Which of the two videos represent the truth

Here are two videos I made

This one showing you what a spotlight looks like on a flat disc.
Flat disc

Does that represent real life observations?

Or does the following video represent real life observations?

Sphere

Well you've made the spotlight a bit small, but I don't feel dizzy so I suspect we aren't whirling around at 1000mph on a giant cosmic marble.

Well you've made the spotlight a bit small, but I don't feel dizzy so I suspect we aren't whirling around at 1000mph on a giant cosmic marble.

Really, Thork? Really? Why would you stoop down to Skeptimatic and TrueMyth's intelligence? Why? You understand how it works, and you know that we should not feel Earths motion. So stop it.

They could both work.

They could both work.

Explain please. The first video of the flat disc shows there can not be any seasons, while we do experience and observe seasons in real life. The second videos shows it does have seasons.

It doesn't allow for seasons because your animation doesn't represent the sun in FET.

It doesn't allow for seasons because your animation doesn't represent the sun in FET.

So what is the sun in FET? A spotlight, a sphere, a magic wand?

It depends who you ask, but most commonly a sphere.

It depends who you ask, but most commonly a sphere.

So the flat earth theory cannot even produce a straight forward answer on that part? Anyway so how come the sun is a sphere and the earth can not?

It's commonly known that the sun is a Quark Gluon plasma

Quote from: Bollybill on May 07, 2013, 05:16:54 PM

It depends who you ask, but most commonly a sphere.

So the flat earth theory cannot even produce a straight forward answer on that part? Anyway so how come the sun is a sphere and the earth can not?

No, just like how there are different theories about what makes up matter or how the universe started etc.

Wuh...?
Well, it may have something to do with the sun not being the earth.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 07, 2013, 05:29:05 PM

Quote from: Bollybill on May 07, 2013, 05:16:54 PM

It depends who you ask, but most commonly a sphere.

So the flat earth theory cannot even produce a straight forward answer on that part? Anyway so how come the sun is a sphere and the earth can not?

No, just like how there are different theories about what makes up matter or how the universe started etc.

Wuh...
Well, it may have something to do with the sun not being the earth.

It is true scientists have not yet found a theory or an answer to how the universe has started and what  matter makes up the universe. Though they have found evidence the universe is expanding. So a logic explanation is that if you reverse time you will get to a point all was once together, in a single point. Again, they still have no answers how the universe started, but that does not take away credibility from the debate about a flat or a spherical earth.

Though there could be different FE theories, the most plausible should be backed up by real world observations. Scientists do the same, they go forward by following the theory they can back up. A similar setting should yield similar results.

Now with the FE theory, you haven't gone into explaining why the sun and the moon could be spheres and the earth cannot. You said the earth is different. Yet the moon and the sun are both different from each other as well and yet we do not see two different shapes like a box shaped moon and a spherical sun. What is the reason behind the earth to be a flat disc?

Any answers?

Though there could be different FE theories, the most plausible should be backed up by real world observations. Scientists do the same, they go forward by following the theory they can back up. A similar setting should yield similar results.

Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.

Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.

Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2013, 10:07:05 AM

Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.

Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.

Just because you assume that the south should be in darkness, it does not really prove anything.  If you go far enough past the known Earth, there may actually be perpetual darkness.

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2013, 10:07:05 AM

Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.

Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.

You will get wordy explanations from FErs that can be summarized like this:


Aside from the jokes, the sun should never be lower than 7 degrees above our line of sight. Ever. In FE, the sun is 3000 miles up, and the diameter of Earth is approx. 24,000 miles.

Work the math, pretty simple.

FE people either use the most messed up version of perspective you can think of, or they insert unobserved, untestable bendy light (Electromagnetic Acceleration). Both of which are incorrect.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2013, 10:07:05 AM

Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.

Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.

Just because you assume that the south should be in darkness, it does not really prove anything.  If you go far enough past the known Earth, there may actually be perpetual darkness.

Please note I say 24h of sunlight. In no model of the FET the south can have 24h of sunlight, without affecting the north. I do not assume it is, but these are real world observations. When it is winter in north, the days are short, the nights are long. In south the days are long the nights are short. In summer, the days in north are long, the nights are short and in south the days are short and the nights are long. This can in no possible way be achieved using the flat earth disc model, unless you have the answers? I made the videos for you to see, unless you have another answer, the only way the seasons can be achieved is as if the earth is a sphere. This is demonstrated in the second video, and what do you know, the real world observations match with that video.

It's because of aetheric eyewalls

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2013, 10:07:05 AM

Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.

Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.

You will get wordy explanations from FErs that can be summarized like this:


Aside from the jokes, the sun should never be lower than 7 degrees above our line of sight. Ever. In FE, the sun is 3000 miles up, and the diameter of Earth is approx. 24,000 miles.

Work the math, pretty simple.

FE people either use the most messed up version of perspective you can think of, or they insert unobserved, untestable bendy light (Electromagnetic Acceleration). Both of which are incorrect.

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

Quote from: darknavyseal on May 09, 2013, 11:28:36 AM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2013, 10:07:05 AM

Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.

Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.

You will get wordy explanations from FErs that can be summarized like this:


Aside from the jokes, the sun should never be lower than 7 degrees above our line of sight. Ever. In FE, the sun is 3000 miles up, and the diameter of Earth is approx. 24,000 miles.

Work the math, pretty simple.

FE people either use the most messed up version of perspective you can think of, or they insert unobserved, untestable bendy light (Electromagnetic Acceleration). Both of which are incorrect.

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

The Sun being even closer doesn't really help your position. Saying you don't know doesn't bolster your argument either. Anyway, why should it be so hard to measure?

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Quote from: darknavyseal on May 09, 2013, 11:28:36 AM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2013, 10:07:05 AM

Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.

Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.

You will get wordy explanations from FErs that can be summarized like this:


Aside from the jokes, the sun should never be lower than 7 degrees above our line of sight. Ever. In FE, the sun is 3000 miles up, and the diameter of Earth is approx. 24,000 miles.

Work the math, pretty simple.

FE people either use the most messed up version of perspective you can think of, or they insert unobserved, untestable bendy light (Electromagnetic Acceleration). Both of which are incorrect.

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

The Sun being even closer doesn't really help your position. Saying you don't know doesn't bolster your argument either. Anyway, why should it be so hard to measure?

1. In what way?
2. I wasn't trying to bolster my argument, necessarily. I was just saying we don't know, so... yeah. 

We also do not know the exact size of the sun.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 09, 2013, 02:00:10 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Quote from: darknavyseal on May 09, 2013, 11:28:36 AM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 11:17:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2013, 10:07:05 AM

Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.

Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.

You will get wordy explanations from FErs that can be summarized like this:


Aside from the jokes, the sun should never be lower than 7 degrees above our line of sight. Ever. In FE, the sun is 3000 miles up, and the diameter of Earth is approx. 24,000 miles.

Work the math, pretty simple.

FE people either use the most messed up version of perspective you can think of, or they insert unobserved, untestable bendy light (Electromagnetic Acceleration). Both of which are incorrect.

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

The Sun being even closer doesn't really help your position. Saying you don't know doesn't bolster your argument either. Anyway, why should it be so hard to measure?

1. In what way?
2. I wasn't trying to bolster my argument, necessarily. I was just saying we don't know, so... yeah. 

We also do not know the exact size of the sun.

One of the problems with a 3000 mile high Sun is that it's over twice as far away at sunset as at noon. This means you'd expect it to look much smaller at sunset and sunrise and would appear to change size during the day. At a height of 700 miles it's over 8 times as far away between sunset and noon, so the size change would be even more apparent.

And I'm saying you (the FES anyway) should know the distance to the Sun. It would be easy enough to measure, you just need to measure some shadow angles and do some basic trig. In fact, Eratosthenes did this measurement already, but assumed a round Earth and calculated the circumference. You can take the same measurement and, assuming a flat Earth, get an approximate distance to the Sun.

It's because of aetheric eyewalls

Go ahead, explain yourself.

Except you only get a consistent answer at 45 and 90 degrees of elevation using trig on a FE.

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 03:13:35 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space.  This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.  It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space.  The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums.  However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 03:13:35 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space.  This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.  It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space.  The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums.  However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.

I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory.  The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor.  He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:09:29 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 03:13:35 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space.  This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.  It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space.  The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums.  However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.

I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory.  The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor.  He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.

You may very well be right.  I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.