Sunlight right now

From Superhater7810

Australia beach
Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina cams

Actually the large terminator is more in line with a flat Earth than a round one. If I shine a light on a ball the light doesn't magically wrap around it and light up a portion of the other side. It lights precisely 50% of the ball at all times. however, the Sun appears to light around 60% of the Earth at all times. RET's failures are so painfully obvious.

Actually the large terminator is more in line with a flat Earth than a round one. If I shine a light on a ball the light doesn't magically wrap around it and light up a portion of the other side. It lights precisely 50% of the ball at all times. however, the Sun appears to light around 60% of the Earth at all times. RET's failures are so painfully obvious.

Aha! May be the best thing I have ever read. Not an attempt at all to defend the flat earth; as I presume at this point you are struggling to back it up yourself. I've come to this conclusion being that you didn't defend it at all never the less took a shot at the round earth as you couldn't defend it.


A little beyond 50% of earth is lit up because the sun is larger than the earth, also the earth's atmosphere refracts (bends) light so that it shines behind the part that is facing directly into the sun.

Yeah but this is a conspiracy on its own is it not nut case?

You believe that light magically bends. Got it.

You believe that light magically bends. Got it.

Don't forget that RE'ers regularly argue that the atmosphere causes both the sun and moon to come from below the horizon and into the sky to cause the Daytime Lunar Eclipse phenomenon, which should be impossible in a Round Earth model.

You believe that light magically bends. Got it.

Light doesn't "magically bend." It refracts. The photons bounce through the atmosphere and the "rays" "curve" slightly around the earth.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on October 09, 2012, 11:12:43 AM

You believe that light magically bends. Got it.

Don't forget that RE'ers regularly argue that the atmosphere causes both the sun and moon to come from below the horizon and into the sky to cause the Daytime Lunar Eclipse phenomenon.

Are you talking about the lunar eclipse being visible on one horizon while the Sun is visible on the other? This is due to atmospheric refraction that we can see this.

Light doesn't "magically bend." It refracts. The photons bounce through the atmosphere and the "rays" "curve" slightly around the earth.

Light refracts when interacting with various mediums, it doesn't refract uniformly around a ball.

Are you talking about the lunar eclipse being visible on one horizon while the Sun is visible on the other? This is due to atmospheric refraction that we can see this.

More magic, I suppose.

Did you really attempt the flashlight on a ball technique or are you just hypothesizing? 

Have you tried flashlight on a disc? And what were the results of that experiment?  Did it look like a sharp line down the middle of the disc?

Where are you getting this 60% figure anyway?  I suppose you are talking about the 'gray' areas where it's neither night nor day.  Have you ever heard of dawn and dusk?  50% is lit by the sun 50% is not.  An equinox would not be the same if it weren't this way.

In your ball and flashlight experiment, did your ball have an atmosphere that glows?

Did you really attempt the flashlight on a ball technique [...]? 

Yes, I did. The light didn't wrap around the other side.

Have you tried flashlight on a disc? And what were the results of that experiment?  Did it look like a sharp line down the middle of the disc?

The Sun in not directly in the middle of the Earth's disc, so shining a flash light on coin won't help.

Where are you getting this 60% figure anyway?  I suppose you are talking about the 'gray' areas where it's neither night nor day.  Have you ever heard of dawn and dusk?  50% is lit by the sun 50% is not.  An equinox would not be the same if it weren't this way.

A rough estimate. An equinox is purely due to the Earth's axis and where you live. You didn't really think that the Sun lights more or less of the Earth throughout the year, did you?

In your ball and flashlight experiment, did your ball have an atmosphere that glows?

I don't see how this is relevant, since the Earth's atmoplane does not spontaneously emit light, i.e. glow.

I don't see how this is relevant, since the Earth's atmoplane does not spontaneously emit light, i.e. glow.

So I guess you're not familiar with dawn or dusk...

Why do you keep mentioning wrapping around?  Is it because you don't understand dawn or dusk?  The sun sets (or is about to rise) but it's still lighting up the atmosphere; therefore it is still light enough to see on the ground.  So the sun is shining on 50% of the Earth but a small percentage of the Earth is lit up in dawn or lit up in dusk and the sun is not shining directly on it.  This is not wrapping around.

It's not spontaneous, LOL.

Why would you shine a flashlight on a coin?  Do you know the size comparison of the sun to the Earth in your FE model?

So I guess you're not familiar with dawn or dusk...

These happen because the world is a flat disc. They would not work on a round Earth.

Why do you keep mentioning wrapping around?  Is it because you don't understand dawn or dusk?  The sun sets (or is about to rise) but it's still lighting up the atmosphere; therefore it is still light enough to see on the ground.  So the sun is shining on 50% of the Earth but a small percentage of the Earth is lit up in dawn or lit up in dusk and the sun is not shining directly on it.  This is not wrapping around.

You're the one who thinks the Earth is round and light wraps around it, so you tell me why you brought it up in the OP.

It's not spontaneous, LOL.

Then why did you use the term "glow"? Radium glows, the atmolayer does not.

Why would you shine a flashlight on a coin?  Do you know the size comparison of the sun to the Earth in your FE model?

Are we in the same discussion? You're the one who brought up shining a flash light on a coin and I told you why it is silly. Are you disagreeing with yourself now?

I'm seriously concerned for you now.

I didn't even have words in my OP.  I had pictures.  I never mentioned a coin, I said a disc.

Are you feeling okay?

I didn't even have words in my OP.  I had pictures.  I never mentioned a coin, I said a disc.

Are you saying a coin isn't a disc? 


Furthermore, I'll take your ignoring of my other points as a concession.

Good work, Irushwithscvs. It's ridiculous to imagine that sunlight is illuminating over a thousand miles of land which should physically be blocked by the earth.

Are you saying a coin isn't a disc? 

I asked if you've ever shined a flashlight on a disc.  In an attempt to see what sort of FE model experiments you've performed.  It would be silly if you tried RET experiments but never FET.  You brought up a coin.  Something that's designed to fit in a pocket.  Why would anyone experiment with something so small to represent the Earth?

I think you intentionally derail a conversation so you don't have to actually debate.  I.e. pretending I said 60% lit, wrapping around, and coin.  I hadn't suggested anything more than providing simple pictures to document the way the sunlight is on the Earth at the moment I created the thread.  I should've called the thread 'Sunlight study.'

Find a large disc, shine a light on it.  Document results. Not a coin, or CD... you can do better.

Now, back to the thread's original intentions.

How does the sunlight on the Earth work in a flat Earth model?  As you can see, the southern tip of South America is lit up at the same time the southern part of Australia is lit up.  The sun is able to light up two places 20,000 miles apart? :O omg

I better pull out my Earth-sized disc-like but not quite a disc object and test it with my Sun-sized light bulb. Then again, you would simply move the goal posts.


RE'er reduced to ignoring key FE points and reposting the OP in an effort to hide his shame. Another FE victory!

Good work, Irushwithscvs. It's ridiculous to imagine that sunlight is illuminating over a thousand miles of land which should physically be blocked by the earth.

Indeed.  It seems the more I really scrutinize the RE model the less sense it makes.

Where is this 60% approximation coming from? Refraction only accounts for a few extra minutes of sunlight during the equinox, and the phenomenon is both widely documented. widely understood, and easily predicted - kind of disappointing magic. Somehow I don't think the real coverage is anywhere close to 60%. Of course you can't approximate it from what's covered by the Mercator projection maps without first correcting the projection, but I'm sure everyone already knows that.

While we're on the topic of the sun I have some other questions, which I'm sure have been asked before plenty of times, but hopefully less so than the the OP's:

1) If you look at a timelapse video the sun appears to move through the sky at a close to constant velocity. FET claims that the sunset is due a perspective effect of the earth moving away from the viewer. The way perspective works, the object's position towards the vanishing point is inversely proportional to its distance - for instance, railroad tracks appear to get closer together the further they are towards the horizon. In order for the sun to appear to move at a constant rate it would have to be accelerating away from you at a constant speed. And yet if this were the case it wouldn't appear to rise and set at a constant rate for all viewers. So how do you explain this?
2) According to Rowbotham, objects far away from you will appear to recede behind the horizon instead of converge towards the horizon. Indeed the sun can be seen partway intersecting the horizon, so this must be an example of this phenomenon. And yet, Rowbotham also says that if you look at the object with more optical magnification it will appear further away from the horizon. So forget boats and the argument that waves aren't calm enough for this - why can't this phenomenon be showed with the sun? Or is it just that none of you have performed this experiment yet? You can buy anti-glare filters for only a couple dozen dollars you know...

Actually the large terminator is more in line with a flat Earth than a round one.

"Actually the large terminator is more in line with a flat Earth than a round one."

"Oh, no, my argument has been destroyed, I'll just post these doctored images and see if that helps"

Misrepresenting FE and then claiming the misrepresentation is part of FET is dishonest. If you're going to modify FE images I suggest you put I "I made this, TFES is not affiliated with it at all." That way we can limit your stupidity to you rather than have it spread around like a plague.

"Oh, no, my argument has been destroyed, I'll just post these doctored images and see if that helps"

Misrepresenting FE and then claiming the misrepresentation is part of FET is dishonest. If you're going to modify FE images I suggest you put I "I made this, TFES is not affiliated with it at all." That way we can limit your stupidity to you rather than have it spread around like a plague.

Maybe you don't understand what my goal is.  I'm showing on the FE map where the sun is lighting up the Earth according to the Mercator projection map.

If you have a better map you can supply for me, I would greatly appreciate it; the whole FES would appreciate it.

If you care to say timeanddate.com is inaccurate, please do so.  If you care to doctor a map of your own to show the daylight, please do so.

Speaking of ignoring things brought up; I will ask you this again:  Have you performed your flashlight experiments for an FE model?  Your last response was a rhetorical question that had nothing to do with what I asked you.

here flatorange if you want a chuckle read this;
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52981.msg1298630.html#msg1298630
this better explains how the sun does not work simply by its impossible position.
just let the thread die dude you are being trolled by a lower fora misfit. you do know irush's only intention is to troll you and up his post count? he doesnt believe in fet any more than you do and his childish attempts to 'win' a thread are tedious at best.

Maybe you don't understand what my goal is.  I'm showing on the FE map where the sun is lighting up the Earth according to the Mercator projection map.

Why are you applying a RET map to a FET map?

If you have a better map you can supply for me, I would greatly appreciate it; the whole FES would appreciate it.

You are the source of the problem, not the map.

If you care to say timeanddate.com is inaccurate, please do so.  If you care to doctor a map of your own to show the daylight, please do so.

It is inaccurate, as it attempts to project its data using a round Earth when the Earth is not round. Making invalid assumptions ruins the rest of your calculations.

Speaking of ignoring things brought up; I will ask you this again:  Have you performed your flashlight experiments for an FE model?  Your last response was a rhetorical question that had nothing to do with what I asked you.

Indeed. The disc had a large terminator, the ball did not. I used a compact disc and yes, I saw that you said "don't use CDs hur dur." I don't have any Earth-sized discs available to me, maybe you could check back later.

here flatorange if you want a chuckle read this;
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52981.msg1298630.html#msg1298630
this better explains how the sun does not work simply by its impossible position.
just let the thread die dude you are being trolled by a lower fora misfit. you do know irush's only intention is to troll you and up his post count? he doesnt believe in fet any more than you do and his childish attempts to 'win' a thread are tedious at best.

I agree. He does this over and over. He's focus is purely on derailing the topic. He doesn't even show anything to defend himself.

Misrepresenting FE and then claiming the misrepresentation is part of FET is dishonest.

Is it any more dishonest than when FE'ers misrepresent RET?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on October 09, 2012, 09:18:39 PM

Misrepresenting FE and then claiming the misrepresentation is part of FET is dishonest.

Is it any more dishonest than when FE'ers misrepresent RET?

This is not relevant to the discussion nor is it adding anything of value. Perhaps you should mention this again when a FE'er misrepresents RET and bring it up to them. If you are doing what I mentioned right now, perhaps you should say it outright rather than ask questions that beat around the bush. Your constant posts of a single question attempting to derail the discussion in a meaningful topic is tiring.

I would report you for low content posting, but that would be like calling the police department when the only person who would answer is the one performing the crime.

Quote from: markjo on October 10, 2012, 11:00:01 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on October 09, 2012, 09:18:39 PM

Misrepresenting FE and then claiming the misrepresentation is part of FET is dishonest.

Is it any more dishonest than when FE'ers misrepresent RET?

This is not relevant to the discussion nor is it adding anything of value. Perhaps you should mention this again when a FE'er misrepresents RET and bring it up to them. If you are doing what I mentioned right now, perhaps you should say it outright rather than ask questions that beat around the bush. Your constant posts of a single question attempting to derail the discussion in a meaningful topic is tiring.

I would report you for low content posting, but that would be like calling the police department when the only person who would answer is the one performing the crime.

It is relevant to the discussion as you were misrepresenting facts by saying light wraps uniformly around the Earth when we all (or at least any of us with knowledge of physics) know that it doesn't. It refracts slightly around to what, without an atmosphere, would be the dark side of the planet, creating what's known as dusk and dawn.

It is relevant to the discussion as you were misrepresenting facts by saying light wraps uniformly around the Earth when we all (or at least any of us with knowledge of physics) know that it doesn't. It refracts slightly around to what, without an atmosphere, would be the dark side of the planet, creating what's known as dusk and dawn.

You're misrepresenting optics here. Light doesn't refract that way. Light refracts and reflects based on medium interaction. Dusk and dawn occurs the way it does because the Earth is a disc. Such events would not occur on a round object. It would either be day or night, there would be no between state.

Why are you applying a RET map to a FET map?

Hes not applying RET map to a FET map. Hes applying fact to the FET map.

We happen to know for a plain hard undeniable fact that the sun can light south america and Australia at the same time. flat orange simply drew a line on the FE map to show where the light would have to shine on the flat earth in order for that to be possible.

come on man catch up.