"Spotlight Sun" perspective

 If the sun is a spot light that shines down from 3000 miles app, and it disappears from view do the perspective and the limited penetrability of the atmosphere, Then the sun should come in to few fairly high in the sky and appear as an ellipse that gradually gets brighter, larger, and more circular as it gets closer. If you were not sure what I mean, take a look at a desk lamp that is shining straight down on a desk. Align your eyes near the surface of the desk (on your hands and knees?) but across the room, then  move toward the lamp.  The sun does not look like that at all. The only way it could look like a circle when it first comes into view is if it is shining toward you. Then I would have to slowly rotate always staying toward you.  That couldn't happen all over the world for everyone at the same time. That means that the sun has to be a ball, because a ball is the only shape that looks like a circle from every direction.  If it is a ball, then that creates issues about why we can't see it from high-altitude flights on the far side of the flat earth.

 The thing that's maddening about this site is that a large and frustrating fraction of the participants don't care about logic or meaningful observations.  Maybe it's just completely pointless continually bang our heads against people who reject math, science, logic, reason, and simple explanations about why nothing about the flat earth model works beyond the most superficial things. Their whole argument seems to be "it looks like to me." If I had a carpenter, or a plumber, or an engineer say, "I don't need to measure this because it looks flat to me," I'd fire them and move on.

If the sun is a spot light that shines down from 3000 miles app, and it disappears from view do the perspective and the limited penetrability of the atmosphere, Then the sun should come in to few fairly high in the sky and appear as an ellipse that gradually gets brighter, larger, and more circular as it gets closer. If you were not sure what I mean, take a look at a desk lamp that is shining straight down on a desk. Align your eyes near the surface of the desk (on your hands and knees?) but across the room, then  move toward the lamp.  The sun does not look like that at all. The only way it could look like a circle when it first comes into view is if it is shining toward you. Then I would have to slowly rotate always staying toward you.  That couldn't happen all over the world for everyone at the same time. That means that the sun has to be a ball, because a ball is the only shape that looks like a circle from every direction.  If it is a ball, then that creates issues about why we can't see it from high-altitude flights on the far side of the flat earth.

 The thing that's maddening about this site is that a large and frustrating fraction of the participants don't care about logic or meaningful observations.  Maybe it's just completely pointless continually bang our heads against people who reject math, science, logic, reason, and simple explanations about why nothing about the flat earth model works beyond the most superficial things. Their whole argument seems to be "it looks like to me." If I had a carpenter, or a plumber, or an engineer say, "I don't need to measure this because it looks flat to me," I'd fire them and move on.

If I may add, most Flat Earth theorists seem to accept that the colour of the sky and the colours visible at sunset are due to atmospheric scattering. If the sun's light is being scattered, then doesn't it follow that the spotlight sun's beams should be visible from anywhere on the earth? Or at least from an appreciable distance from the unlit areas?

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 05, 2017, 08:31:07 PM

If the sun is a spot light that shines down from 3000 miles app, and it disappears from view do the perspective and the limited penetrability of the atmosphere, Then the sun should come in to few fairly high in the sky and appear as an ellipse that gradually gets brighter, larger, and more circular as it gets closer. If you were not sure what I mean, take a look at a desk lamp that is shining straight down on a desk. Align your eyes near the surface of the desk (on your hands and knees?) but across the room, then  move toward the lamp.  The sun does not look like that at all. The only way it could look like a circle when it first comes into view is if it is shining toward you. Then I would have to slowly rotate always staying toward you.  That couldn't happen all over the world for everyone at the same time. That means that the sun has to be a ball, because a ball is the only shape that looks like a circle from every direction.  If it is a ball, then that creates issues about why we can't see it from high-altitude flights on the far side of the flat earth.

 The thing that's maddening about this site is that a large and frustrating fraction of the participants don't care about logic or meaningful observations.  Maybe it's just completely pointless continually bang our heads against people who reject math, science, logic, reason, and simple explanations about why nothing about the flat earth model works beyond the most superficial things. Their whole argument seems to be "it looks like to me." If I had a carpenter, or a plumber, or an engineer say, "I don't need to measure this because it looks flat to me," I'd fire them and move on.

If I may add, most Flat Earth theorists seem to accept that the colour of the sky and the colours visible at sunset are due to atmospheric scattering. If the sun's light is being scattered, then doesn't it follow that the spotlight sun's beams should be visible from anywhere on the earth? Or at least from an appreciable distance from the unlit areas?

like dust in a torch light? or dust in sunlight peeking through a crack in floor of dark basement ? 

Quote from: Novarus on April 05, 2017, 08:38:36 PM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 05, 2017, 08:31:07 PM

If the sun is a spot light that shines down from 3000 miles app, and it disappears from view do the perspective and the limited penetrability of the atmosphere, Then the sun should come in to few fairly high in the sky and appear as an ellipse that gradually gets brighter, larger, and more circular as it gets closer. If you were not sure what I mean, take a look at a desk lamp that is shining straight down on a desk. Align your eyes near the surface of the desk (on your hands and knees?) but across the room, then  move toward the lamp.  The sun does not look like that at all. The only way it could look like a circle when it first comes into view is if it is shining toward you. Then I would have to slowly rotate always staying toward you.  That couldn't happen all over the world for everyone at the same time. That means that the sun has to be a ball, because a ball is the only shape that looks like a circle from every direction.  If it is a ball, then that creates issues about why we can't see it from high-altitude flights on the far side of the flat earth.

 The thing that's maddening about this site is that a large and frustrating fraction of the participants don't care about logic or meaningful observations.  Maybe it's just completely pointless continually bang our heads against people who reject math, science, logic, reason, and simple explanations about why nothing about the flat earth model works beyond the most superficial things. Their whole argument seems to be "it looks like to me." If I had a carpenter, or a plumber, or an engineer say, "I don't need to measure this because it looks flat to me," I'd fire them and move on.

If I may add, most Flat Earth theorists seem to accept that the colour of the sky and the colours visible at sunset are due to atmospheric scattering. If the sun's light is being scattered, then doesn't it follow that the spotlight sun's beams should be visible from anywhere on the earth? Or at least from an appreciable distance from the unlit areas?

like dust in a torch light? or dust in sunlight peeking through a crack in floor of dark basement ?

Something like that, yes, but even streetlights will cause some kind of appreciable beam

Damn, no FE'thers answer. Wonder why that is.

Damn, no FE'thers answer. Wonder why that is.

Maybe the society could be renamed to "The Flat Earth Debunking Society", don't laugh it might be closer than you think  .

If the sun is a spot light that shines down from 3000 miles app, and it disappears from view do the perspective and the limited penetrability of the atmosphere, Then the sun should come in to few fairly high in the sky and appear as an ellipse that gradually gets brighter, larger, and more circular as it gets closer. If you were not sure what I mean, take a look at a desk lamp that is shining straight down on a desk. Align your eyes near the surface of the desk (on your hands and knees?) but across the room, then  move toward the lamp.  The sun does not look like that at all. The only way it could look like a circle when it first comes into view is if it is shining toward you. Then I would have to slowly rotate always staying toward you.  That couldn't happen all over the world for everyone at the same time. That means that the sun has to be a ball, because a ball is the only shape that looks like a circle from every direction.  If it is a ball, then that creates issues about why we can't see it from high-altitude flights on the far side of the flat earth.

 The thing that's maddening about this site is that a large and frustrating fraction of the participants don't care about logic or meaningful observations.  Maybe it's just completely pointless continually bang our heads against people who reject math, science, logic, reason, and simple explanations about why nothing about the flat earth model works beyond the most superficial things. Their whole argument seems to be "it looks like to me." If I had a carpenter, or a plumber, or an engineer say, "I don't need to measure this because it looks flat to me," I'd fire them and move on.

I think your issue is you want it both ways.

You can look at a lamp on a desk and somehow think you can draw a mental picture of how that would scale to the distances you present; yet,

You can complain about a professional who can gauge the flatness of a surface by looking at it directly in front of their respective face.

Are you normally this mental?

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 05, 2017, 08:31:07 PM

If the sun is a spot light that shines down from 3000 miles app, and it disappears from view do the perspective and the limited penetrability of the atmosphere, Then the sun should come in to few fairly high in the sky and appear as an ellipse that gradually gets brighter, larger, and more circular as it gets closer. If you were not sure what I mean, take a look at a desk lamp that is shining straight down on a desk. Align your eyes near the surface of the desk (on your hands and knees?) but across the room, then  move toward the lamp.  The sun does not look like that at all. The only way it could look like a circle when it first comes into view is if it is shining toward you. Then I would have to slowly rotate always staying toward you.  That couldn't happen all over the world for everyone at the same time. That means that the sun has to be a ball, because a ball is the only shape that looks like a circle from every direction.  If it is a ball, then that creates issues about why we can't see it from high-altitude flights on the far side of the flat earth.

 The thing that's maddening about this site is that a large and frustrating fraction of the participants don't care about logic or meaningful observations.  Maybe it's just completely pointless continually bang our heads against people who reject math, science, logic, reason, and simple explanations about why nothing about the flat earth model works beyond the most superficial things. Their whole argument seems to be "it looks like to me." If I had a carpenter, or a plumber, or an engineer say, "I don't need to measure this because it looks flat to me," I'd fire them and move on.

I think your issue is you want it both ways.

You can look at a lamp on a desk and somehow think you can draw a mental picture of how that would scale to the distances you present; yet,

You can complain about a professional who can gauge the flatness of a surface by looking at it directly in front of their respective face.

Are you normally this mental?

That scaling up is exactly what the Flat Earth demands when talking about the sun, at least to those who subscribe to the spotlight sun model - the apparently shines down on the earth from one direction directly above the lit area.
Would you like to propose a better analogy?

That scaling up is exactly what the Flat Earth RE demands when talking about the sun, at least to those who subscribe todo not understand the spotlight sun model - the apparently shines down on the earth from one direction directly above the lit area.
Would you like to propose a better analogy?

It is obvious the Sun does not shine down directly above the lit area.

Its rays cover a wide area of the disk.

Quote from: Novarus on April 06, 2017, 11:24:03 AM

That scaling up is exactly what the Flat Earth RE demands when talking about the sun, at least to those who subscribe todo not understand the spotlight sun model - the apparently shines down on the earth from one direction directly above the lit area.
Would you like to propose a better analogy?

It is obvious the Sun does not shine down directly above the lit area.

Its rays cover a wide area of the disk.

In some models, yes - for it to accurately convey what actually happens, however, it would need to be a semicircle, or at least some shape other than a circle.

If it's so obvious, could you offer a coherent model?

I think that flat Earthers would probably just say that the light magically does what it does in the drawing of the flat earth. We don't need to check anything, or think about anything, or measure anything,…They just like their pretty picture.

The thing that they don't understand is the way the scientific method works. Scientific conjecture is only validated by trying to prove it wrong. Try to prove something wrong again and again and if you continually fail then it is probably right. Science  is only partially about putting together explanations of things. If that were all it was, then there would be no difference between that and fiction. Harry Potter is very internally consistent. The fact  that it all makes sense within the context of itself is not evidence that it's valid in the real world.  It has its own logic, but not the logic of reality. The same can be said for Star Trek. The real challenge is being willing to have your hypothesis proven wrong and to have people try to prove it wrong.  The reason that flat earth was set aside hundreds of years ago is that round earth is so much better at measuring and predicting things. Round earth model predicts the exact motion of the planets, the exact timing of eclipses, and dozens of other observations that just don't work in flat earth.

I don't care if it looks flat to you. Carpenters and surveyors use levels because "looks flat" of them is not good enough. Court room judges prefer multiple witnesses from multiple angles. Science is the same way – lots of measurements from lots of different angles. If they don't all lined up, then your model is WRONG.

I think your issue is you want it both ways.

No. We just want it one way, honest and consistent.

You can look at a lamp on a desk and somehow think you can draw a mental picture of how that would scale to the distances you present; yet,

That is because there is no issue with scale here. A circular spotlight will appear as an ellipse when viewed from an angle.

You can complain about a professional who can gauge the flatness of a surface by looking at it directly in front of their respective face.

That will depend to what degree of uncertainty they quote it.

In some models, yes - for it to accurately convey what actually happens, however, it would need to be a semicircle, or at least some shape other than a circle.

If it's so obvious, could you offer a coherent model?

You can observe your own model.

At dawn, start driving in your car and see if you can drive out of light and into shadow.

No. We just want it one way, honest and consistent.

I will believe that when pigs fly.

That is because there is no issue with scale here. A circular spotlight will appear as an ellipse when viewed from an angle.

That may or not be true depending on size and distance.

You have no reference or evidence to make this claim, other than those which can be directly observed.

That will depend to what degree of uncertainty they quote it.

The degree of certainty is based on experience, as always.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 07, 2017, 04:18:39 AM

That is because there is no issue with scale here. A circular spotlight will appear as an ellipse when viewed from an angle.

That may or not be true depending on size and distance.

You have no reference or evidence to make this claim, other than those which can be directly observed.

That absolutely does not depend on anything. A circle, when seen from an angle, always appear as an ellipse. That's not physics, that's geometry.

Quote from: totallackey on April 07, 2017, 06:46:18 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 07, 2017, 04:18:39 AM

That is because there is no issue with scale here. A circular spotlight will appear as an ellipse when viewed from an angle.

That may or not be true depending on size and distance.

You have no reference or evidence to make this claim, other than those which can be directly observed.

That absolutely does not depend on anything. A circle, when seen from an angle, always appear as an ellipse. That's not physics, that's geometry.

When faced with it at scales directly observable and not at distances presumed for the Sun by FE, yes.

Otherwise, one person could not possibly presume to determine the actual size and shape of the Sun.

It may be one of those things we will never know.

Quote from: Ising on April 07, 2017, 06:48:15 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 07, 2017, 06:46:18 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 07, 2017, 04:18:39 AM

That is because there is no issue with scale here. A circular spotlight will appear as an ellipse when viewed from an angle.

That may or not be true depending on size and distance.

You have no reference or evidence to make this claim, other than those which can be directly observed.

That absolutely does not depend on anything. A circle, when seen from an angle, always appear as an ellipse. That's not physics, that's geometry.

When faced with it at scales directly observable and not at distances presumed for the Sun by FE, yes.

Otherwise, one person could not possibly presume to determine the actual size and shape of the Sun.

It may be one of those things we will never know.

At best you are saying you have no idea, and at worst you are saying that the sun has unusual, magical, mysterious, and entirely unknowable properties that bend light in ways never observed, warp geometry through bizarre and unprecedented transformations, and just generally ignore every known law of science and math and logic. Sure, dude...Unfortunately for you, the rest of us live in reality.

There really shouldn't be any controversy about the height of the sun on flat earth.  It would be trivially easy to measure the length and angles of shadows at various locations, extrapolate the lines and plot out where they intersect, then see the vertical position of that intersection.  Boom, there you have the height of the sun.

From there we can simply do the same thing at different times and places and see if it changes.  Furthermore at any point you could use the known height, measure the angular distance from the horizon, and determine exactly how far away the sun is at any given time.  This would solve so many questions and could be done by pretty much anyone, but everyone keeps going on like the height of the flat sun is some kind of unknowable mystery.

At best you are saying you have no idea, and at worst you are saying that the sun has unusual, magical, mysterious, and entirely unknowable properties that bend light in ways never observed, warp geometry through bizarre and unprecedented transformations, and just generally ignore every known law of science and math and logic. Sure, dude...Unfortunately for you, the rest of us live in reality.

And even in RE reality, Einstein states gravity can bend light.

You believe that, right Copernicus?

So why don't you go jump in a lake.

And pound sand immediately after.

...
So why don't you go jump in a lake.

And pound sand immediately after.

why you do not take the train?

Quote from: totallackey on April 07, 2017, 08:24:07 AM

...
So why don't you go jump in a lake.

And pound sand immediately after.

why you do not take the train?

Because you probably shit there too...

You shit in the woods and shit on the boards...

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 07, 2017, 07:22:07 AM

At best you are saying you have no idea, and at worst you are saying that the sun has unusual, magical, mysterious, and entirely unknowable properties that bend light in ways never observed, warp geometry through bizarre and unprecedented transformations, and just generally ignore every known law of science and math and logic. Sure, dude...Unfortunately for you, the rest of us live in reality.

And even in RE reality, Einstein states gravity can bend light.

You believe that, right Copernicus?

So why don't you go jump in a lake.

And pound sand immediately after.

I said, "... bend light in ways never observed..." Yes, very large masses can bend light, and that has all been calculated and then observed to follow the calculations very precisely. You want a sun that shines down but not out because we can't see the sun from the dark side of the flat Earth. You want the sun to accelerate in September through March to make it around the southern route and then slow back down for its northern March-September route. You want the sun to illuminate in a semicircle that forms a straight line along the north/diameter on one side but entirely curved on the south/circumference. You want the sun to illuminate the moon in a way that everyone can see the same phase all over the Earth yet the moon is at very different angles for different people. You want some kind of magical, mysterious, invisible disk and that causes eclipses that no one understands even though scientists can predict them perfectly...

You (well, FE folks in general) will just make an unlimited number of nonsensical inventions to hold your model together.

I said, "... bend light in ways never observed..."

Yeah you did.

And you just might be observing it right now under the influence of RE drunk goggles.

Yes, very large masses can bend light, and that has all been calculated and then observed to follow the calculations very precisely.

You can input anything to make an equation.

You want a sun that shines down but not out because we can't see the sun from the dark side of the flat Earth. You want the sun to accelerate in September through March to make it around the southern route and then slow back down for its northern March-September route. You want the sun to illuminate in a semicircle that forms a straight line along the north/diameter on one side but entirely curved on the south/circumference. You want the sun to illuminate the moon in a way that everyone can see the same phase all over the Earth yet the moon is at very different angles for different people. You want some kind of magical, mysterious, invisible disk and that causes eclipses that no one understands even though scientists can predict them perfectly...

You (well, FE folks in general) will just make an unlimited number of nonsensical inventions to hold your model together.

I do not want anything of the sort.

I especially do not believe the Sun illuminates the moon.

If it did, then the Moon would be full when it is in the sky at the same time as the Sun.

...
I especially do not believe the Sun illuminates the moon.

on what evidence you base that believe.

If it did, then the Moon would be full when it is in the sky at the same time as the Sun.

it does and that is the prove that a flat earth is not possible.

Quote from: totallackey on April 07, 2017, 09:21:06 AM

...
I especially do not believe the Sun illuminates the moon.

on what evidence you base that believe.

Quote

If it did, then the Moon would be full when it is in the sky at the same time as the Sun.

it does and that is the prove that a flat earth is not possible.

The moon is not full when in it is visible in the daytime you hayseed.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 07, 2017, 09:28:50 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 07, 2017, 09:21:06 AM

...
I especially do not believe the Sun illuminates the moon.

on what evidence you base that believe.

Quote

If it did, then the Moon would be full when it is in the sky at the same time as the Sun.

it does and that is the prove that a flat earth is not possible.

The moon is not full when in it is visible in the daytime you hayseed.

exactly, and that fits perfect with the global earth.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 07, 2017, 09:28:50 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 07, 2017, 09:21:06 AM

...
I especially do not believe the Sun illuminates the moon.

on what evidence you base that believe.

Quote

If it did, then the Moon would be full when it is in the sky at the same time as the Sun.

it does and that is the prove that a flat earth is not possible.

The moon is not full when in it is visible in the daytime you hayseed.

You're proving our point - if the moon produced its own light it COULD  be full when visible during the day - it is never full during the day and instead corresponds exactly to its relative position to the sun.

You're proving our point - if the moon produced its own light it COULD  be full when visible during the day - it is never full during the day and instead corresponds exactly to its relative position to the sun.

The Moon WOULD be full during the day.

It is not.

Therefore, the Sun does NOT illuminate the moon.

Quote from: Novarus on April 07, 2017, 09:36:40 AM

You're proving our point - if the moon produced its own light it COULD  be full when visible during the day - it is never full during the day and instead corresponds exactly to its relative position to the sun.

The Moon WOULD be full during the day.

It is not.

Therefore, the Sun does NOT illuminate the moon.

please explain how the light of the moon is controlled according to the position to the sun.
you can see a half moon half of the day and half of the night.

Quote from: Novarus on April 07, 2017, 09:36:40 AM

You're proving our point - if the moon produced its own light it COULD  be full when visible during the day - it is never full during the day and instead corresponds exactly to its relative position to the sun.

The Moon WOULD be full during the day.

It is not.

Therefore, the Sun does NOT illuminate the moon.

You lack a basic understanding of the phases as explained in either model.

http://www.moonphases.info/images/moon-phases-diagram.gif

Here is ours.
Where is yours?