# The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth

• 21 Replies
• 6220 Views

#### Antithecyst

• 700
• Epistemological Anarchist
##### The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« on: March 17, 2016, 04:05:25 PM »
According to the flat earth wiki, the phenomenon known as sun sets, is produced by the sun, not going underneath the earth, like many/most ancient flat earthers believed, nor the earths rotation, like round earthers believe, but by the sun traveling far away from us, the way clouds travel far away from us.
When a cloud is directly overhead, I have to look up at it in order to see it, when the same cloud is far away, I have to look straight ahead in order to see it, similarly, they suppose when the sun is directly overhead, I have to look up at it to see it, when the sun is far away, I have to look straight ahead to see it.

The trouble with this is, as far as I can figure, if the sun is approximately 30 miles across, and 3000 miles above a flat earth, like the flat earth wiki says it is, then it should never set, because it's too far from the ground, and/or isn't traveling sufficiently far away from the viewer, even if it travels 3000, 6000, 12000 miles away, it's rays should be hitting your eyes at an angle, markedly, very noticeably, it's rays should never be hitting your eyes from straight ahead, but from up and over, unless it were to travel hundreds of thousands, if not millions of miles away, which are obviously distances surpassing the diameter of the earth.

So there's two possibilities I can think of that are worth thinking of, either the earth is indeed round, or it's flat, but the sun is a lot closer to the ground than the flat earth wiki says it is, well, either that or the earth is greater in diameter, and the sun is traveling a lot further than supposed.
How did I figure this out?
It's easy, just create a scale model of what they're saying, from any point of view standing on a flat earth, the sun's always going to be more/less up, a sun that far from the ground doesn't travel far enough to be blocked by mountains, much less ocean waves, laughs.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 04:08:17 PM by Antithecyst »
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

?

#### palmerito0

• 582
• Why does this forum exist?
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2016, 04:12:14 PM »
Here's your scale model: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

#### Rayzor

• 11333
• Looking for Occam
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2016, 04:24:44 PM »
Drum roll,   enter  the Electromagnetic Accelerator stage left.....   cue,  the bendy light proponents,    ( or telluric currents )

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

#### Antithecyst

• 700
• Epistemological Anarchist
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2016, 05:50:42 PM »
Here's your scale model: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Nice video, I'm not sure about everything it says, I have to do more research, but the one about the sun not only never setting, but not even approaching the horizon on a flat earth, if it's 3000 miles up, is the most devastating argument against flat earth theory I've thought of.

I'd like to see how flat earthers deal with this one, if they can.

The only thing I can think of, is either they make the sun closer, or they say it travels further, but if they make it closer, they have another massive problem, if the sun was only say, 3 miles up, or 30 miles up, then it would only appear overhead for a very tiny percentage of people living on the disk earth at any one time, and if the sun is traveling a lot further than 100000 miles around the disk, like a million or ten million miles, well that contradicts our measurement of things.

I just don't see how you can even come close to producing the phenomenon of a sun set on a flat earth, given what we can all plainly observe the sun and moon doing everyday.

The other one about how the sun and moon ought to appear faster/to grow as they come towards you, and appear slower/to shrink as they move away, is also interesting, although I've seen some video footage on youtube where the sun/moon do appear to grow/shrink as they rise/set.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 06:20:06 PM by Antithecyst »
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

#### Antithecyst

• 700
• Epistemological Anarchist
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2016, 06:31:53 PM »
On the other hand, maybe it could sort of work, if you made the sun a lot closer, since the sun is only directly overhead for a small percentage of people around/across the globe/disk at any one point in time per year, not sure, maybe it could work if the sun is only 3, or 30 miles up, kind of, still wouldn't produce a rise/set, unless you say the atmosphere is thicker at sea level and compounded over long distances obscures the sun bottom up as it moves off into the distance.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 06:35:11 PM by Antithecyst »
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

?

• 243
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2016, 06:51:30 PM »
Here's your scale model: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Nice video, I'm not sure about everything it says, I have to do more research, but the one about the sun not only never setting, but not even approaching the horizon on a flat earth, if it's 3000 miles up, is the most devastating argument against flat earth theory I've thought of.

I'd like to see how flat earthers deal with this one, if they can.

The only thing I can think of, is either they make the sun closer, or they say it travels further, but if they make it closer, they have another massive problem, if the sun was only say, 3 miles up, or 30 miles up, then it would only appear overhead for a very tiny percentage of people living on the disk earth at any one time, and if the sun is traveling a lot further than 100000 miles around the disk, like a million or ten million miles, well that contradicts our measurement of things.

I just don't see how you can even come close to producing the phenomenon of a sun set on a flat earth, given what we can all plainly observe the sun and moon doing everyday.

The other one about how the sun and moon ought to appear faster/to grow as they come towards you, and appear slower/to shrink as they move away, is also interesting, although I've seen some video footage on youtube where the sun/moon do appear to grow/shrink as they rise/set.

The videos where the sun seems to shrink as it sets are pretty easy to explain... When viewing or filming the sun in the sky, the light 'bloom' around the sun makes it appear a lot larger than its true size. If you moved a solar filter over the sun you'd see quite how small it is in the middle of this glare. As the sun approaches the horizon it has more atmosphere to traverse which acts like a kind of filter making it appear red but also allowing us to see its true size. Therefore, as the sun sets it appears to shrink but actually, the 'bloom' or glare are what shrinks. FEers use this as 'evidence' of the sun moving away but it's fairly easy to prove this as nonsense.

?

• 1533
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2016, 07:09:08 PM »
As I have repeatedly said, astronomy proves/supports or disproves/falsifies/destroys/annihilates Earth models. Another problem with the Sun is that it goes +/- 23.5° above and below the equator (BTW, this applies to the Moon as well but it can be +/- 28.5°). On the Earth, these locations are the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn:
Quote
The Tropic of Cancer, also referred to as the Northern Tropic, is the most northerly circle of latitude on the Earth at which the Sun may appear directly overhead at its culmination.

The Tropic of Capricorn (or the Southern Tropic) is the circle of latitude that contains the subsolar point on the December (or southern) solstice. It is thus the southernmost latitude where the Sun can be directly overhead. Its northern equivalent is the Tropic of Cancer.

On a RE, since it is symmetrical around the equator, both are the same distance and the Sun moves at the same speed in the sky:

On a FE, with the equator of ~24,900 mi, the Tropic of Cancer is ~18,400 mi and the Tropic of Capricorn is ~31,400 mi. So the Sun should be moving in the sky ~71% faster down south than up north (Moon - ~17,000 & ~32,800 - ~93% faster). Why doesn't it move across the sky at almost 2x the speed in the south as in the north? Wouldn't that be noticeable/measurable?

Also, on the equinox, how does everyone/everywhere on Earth see a sunrise/sunset due East/West when the Sun is 1/4 of the Earth away NE/NW? This is particularly disturbing the farther south you go from the equator.

FE models are not very "southern hemisphere" friendly. Everything is wrong there and gets more wrong the farther south you go.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

#### Antithecyst

• 700
• Epistemological Anarchist
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2016, 09:00:47 PM »
Shouldn't the sun get noticeably bigger as you move towards it, especially if you're flying towards it in a jet plane, if it's so small, and so close?
Maybe it does, has anyone performed this experiment?
Shouldn't it make a big noise, as it vibrates the 'ether' it's swimming in, which in turn, would vibrate the air?
A sun 3000 miles up would never even come close to setting on a flat earth, even if it travels 30000 miles from the beholder, so it must be closer than the flat earth wiki says, but how close?
How far have amateur cameras mounted on balloons and shit been up, 30 miles?
If so, it must be more than 30 miles up, maybe it's 300 miles up.
300 miles however, still isn't going to give you anything close to a sun set, maybe 30 miles sort of would. kind of, 3 miles definitely would, but obviously that's too close.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

?

#### palmerito0

• 582
• Why does this forum exist?
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2016, 09:18:00 PM »
Shouldn't the sun get noticeably bigger as you move towards it, especially if you're flying towards it in a jet plane, if it's so small, and so close?
Maybe it does, has anyone performed this experiment?
Shouldn't it make a big noise, as it vibrates the 'ether' it's swimming in, which in turn, would vibrate the air?
A sun 3000 miles up would never even come close to setting on a flat earth, even if it travels 30000 miles from the beholder, so it must be closer than the flat earth wiki says, but how close?
How far have amateur cameras mounted on balloons and shit been up, 30 miles?
If so, it must be more than 30 miles up, maybe it's 300 miles up.
300 miles however, still isn't going to give you anything close to a sun set, maybe 30 miles sort of would. kind of, 3 miles definitely would, but obviously that's too close.

I've been on many flights, both long and short heading away from and towards the sun. I can assure you that I have never observed this phenomenon. Anyways, this would be observable from the ground as the sun moves towards and away from the observer.
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

#### Sir Richard

• Flat Earth Believer
• 451
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2016, 07:01:02 AM »
Shouldn't the sun get noticeably bigger as you move towards it, especially if you're flying towards it in a jet plane, if it's so small, and so close?
Maybe it does, has anyone performed this experiment?
Shouldn't it make a big noise, as it vibrates the 'ether' it's swimming in, which in turn, would vibrate the air?
A sun 3000 miles up would never even come close to setting on a flat earth, even if it travels 30000 miles from the beholder, so it must be closer than the flat earth wiki says, but how close?
How far have amateur cameras mounted on balloons and shit been up, 30 miles?
If so, it must be more than 30 miles up, maybe it's 300 miles up.
300 miles however, still isn't going to give you anything close to a sun set, maybe 30 miles sort of would. kind of, 3 miles definitely would, but obviously that's too close.
#1 The Sun doth increase in size as one move towards it in a jet plane
#2 Why would it make a noise in the aether? Aether is a gradient increasing in density from the low points terrestrial plane (where it is referred to as quintessence) to high density as one moves heavenward. Thus the decreasing density of aether fails to propagate "Wave" movements to the terrestrial plane.
#3 The setting sun is simply an optical illusion caused by the "eye wash" effect of the aetheric whirlpool (sometimes referred to as the "shadow" whirlpool) as the Sun (and moon) are pushed rotationally by the aether.
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

?

#### palmerito0

• 582
• Why does this forum exist?
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2016, 08:30:23 AM »
1. It doth not. I take at least 2-4 flights every single year and have yet to observe what you describe.
2. <Aether BS>
3. Please describe effect in depth.

I'm gonna do an experiment this weekend and report back with my findings. I will measure the apparent size of the Sun as it moves across the sky. If the FE theory is true, then the sun should change in size as it moves closer and farther away from me.

I'll report back if I have time to do this experiment.
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

?

#### frenat

• 3684
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2016, 08:37:56 AM »
1. It doth not. I take at least 2-4 flights every single year and have yet to observe what you describe.
2. <Aether BS>
3. Please describe effect in depth.

I'm gonna do an experiment this weekend and report back with my findings. I will measure the apparent size of the Sun as it moves across the sky. If the FE theory is true, then the sun should change in size as it moves closer and farther away from me.

I'll report back if I have time to do this experiment.
make sure to use a filter so you don't measure glare.  I'm betting Sir Richard did not bother.

?

#### palmerito0

• 582
• Why does this forum exist?
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2016, 09:07:27 AM »
I don't have a filter. Is there any way to make one DIY?
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

#### Blue_Moon

• 846
• Defender of NASA
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2016, 09:47:50 AM »
I don't have a filter. Is there any way to make one DIY?
You can use a pinhole camera, and mark the size on the back of the box for reference.  Or, you could just use Stellarium and see what the angular diameter will be throughout the day, not accounting for refraction.  But the pinhole camera is more hands-on.
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

?

• 243
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2016, 05:30:28 PM »
I don't have a filter. Is there any way to make one DIY?

I have a telescope with a solar filter and am willing to do said measurements on the next day when the sun is visible throughout the day.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2016, 07:12:42 PM »
#1 The Sun doth increase in size as one move towards it in a jet plane
#2 Why would it make a noise in the aether? Aether is a gradient increasing in density from the low points terrestrial plane (where it is referred to as quintessence) to high density as one moves heavenward. Thus the decreasing density of aether fails to propagate "Wave" movements to the terrestrial plane.
#3 The setting sun is simply an optical illusion caused by the "eye wash" effect of the aetheric whirlpool (sometimes referred to as the "shadow" whirlpool) as the Sun (and moon) are pushed rotationally by the aether.
And Flat Earthers claim gravitation with all the expermental confirmation it has had of being magic!

#1 Even Flat Earthers doth claim the sun stayeth the same size due to some magical atmospheric magnification.
#2 I hast heard ethereal music, but like thee (though for a quite different reason) I doth agree the aether maketh no noise.
#3 Yea, I agreeth that thy magical explanation truly art "eye wash", though "hog wash" is indubitably more correct.

Sorry, I might possibly be older than you but living in the Land of Oz I can't quite dig this Victorian (more like Tudor) stuff.

?

• 243
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2016, 01:07:46 AM »
Sorry, I might possibly be older than you but living in the Land of Oz I can't quite dig this Victorian (more like Tudor) stuff.

Nobody in England speaks like this unless they're trying (in vain) to sound more intelligent than they actually are...

#### Rayzor

• 11333
• Looking for Occam
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2016, 01:23:23 AM »
Sorry, I might possibly be older than you but living in the Land of Oz I can't quite dig this Victorian (more like Tudor) stuff.

Nobody in England speaks like this unless they're trying (in vain) to sound more intelligent than they actually are...

More like a faked persona,  designed to mimic the 19th century flat earth nutters.  Full marks for entertainment value however.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

• 243
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2016, 05:21:13 AM »
Sorry, I might possibly be older than you but living in the Land of Oz I can't quite dig this Victorian (more like Tudor) stuff.

Nobody in England speaks like this unless they're trying (in vain) to sound more intelligent than they actually are...

More like a faked persona,  designed to mimic the 19th century flat earth nutters.  Full marks for entertainment value however.

Surely trying to sound like outdated and antiquated theorists who's ideas have been scientifically superseded would have a negative effect when trying to influence people's opinions in the 21st century?...

In other words "why should I listen to this old fool?"

#### JimmyTheCrab

• 9906
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2016, 06:32:21 AM »
Sorry, I might possibly be older than you but living in the Land of Oz I can't quite dig this Victorian (more like Tudor) stuff.

Nobody in England speaks like this unless they're trying (in vain) to sound more intelligent than they actually are...

More like a faked persona,  designed to mimic the 19th century flat earth nutters.  Full marks for entertainment value however.
Yeah, at least he makes an effort.  His Victorian pastiche does seem to be closer to Elizabethan quite a bit of the time however.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

#### odvetnik_irsic

• 243
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2016, 02:21:51 PM »
As I have repeatedly said, astronomy proves/supports or disproves/falsifies/destroys/annihilates Earth models. Another problem with the Sun is that it goes +/- 23.5° above and below the equator (BTW, this applies to the Moon as well but it can be +/- 28.5°). On the Earth, these locations are the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn:
Quote
The Tropic of Cancer, also referred to as the Northern Tropic, is the most northerly circle of latitude on the Earth at which the Sun may appear directly overhead at its culmination.

The Tropic of Capricorn (or the Southern Tropic) is the circle of latitude that contains the subsolar point on the December (or southern) solstice. It is thus the southernmost latitude where the Sun can be directly overhead. Its northern equivalent is the Tropic of Cancer.

On a RE, since it is symmetrical around the equator, both are the same distance and the Sun moves at the same speed in the sky:

On a FE, with the equator of ~24,900 mi, the Tropic of Cancer is ~18,400 mi and the Tropic of Capricorn is ~31,400 mi. So the Sun should be moving in the sky ~71% faster down south than up north (Moon - ~17,000 & ~32,800 - ~93% faster). Why doesn't it move across the sky at almost 2x the speed in the south as in the north? Wouldn't that be noticeable/measurable?

Also, on the equinox, how does everyone/everywhere on Earth see a sunrise/sunset due East/West when the Sun is 1/4 of the Earth away NE/NW? This is particularly disturbing the farther south you go from the equator.

FE models are not very "southern hemisphere" friendly. Everything is wrong there and gets more wrong the farther south you go.

Hey wise guy, are you an astronomer, cartographer, physicist or anyone that has the expertise to make claims as you do?  Or better yet, since none of you flat earthers have ANY clue at all what the planet really looks like (because none of your kooks are actually scientists and have no clue what you're talking about) I wonder how exactly you can use your flat disk projection with any certainty. How do you know what the continents even look like?  Why do you even assume that the planet even looks the way it does particularly if none of you believe in space or that photos from space are real or that geodetic surveying is real?  How in the heck do you know what the planet looks like?  Face it, you have no idea so I find it preposterous that you use the same old flat projection over and over again. Please don't say the UN flag...

?

• 1533
##### Re: The Sun never sets on a Flat Earth
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2016, 07:02:55 PM »
FEers can't even prove the N.Pole is in the middle of their model:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0)

Regardless, if the world is a disk, the Tropic of Cancer will not be the same length as the Tropic of Capricorn. The Sun and Moon will need to travel at different speeds - one about 2x as fast as the other. This should be noticeable and measurable. This would be proof the Earth is definitely flat. If the Sun and Moon travel across the sky at the same speed, the Earth is not flat. Simple. Any YT videos showing them going different speeds?

Since there is no actual map of the FE really in this website, there is nothing to even discuss. "Just imagine a FE with the N.Pole in the middle" is insufficient for anything. The UN type map is the only thing we can use as a possible reference. It does not work. No other map is presented that is any better.

And exactly how does everyone on Earth see the Sun rise/set on the equinox due East/West when it is 1/4 the way around the Earth NE/NW, way up in the air 3000 mi?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."