Sun is a spotlight?

Ok, so after looking at the FAQ, if the sun is a spotlight, then how can it be that whole entire sides of the earth are bathed in sunlight at the same time, from North to South? For example, all the way from Queen Elizabeth islands to the southern tip of South America, 7800 miles apart.

First, I'm moving this to Q&A. Second, you have some fundamental misunderstandings of flat-earth theory. The sun's spotlight is large enough to cover all the lit areas of daytime.

That would be more like a floodlight then, not a spotlight, and if the earth were flat, then the sun would be visible 24/7 from all parts of the earth. 

How large of an area must a spotlight cover before the mechanics of light fundamentally change and turn a spotlight into a floodlight?

To all, greeting!

I have a few questions which seem appropriate to post here, given their subject matter.

1. How far away are the Sun, Moon, and stars?
2. What causes the Moon to be lit, and what causes solar and lunar eclipses.
3. What are the stars?

PONGO, I know you will say that these questions are answered in the FAQ, but I was unable to find explanations to these. What I have found is that Rowbotham thought the Moon was a light of its own, and he seemed to vary on how far away he thought it and the Sun were from Earth. I know that many FEers believe that the Sun and the Moon are 3000 miles from Earth, and each is 32 miles across. But what are the stars? How far away are they?  And what is the official FES view on this matter, or is there one? Thanks, all!

I rarely direct people to the FAQ. I find it odd that you would, "know" that I would do that. I'll answer your questions in a hour or so when I get home.

Pongo, I am sorry. I didn't mean to sound nasty. I apologise for that. I didn't say you would direct me there, only that I know that some of this is covered there, and I thought you might point that out. But didn't doubt that you would answer my questions. I look forward to reading the answers. Thanks!

1. How far away are the Sun, Moon, and stars?
2. What causes the Moon to be lit, and what causes solar and lunar eclipses.
3. What are the stars?

1) Distance of the sun, moon, and stars? I have no idea.  I can tell you what some flat-earthers say and I can tell you what some round-earthers say, but I have strong reasons to doubt both claims.  I have done no experiments to determine the distance on my own and I feel safe in saying that no one reading this will have either.  All I can say with any degree of confidence is that the sun, moon, and stars are much much closer to the earth than is stated in the tradition round-earth model.  Unsatisfying answer?  I agree that it is, but I will not quote you an unverified number simply because it feels good to "know" an answer.  I find that not knowing is better than knowing something that is false.

2) What is the source of the moon's light, and what causes solar and lunar eclipses?  I am going to go into an area much disputed and even chided intermittently across all cliques of The Flat Earth Society.  I also feel like I must give the caveat that not only do all flat-earthers not accept this as cannon, but many are vehemently opposed to it.  Okay, lets proceed.  I believe that the moon is covered in bioluminescent lifeforms.  These lifeforms, of which their exact nature is another point of much debate, migrate across the surface of the moon causing what you call phases of the moon, or a lunar eclipse.  This is why parts of the moon are still visible even when they are said to be in the earth's shadow (something that is impossible) in the round-earth model.  Solar eclipses are caused by the moon passing between the earth and the sun, much the same in both models.

3) What are stars?  I have no reason to doubt they differ from what round-earthers say they are.  Though their size and distance may vary significantly.

Pongo, thank you for your answers. I like honest answers. I must admit that your answer re: the Moon was, interesting, shall I say. I'm not sure I could agree, but I've nothing better to offer. The other answers make sense, though.

the sun is not a literal "spotlight". Think more as the suns light that shines upon Earth is a "spot (or circle) of light.
It is spherical and shines light in all directions, but because it is so close 3000 miles high, and only 32 miles wide,
this circle of light can only illuminate half of the much larger Earth.

I have performed this simple experiment a few times. Take a penlight in a darkened room and illuminate the floor from 5 feet.
Next take a bare lit light bulb (with the bulb point downward). Measure both circles of light on the floor.
This is conclusive proof that the sun is not an actual "spotlight".

Iwanttobelieve, greeting! And what do you think re: how the Moon is lit, and the cause of lunar eclipses? I am curious. And no, I'm not being snide. I truly what you think, as it will help me to understand FET better (whether I embrace it or not is another question besides).

I wonder why nobody has proposed that there was once 2 suns and the moon is a decayed sun that's lost it's light. It could explain quite a few things.

You should propose that.  I am sure there will be some back lash, but it is plausible. 

It ai t such a bad idea. I will make a thread later with my reasonings. Quite plausable under the flat earth model and solves a lot of issues.

I wonder why nobody has proposed that there was once 2 suns and the moon is a decayed sun that's lost it's light. It could explain quite a few things.

but it has light.

Instead of debating in Q&A section, I created a thread in Debate section to show that the sun is not a spotlight or floodlight, that's just weird.

I tried to project day and night on a flat earth map depending on the month (March, June, September and December). The below sketches show the sun light (the yellow highlight) as perceived by a flat earth in function of the time of the year.

The thread is here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60024.0.html

This whole matter of the Sun being a spotlight, now, this is interesting. I know some Flatters believe that the Sun is 3000 miles from Earth, as is the Moon, and that each is 32 miles in diameter. I know Excelsior believes in the traditional RE estimates for the size and distance of the Sun. So, who came up w/ the figures 3000 miles and 32 miles in diameter, and how? What proof is there of these figures? How was that proof obtained? I'm not trying to be nasty. I am genuinely curious. Thanks!

This whole matter of the Sun being a spotlight, now, this is interesting. I know some Flatters believe that the Sun is 3000 miles from Earth, as is the Moon, and that each is 32 miles in diameter. I know Excelsior believes in the traditional RE estimates for the size and distance of the Sun. So, who came up w/ the figures 3000 miles and 32 miles in diameter, and how? What proof is there of these figures? How was that proof obtained? I'm not trying to be nasty. I am genuinely curious. Thanks!

On a round earth you use trig and the distance to Venus to get the distance. On a flat earth you use a right triangle and the distance to another location on earth where the sun is overhead from the first location and then 45° overhead from the second location and then use Pythagoreans theorom. Once you know the distance you can get the diameter easily.

This whole matter of the Sun being a spotlight, now, this is interesting. I know some Flatters believe that the Sun is 3000 miles from Earth, as is the Moon, and that each is 32 miles in diameter. I know Excelsior believes in the traditional RE estimates for the size and distance of the Sun. So, who came up w/ the figures 3000 miles and 32 miles in diameter, and how? What proof is there of these figures? How was that proof obtained? I'm not trying to be nasty. I am genuinely curious. Thanks!

I haven't found any exact source about who came up with the 3,000 mile figure the first time or how it was measured. Rowbotham did some simple trigonometric measurements in 19th century and he proposed a distance of less than 700 miles. In early 20th century Voliva used the 3,000 miles figure but did not elaborate how he did it or whether he borrowed the results from some predecessors.

The idea of a sun millions of miles in diameter and 91,000,000 miles away is silly. The sun is only 32 miles across and not more than 3,000 miles from the earth. It stands to reason it must be so. God made the sun to light the earth, and therefore must have placed it close to the task it was designed to do. What would you think of a man who built a house in Zion and put the lamp to light it in Kenosha, Wisconsin?

Whereas Rowbotham who came up with a conclusion that the sun was only 700 miles away or less doesn't seem to be widely accepted by FES although he clearly used a zetetic experiment to measure the sun's distance.

CARTESIAN, Greetings!

I know that Rowbotham used a figure of 700 miles, but he also used other figures, at various points in his career.  So I do know that  FEers do not hold to his distances as "Gospel Truth". So, as regards the distance to the Sun and the Moon, I guess there will always be questions.  Does anyone else know about the 3000 miles and the 32 miles diameter?

but because it is so close 3000 miles high, and only 32 miles wide,
this circle of light can only illuminate half of the much larger Earth.

There is no way so small a light could light up 50% of the land at a given time.

Completely impossible.

The reason the sun is capable of lighting up half our globe at a given time is due to it's size.......approx 109 times bigger than the Earth.

What you are proposing is like trying to say you could light up an entire sports arena with a single lightbulb.

CARTESIAN, Greetings!

I know that Rowbotham used a figure of 700 miles, but he also used other figures, at various points in his career.  So I do know that  FEers do not hold to his distances as "Gospel Truth". So, as regards the distance to the Sun and the Moon, I guess there will always be questions.  Does anyone else know about the 3000 miles and the 32 miles diameter?

Check through the thread on "Ham Radio Measurements of the Distance from the Earth to the Moon......" and on some other threads and there is an illustration about how the 3000 miles distance was determined which will answer your question .

On the other hand how the 237,150 mile distance and 2,150 mile diameter were determined was explained . The illustration also shows  how the 93,000,000 mile distance from the earth to the sun was determined.

Quote

but because it is so close 3000 miles high, and only 32 miles wide,
this circle of light can only illuminate half of the much larger Earth.

There is no way so small a light could light up 50% of the land at a given time.

Completely impossible.

The reason the sun is capable of lighting up half our globe at a given time is due to it's size.......approx 109 times bigger than the Earth.

What you are proposing is like trying to say you could light up an entire sports arena with a single lightbulb.

To add to your point. The only way that a round sun can illuminate exactly half the earth all the time is to have a spherical earth.

A 32 mile wide sun is impossible.

1) It would not generate enough heat
2) It could not generate nuculear fusion at that size
3) It would of burnt out within a matter of minutes of ignighting
4) A sun or star needs a great enough mass to keep it from burning up instantly

The moon having a shifting bioluminescent object(s) on it to create the phases of the moon???
This is an example of a well over engineered theory being made up to back up a less than plausible theory (FET) More than likely the phases of the moon are caused by the suns light reflecting off it and our percection of that reflection.
Who is orcastrating this bioluminescent objects movent? Some mystical Glee club dance instructor?

A 32 mile wide sun is impossible.

1) It would not generate enough heat
2) It could not generate nuculear fusion at that size
3) It would of burnt out within a matter of minutes of ignighting
4) A sun or star needs a great enough mass to keep it from burning up instantly

I am an RE, but I just want to point out the weakness of your arguments against FE here. Above, you assume that the light in the FE sun is generated by the same reaction as the RE sun. FEer can only "explain" what can be seen or touched, everything else is just magic. You need to use directly observable arguments while discussing with FEers.

Quote from: tomstar on October 04, 2013, 03:45:45 AM

A 32 mile wide sun is impossible.

1) It would not generate enough heat
2) It could not generate nuculear fusion at that size
3) It would of burnt out within a matter of minutes of ignighting
4) A sun or star needs a great enough mass to keep it from burning up instantly

I am an RE, but I just want to point out the weakness of your arguments against FE here. Above, you assume that the light in the FE sun is generated by the same reaction as the RE sun. FEer can only "explain" what can be seen or touched, everything else is just magic. You need to use directly observable arguments while discussing with FEers.

I appricate that was a bit of a flakey responce but my argument was mainly about a sun 32 miles wide in either theory not a FE in whole.

Can someone explain how a 32 mile wide sun 3000 miles above the earth generates the heat, light and radiation required to substain life on earth?

Can someone explain how a 32 mile wide sun 3000 miles above the earth generates the heat, light and radiation required to substain life on earth?

Magic.

Quote from: tomstar on October 04, 2013, 05:58:38 AM

Can someone explain how a 32 mile wide sun 3000 miles above the earth generates the heat, light and radiation required to substain life on earth?

Magic.

Scintific Method, you've been here long enough to understand the rules about low content posting in the upper fora.

Quote from: Scintific Method on October 05, 2013, 12:20:55 AM

Quote from: tomstar on October 04, 2013, 05:58:38 AM

Can someone explain how a 32 mile wide sun 3000 miles above the earth generates the heat, light and radiation required to substain life on earth?

Magic.

Scintific Method, you've been here long enough to understand the rules about low content posting in the upper fora.

Sorry jroa, I just couldn't resist the temptation to give a classic FE style answer, but without the ranting usually associated with such answers. Yes, I have seen your fellow FEers call things like gravity and fusion "magic", even though such things have far more detailed explanations associated with them than such things as UA and the FE sun. I'll try to restrain myself in future.

CARTESIAN, Greetings!

I know that Rowbotham used a figure of 700 miles, but he also used other figures, at various points in his career.  So I do know that  FEers do not hold to his distances as "Gospel Truth". So, as regards the distance to the Sun and the Moon, I guess there will always be questions.  Does anyone else know about the 3000 miles and the 32 miles diameter?

Here you go Yaakov. Here is how FE'rs get 3000 miles. You see if they assume the Earth is flat then you can just use the Pythagorean theorem to figure this out. It uses right triangles.

a^2 + b^2 = c^2

To do this they need 2 observers. The first observer will stand where the sun is directly overhead. The second observer will stand at some location away from the first observer where (at the same time) the sun is 45 degrees overhead which exactly halfway between the horizon and directly overhead. Once these angles are measured then all you need is the distance between the observers to get the distance to the sun. When this is done the distance between the observers should be roughly 3000 miles which is coincidentally the same distance to the sun. To be more exact they should get 3112 miles.

With the information we have we don't even need to solve all of the theorem because we know that one of the angles (the angle to the sun for the second observer) is exactly 45 degrees. This means that a will equal b and that is all there is to it.

Because the FE'r mistakenly assumes the earth is flat I will show you why they derive this number even though the earth is round. Look at this diagram.



The blue circle is earth while the yellow circle is the sun. The solid green line is the FE'rs mistaken flat horizon with the supplementary dashed green line being their view of the sun. The solid red line is the FE'rs mistaken flat horizon with the supplementary dashed red line being their view of the sun. The first observer is standing where the solid green line meets the surface of the earth while the second observer is standing where the solid red line meets the surface of the earth.

Since the earth is 24,901 miles in circumference the actual spot required for the second observer (red line) to get the sun to be 45 degrees above the horizon is about 1/8 of the circumference of the earth away from the first observer. This is precisely 3,112 miles away and as such they mistakenly perform the theorem and get these incorrect numbers.