can disprove it.

First, I recommend this site for watching real-time results: http://www.moonglowtech.com/products/AllSkyCam/index.shtml

Second, I recommend this video for a one-night time-lapse result: http://www.astrosurf.com/sguisard/Anim-astro/P63-P68/P63-P68.html

These prove your idea to be false. You can see stars rise from the horizon and maintain their brightness as the night progresses.

Since both the Sun and the stars must shine through the same 'atmolayer', they both should be affected by your claim. Since they're not, we know you're wrong.

Please don't both with any special pleadings, straw man fallacies, or 'we don't know the details' excuses.

Your examples are invalid for the following reasons:

1. None of those videos actually shows the horizon. The terrain is very mountainous.
2. The camera is set to high contrast

In reality, stars typically fade out before hitting the horizon line:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0712/2007_09_14-orion-lq_vanGorp1200.jpg

http://blog.pictopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/9880804_600.jpg

http://www.squidgallery.com/Death%20Valley%202010/Star-Trails.jpg

Tom Bishop is quite fond of these composite pictures, where the camera is not even kept still during the whole night. He has been linked to the original postings of these composite photos, where the technique is briefly explained, but still shows them without the link to the explanations.

This is just like the beach balls in Monterrey Bay. He lies, he knows he is lying, but when confronted he just forgets the embarrassing outing and tries a few weeks later the same lie in another thread.

For those who want to take a photo of this kind with no distortions you have to be careful with several considerations:

• Use a normal or telephoto lens. Those twisted star trails are usually the result of using very wide angle lenses that have distortions at the edges of the view area
• Do not take several exposures on the same frame, take one long exposure
• Keep the camera pointing to the same place all the time

Photos taken with the above requirements are boring and that is why you do not see many of them. If you see one you have seen them all. Artistic photos, on the other hand, can be breathtaking, like the ones Tom Bishop likes, but they depend on lots of tricks, like photographing the landscape first and the stars later, moving the camera while photographing the stars, using extreme wide angle lenses to make the trails seem bent, and even photoshopping the result to make it cleaner. I have no problem at all with those techniques, I have a problem with Tom Bishop pretending there is real information on how the stars move in an artistic photo.

And for those who would want to give Tom Bishop the benefit of the doubt, consider this: for decades the typical way to photograph dim stars has been to take exposures that last all night, and sometimes even more than one night. And the way to do this is with a telescope with an equatorial mount, which moves the telescope in concentric circles around the celestial North. If stars did not move in very precise concentric circles, this technique would not work at all. Look at this photo, where the mechanism to move the telescope in concentric circles is quite obvious:

1) Yes, they do. I don't even understand how you could say that the area in mountainous (You admit you can see land) and not see the horizon. Isn't your definition of horizon where the sky meets the ground (whether a lake, a glacier, an ocean, a salt flat, or a mountain range)? Second, if there's no horizon for the stars to appear dimmer then how can day break in Chile?

When you are in a valley surrounded by mountains you are not looking at the true horizon.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon --

"The horizon (or skyline) is the apparent line that separates earth from sky, the line that divides all visible directions into two categories: those that intersect the Earth's surface, and those that do not. At many locations, the true horizon is obscured by trees, buildings, mountains, etc., and the resulting intersection of earth and sky is called the visible horizon."

2) That would be special pleading. You have to admit that would be a very special camera to have 'high constant' at the horizon (which you say isn't in the video) but not overhead.

A high contrast setting would put all of the stars at their maximum whiteness, and thus wouldn't fade away

3) Sorry, but you examples fail. You see my side needs only one counter-example to disprove your idea conclusively, and we gave you two.

Your examples are invalid for the reasons I gave:

1. None of those videos actually shows the horizon. The terrain is very mountainous.
2. The camera is set to high contrast

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2012, 03:08:37 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 06, 2012, 02:42:28 PM

So why can i not see the sun with a significant increase in altitude?

If you increase your altitude significantly right after the sun sets, you actually can reverse the effect and see the sun again.

It takes longer for the sun to reach the vanishing point of higher points, as at higher altitudes your perspective in relation to the earth's surface is different.

At 29000 feet you should be able to see the sun at all times tom...

5 miles above the surface of the earth is nothing compared to the height of the sun or the many thousands of miles it takes to descend and disappear. What makes you think that 29000 feet is going to have a significant impact on raising the sun from perspective?

Quote from: ClockTower on January 06, 2012, 04:45:50 PM

1) Yes, they do. I don't even understand how you could say that the area in mountainous (You admit you can see land) and not see the horizon. Isn't your definition of horizon where the sky meets the ground (whether a lake, a glacier, an ocean, a salt flat, or a mountain range)? Second, if there's no horizon for the stars to appear dimmer then how can day break in Chile?

When you are in a valley surrounded by mountains you are not looking at the true horizon.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon --

"The horizon (or skyline) is the apparent line that separates earth from sky, the line that divides all visible directions into two categories: those that intersect the Earth's surface, and those that do not. At many locations, the true horizon is obscured by trees, buildings, mountains, etc., and the resulting intersection of earth and sky is called the visible horizon."

Quote

2) That would be special pleading. You have to admit that would be a very special camera to have 'high constant' at the horizon (which you say isn't in the video) but not overhead.

A high contrast setting would put all of the stars at their maximum whiteness, and thus wouldn't fade away

Quote

3) Sorry, but you examples fail. You see my side needs only one counter-example to disprove your idea conclusively, and we gave you two.

Your examples are invalid for the reasons I gave:

1. None of those videos actually shows the horizon. The terrain is very mountainous.
2. The camera is set to high contrast

1. Let's review. Your claim is that only reason that the Sun doesn't shine at night is that there is an effect of the atmosphere at the horizon. Since the Sun doesn't shine at night in Chile, the atmosphere must have that effect there. The second video set shows that to be false. Also, arguing that you meant the true horizon rather than the apparent horizon is close to special pleading. If that wasn't enough to destroy your fantasy, then I point you to another page: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/star-time-lapse-over-a-farm-stock-footage/114144415.
2. Tell us how without circular reasoning you determined that the camera is set to high contrast. If all that was needed to bring the day back was setting a camera to high contrast, shouldn't the video be in daylight? Also, how does contrast affect intensity? You do understand what increasing contrast means, right?

Why haven't you answered my simple yes/no question yet, Tom?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 06, 2012, 08:30:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2012, 03:08:37 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 06, 2012, 02:42:28 PM

So why can i not see the sun with a significant increase in altitude?

If you increase your altitude significantly right after the sun sets, you actually can reverse the effect and see the sun again.

It takes longer for the sun to reach the vanishing point of higher points, as at higher altitudes your perspective in relation to the earth's surface is different.

At 29000 feet you should be able to see the sun at all times tom...

5 miles above the surface of the earth is nothing compared to the height of the sun or the many thousands of miles it takes to descend and disappear. What makes you think that 29000 feet is going to have a significant impact on raising the sun from perspective?

Tom if you do the calculations with the sun being 3000 miles above the earth then you should be able to see it from everywhere while on the ground.  When that is brought up you claim that it is the atmosphere being too dense.  But even at 60000 feet in a SR71 the sun is not visible at all times, and there is no where near the atmosphere at that altitude, even at 29000 feet the atmosphere is incredibly thin.  So i ask you again, why can the sun not be seen at all times from the window of a plane, it is not the atmosphere obstructing the view.

Why must the optical obstruction of the sunlight be gasses?

On a Flat Earth, which is accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 upwards, the atmosphere would surely spill out into the vacuum of space on the edges.  And while it is true that some believe in an infinite plane, the atmosphere is finite and therefore the gasses would spread an infinite distance, causing us to have virtually no atmosphere.

Therefore, there must be something that keeps the gasses of our atmosphere from leaving the flat plane of our Earth.

If this effect also were to absorb the Electric or Magnetic energy, any photon passing through could be absorbed.  It may even be polarized in a similar way that a lens can be polarized to filter out light entering from a different angle. 

Round or flat, you and I can not deny that the sun has less intensity at dawn and dusk than at noon.  It even changes color.  All because the light is passing through more layers of the atmosphere.
Therefore, stars must also have the same issues as their light should be of similar composition.
We can see this effect by watching your video.  The stars at the horizon are fewer than the ones higher up.  Even after watching, the density of visible stars increases as you look upwards even though the ones that you see in the upper part of the sky passed over the horizon.  In this case, stars without the necessary intensity to be visible are not visible.  Those that are, are dimly visible and steadily get brighter as they move across the sky.

It may even be possible that a combination of optical density, polarization, and refraction may be occurring that would explain sunrise, sunset, night, day, etc...

However, I'm too lazy and my physics classes are too far in the past for me to write up the science to prove or disprove FET on this subject.

Round or flat, you and I can not deny that the sun has less intensity at dawn and dusk than at noon.  It even changes color.  All because the light is passing through more layers of the atmosphere.
...
However, I'm too lazy and my physics classes are too far in the past for me to write up the science to prove or disprove FET on this subject.

This is where the lazyness for numbers betrays the typical FE'er. Of course the intensity of the Sun is less at dawn than at midday, and nobody is denying that. But look how much is the difference: you use almost the same exposure and aperture seetings in your camera for any time of the day from 1 hour after dawn until 1 hour before dusk, provided the climate stays the same. By contrast, in every model the FET has cared to present the difference in light would be about a factor of 15 to 20. That is, you would need a flash for outdoor photography one hour after dawn.

But any photographer will tell you that outdoor photography one hour after dawn, if you have direct sunlight, requires just a little bit more aperture or a bit longer exposures.

And if there is bendy light, the problem with the FE models is even worse.