Sunrise & Sunset Versus Earth's Orbit

Apparently, this diagram illustrates the sun's orbit and elevation above the earth's (flat) surface according to the widely accepted flat earth model...


Q1.   How can the illuminated half of the earth be separated relatively sharply along a well-defined straight line from the darkened half (rather than a curved line)?

Q2.   What prevents the sun—or the sun's light—from being seen from the darkened half by using a telescope?

Q3.   How can it be that the north pole is always illuminated by exactly the same amount of sunlight (when it's been observed otherwise)?

Q4.   How can it be that the Antarctic circle (or ice wall) undergoes a 12/12 hours period of light and dark (when it's been observed otherwise)?

Q5.   How were the 12,450mile, 3,000 mile and 13.5º figures derived?  Which was measured 1st and 2nd in order to derive the 3rd? 

Q6.   Why were the measurements taken from the underside of the sun rather than from its centre (knowing its diameter)?

Q7.   Is the sun's degree of illumination identical at both the north pole and the Antarctic circle (or ice wall) locations at midday or 12PM?

Q8.   How can the observed angular elevation of the sun be different at different times of the year considering its plane of orbit is always parallel to the earth's surface?

—Thanks in advance for any answers.

Not sure what is wrong with your image but I cannot see it.

Not sure what is wrong with your image but I cannot see it.

Thanks.   

For some unknown reason, this site occasionally stuffs up the [img] coding, and despite asking the mods/admin to check it out several times, nothing's come of it yet.

Quote from: Rama Set on October 28, 2014, 03:51:51 PM

Not sure what is wrong with your image but I cannot see it.

Thanks.   

For some unknown reason, this site occasionally stuffs up the [img] coding, and despite asking the mods/admin to check it out several times, nothing's come of it yet.

Can you resize it to 800 width or whatever?

So... my questions for flat earthers have now been posted here for three days, and yet not one flat earther has attempted to answer even one of my questions.

Why is this?  Could a flat earther at least let me know why my perfectly legitimate questions have been ignored by 100 flat earthers?  Is it that they're too detailed and/or beyond the scientific or mathematical knowledge of the average flat earther?

I thought this particular Q&A forum was for addressing exactly the sorts of questions I've raised—in order to clarify and reinforce the flat earth hypothesis.  And the illustration was actually posted by a flat earther some time ago, so presumably many current members agree generally with its portrayal of the sun's orbit relative to the earth.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but it is likely as much to do with your tone as their (in)ability to answer it.

So... my questions for flat earthers have now been posted here for three days, and yet not one flat earther has attempted to answer even one of my questions.

Why is this?  Could a flat earther at least let me know why my perfectly legitimate questions have been ignored by 100 flat earthers?  Is it that they're too detailed and/or beyond the scientific or mathematical knowledge of the average flat earther?

I thought this particular Q&A forum was for addressing exactly the sorts of questions I've raised—in order to clarify and reinforce the flat earth hypothesis.  And the illustration was actually posted by a flat earther some time ago, so presumably many current members agree generally with its portrayal of the sun's orbit relative to the earth.

Being new to this site and as a RE believer, I have found that my questions were either:

  A. Avoided completely
  B. Explained in the most obscure ambiguous fashion 
  C. Answers your question with a question, or
  D. Continuous "beating around the bush" answers that do not answer anything at all.

I have stayed polite and although I don't pretend to know what I am talking about when it comes to science like some here obviously do, I'm not an idiot either. I feel that condescending tone in some answers that puts me off and leads me to believe that this website and the FE believers are just playing around or are complete fools.

Apparently, this diagram illustrates the sun's orbit and elevation above the earth's (flat) surface according to the widely accepted flat earth model...

Q1.   How can the illuminated half of the earth be separated relatively sharply along a well-defined straight line from the darkened half (rather than a curved line)?

Q2.   What prevents the sun—or the sun's light—from being seen from the darkened half by using a telescope?

Q3.   How can it be that the north pole is always illuminated by exactly the same amount of sunlight (when it's been observed otherwise)?

Q4.   How can it be that the Antarctic circle (or ice wall) undergoes a 12/12 hours period of light and dark (when it's been observed otherwise)?

Q5.   How were the 12,450mile, 3,000 mile and 13.5º figures derived?  Which was measured 1st and 2nd in order to derive the 3rd? 

Q6.   Why were the measurements taken from the underside of the sun rather than from its centre (knowing its diameter)?

Q7.   Is the sun's degree of illumination identical at both the north pole and the Antarctic circle (or ice wall) locations at midday or 12PM?

Q8.   How can the observed angular elevation of the sun be different at different times of the year considering its plane of orbit is always parallel to the earth's surface?

—Thanks in advance for any answers.

Since it's been a while...

What is the provenance of this diagram? Where did you find it? Who drew it?

A1. It doesn't really fit with the "spotlight" explanations of day and night you typically see here. Who knows?

A2. It's a spotlight. The light doesn't go into the dark part.

A3. Since the Sun is shown directly over the Equator, the "terminator" (line between geometric day and night) would be right at the poles.

A4. Umm... see A1.?

A5. 3,000 miles seems to be a common figure for height of the Sun (not Mr. Rowbotham's - which was much less, probably due to gross measurement error). The 12,450-mile radius from pole to "Equator" looks like an error - it's about half the circumference pole to pole but should be one quarter. That 13.5 degrees is tan^-1(3000/12450), which is the correct geometric value as sketched, even if it makes no sense (it should, of course, be zero).

A6. I suspect the triangles meet at the bottom of the Sun either because it's a poorly drawn figure, or maybe because Rowbotham seemed to prefer this as his reference.

A7. Umm... see A4.?

A8. Umm... see A5.?

(Somewhat more) seriously, I don't think this illustration represents what the FE proponents are claiming here. Their models have their own problems, but this one seems far-fetched even for them. I'm a bit surprised no one popped up asking my original questions followed by "that drawing must be a RE-believer fabrication to make us look silly!" which it might be, although unnecessary.

So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions...I don't see any other possible solution here...

But the question is this: Can we meritoriously decide what is the truth about a general shape of the surface of the Earth by considering a nature-principle of working of the Sun, or by proving that the surface of all waters on the Earth is flat?

What is the provenance of this diagram? Where did you find it? Who drew it?

Taken from THIS thread (Reply #100 on: December 09, 2010, 04:54:11 PM)

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on November 02, 2014, 06:23:59 PM

What is the provenance of this diagram? Where did you find it? Who drew it?

Taken from THIS thread (Reply #100 on: December 09, 2010, 04:54:11 PM)

Thanks. It looks like it originally showed up in Reply #99 and this was quoted in Reply #100.

It seems that it was created by user 'Hessy' to illustrate a particular problem he saw with some flat-earth concept (possibly uneven heating since the Sun must be so near, but I haven't looked at the thread beyond those two posts). Hessy has been gone for more than three years, but does not seem to be a flat-earther, looking at the last few of his posts. If all this is the case I don't think it's fair to take the flat-earth community to task over shortcomings in this drawing.

The URL for the drawing is ...photobucket.com/albums/h442/RyanHessy/UnequalHeating.jpg, which makes sense now.

[Edit] insert omitted word.

As I understand the flat earthers' sun/earth geometry, I think it generally represents their notion.

We need a few flat earthers to comment on the accuracy (or otherwise) of this diagram.