I see the sun overhead in Australia

The 'spotlight' sun never goes directly over Australia. The closest it gets is over Indonesia. So why on the bottom end of Australia can I see the sun follow the exact same path with the same brightness in Australia as people do in Asia? If its a spotlight and doesn't go over the Australian mainland, why can i see it directly over head.

It also has 1 direct heading. East to west. If it moved in a circular orbit, Its movement in the sky would be different.

Also from my vantage point it wouldn't take much of the sky to move through. Yet it rises from under the horizon, all the way overhead and sets below the horizon on the opposite side of the sky. What I and millions of others see in Australia and New Zealand for example doesnt match even close to any flat earth map with the sun circling overhead. Every country would get different arcs of travel across the sky and varied brightness.

A spinning earth is the only model which stacks up to the visual evidence experienced by billions of people since the dawn of time

I have a suspicion that most FE people are from the Northern Hemisphere. The models work a little better for the mid-latitude north. Just look at the way they try to do the phases of the Moon. It almost works for a northern observer, but it's totally wrong for the south.

Could earth still be a sphere, but instead of circling the sun; the sun, moon and other planets circle earth?
Could we still observe the same movement of the sun and the moon around a spherical earth?

In both cases we wouldn't feel it moving, because we are riding the Milkyway!

Could earth still be a sphere, but instead of circling the sun; the sun, moon and other planets circle earth?
Could we still observe the same movement of the sun and the moon around a spherical earth?

In both cases we wouldn't feel it moving, because we are riding the Milkyway!

The motions of the planets are not consistent with that. Only a heliocentric model described by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein works.

The bigger issue is for our summer below the tropic.
The the sun rises south east, and ends up north during the day before setting south west.
So it looks more like it is circling some point south of us, but that would then mean people in South America wouldn't get any sun.

Could earth still be a sphere, but instead of circling the sun; the sun, moon and other planets circle earth?
Could we still observe the same movement of the sun and the moon around a spherical earth?

In both cases we wouldn't feel it moving, because we are riding the Milkyway!

From a mathematical point of view, there is no difference between the Earth orbiting the sun and rotating on its axis and the sun orbiting Earth in an extremely insane orbit, with the planets then orbitting the sun.
The issue is that there is no justification for such an insane path and all the other planets orbiting the sun, but not us.

Quote from: Hannibaal on April 29, 2017, 02:54:32 AM

Could earth still be a sphere, but instead of circling the sun; the sun, moon and other planets circle earth?
Could we still observe the same movement of the sun and the moon around a spherical earth?

In both cases we wouldn't feel it moving, because we are riding the Milkyway!

From a mathematical point of view, there is no difference between the Earth orbiting the sun and rotating on its axis and the sun orbiting Earth in an extremely insane orbit, with the planets then orbitting the sun.
The issue is that there is no justification for such an insane path and all the other planets orbiting the sun, but not us.

I didn't say other planets orbit the sun > I said all orbit earth; as the old belief says!



So, would we still observe the movement of the sun and the moon on this model, as we do naturally?

Quote from: JackBlack on April 29, 2017, 04:37:04 AM

Quote from: Hannibaal on April 29, 2017, 02:54:32 AM

Could earth still be a sphere, but instead of circling the sun; the sun, moon and other planets circle earth?
Could we still observe the same movement of the sun and the moon around a spherical earth?

In both cases we wouldn't feel it moving, because we are riding the Milkyway!

From a mathematical point of view, there is no difference between the Earth orbiting the sun and rotating on its axis and the sun orbiting Earth in an extremely insane orbit, with the planets then orbitting the sun.
The issue is that there is no justification for such an insane path and all the other planets orbiting the sun, but not us.

I didn't say other planets orbit the sun > I said all orbit earth; as the old belief says!



So, would we still observe the movement of the sun and the moon on this model, as we do naturally?

That model is impossible given observations of the motions of the planets. If you watch Mars, for example, it will appear to reverse course (retrograde motion). That wouldn't happen on your model.

Science rejected your idea hundreds of years ago via more and more precise observations.

Well Australia isn't real so... 

Could earth still be a sphere, but instead of circling the sun; the sun, moon and other planets circle earth?
Could we still observe the same movement of the sun and the moon around a spherical earth?

In both cases we wouldn't feel it moving, because we are riding the Milkyway!

Sure you can use that model. But I would ask you to explain the retrograde motion of the planets. You see, there is no mechanism to explain it. So we use the heliocentric model which does not need to explain retrograde motion because nothing reverses its orbit in the heliocentric model. The apparent retrograde motion is just the earth passing the planet, which makes it look like it slows down and reverses its orbit.

I didn't say other planets orbit the sun > I said all orbit earth; as the old belief says!

And that wouldn't match reality.
If you made one which matched reality then all the other planets would orbit the sun.

Similarly, mathematically, you could also set one of the other planets as fixed and have everything orbit that or things orbiting that.

So, would we still observe the movement of the sun and the moon on this model, as we do naturally?

Yes, the sun and the moon (not the other planets), but the paths aren't as simple as that. They would rock back and forth, appearing to go up and down, with no explanation of why.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 29, 2017, 04:37:04 AM

Quote from: Hannibaal on April 29, 2017, 02:54:32 AM

Could earth still be a sphere, but instead of circling the sun; the sun, moon and other planets circle earth?
Could we still observe the same movement of the sun and the moon around a spherical earth?

In both cases we wouldn't feel it moving, because we are riding the Milkyway!

From a mathematical point of view, there is no difference between the Earth orbiting the sun and rotating on its axis and the sun orbiting Earth in an extremely insane orbit, with the planets then orbitting the sun.
The issue is that there is no justification for such an insane path and all the other planets orbiting the sun, but not us.

I didn't say other planets orbit the sun > I said all orbit earth; as the old belief says!



So, would we still observe the movement of the sun and the moon on this model, as we do naturally?

I think I understand you. You appear to be a devout sort of person with a firm set of beliefs, which is of course fine. However sometimes what we believe in or want to be true is at odds with the reality of the way thing are.
The motion of the planets and their discovery was done well before NASA and mostly by Europeans who were mostly, if not all, gentlemen scientists employed by a rich Lord or King, and not really beholding to anyone or anything except the truth. The way in which the majority of the planets move and orbit the sun was discovered by the time of Kepler. You can go look this up, and this was achieved around the late 1600s, 1680 something. Back then no conspiracy was involved just a desire for knowledge and the truth about the way the heavens operated.
You have a choice, you can either opt for blind belief or the truth. The earth has been a sphere and has been for the last 4.5bn years give or take and, all going well will be around for another 3/4 bn years till devoured by our sun as it expands due to have used up all its hydrogen and starts to fuse helium into elements like carbon, the very stuff on which we are based. And that is the beauty of the knowledge of science, which is in sharp contrast to that promoted by flat earth believers.

Well Australia isn't real so... 

Quite possibly, but the sun came up, apparently from behind the horizon roughly 47 minutes ago.
This photo was taken at close to 6:15 AM EAST, the time of the "official sunrise", but our horizon is a bit obscured.
My estimate of the direction to the sun at 6:36 was 72°.

So, maybe Australia exists only in the "land of Oz" - wait on - it is "the land of Oz!" but
the sun still rises here in the right place and the right time for the Globe.
Not only that, but the clouds seem to be lit from the underneath.

So, what's the only logical explanation?
So, that proves it, the earth is a Hemisphere with the flat face up north. 

I didn't say other planets orbit the sun > I said all orbit earth; as the old belief says!

So, would we still observe the movement of the sun and the moon on this model, as we do naturally?

The problem with that model of the solar system is the matter of the "retrograde motion", where planets appear to move for a time in the "wrong direction". All the planets, except Mercury demonstrate this at some time.
If all the planets orbited the earth this could not happen. This is part of what the Flat Earth Society Wiki has to say on "Retrograde Motion":

Retrograde Motion
Q. Why do the planets retrograde in the sky?

Apparent retrograde motion of Mars in 2003 as seen from Earth
<< note that I have replaced the Wiki still with a similar motion .gif >>

A. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.

Please note that the planets are moving very slowly around the sun and would not retrograde several times a day as might be implied by the above diagram. The diagram is for illustration purposes only. Several retrogrades a year would be more appropriate, depending on the planet.

The retrograde happens very slowly in the night sky, over a long period of time.

The theory that the sun, moon, planets and stars orbited the earth simply could not be fitted to observations.
Ptolemy had a complicated model with deferents, epicycles and eccentrics and still, it wouldn't fit.

The theory Copernicus proposed had perfectly circular orbits (they thought perfect circles were
  so cool in those days  ).
This Copernican model was better that Ptolemy's but still far from accurate, so Tycho Brahe, certainly the best pre-telescope astronomer, was commissioned to make more precise measurements.
He made a very careful study of the planets, studying the retrograde motion in orbit of Mars in particular.

Tycho Brahe came then up with his own hybrid geocentric globe model, in which the moon and sun orbited the earth, but the planets (only Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) orbited the sun.

This model fitted his data better than the Copernican model, but was still far from perfect.

And it wasn't till Kepler found that all the planets orbiting the sun with elliptical orbits fitted much better that a solar system close to the presently accepted one was accepted.
It should be noted that Kepler's laws strictly only apply to one planet and a massive sun.
The planets do interact but the sun so dominates the solar system that the Kepler model is close till we get to Neptune and Pluto.

But please note
Sorry for the length, again, but it is really a huge topic.

"The 'spotlight' sun never goes directly over Australia."

According to page 93 of the Flatard's Guide to 1000% SHOCKING Truth, under the heading "Evasive Actions" it instructs the reader: "When confronted with a question about the sun that you can't explain, always respond by saying 'perspective.'" 

"The 'spotlight' sun never goes directly over Australia."

According to page 93 of the Flatard's Guide to 1000% SHOCKING Truth, under the heading "Evasive Actions" it instructs the reader: "When confronted with a question about the sun that you can't explain, always respond by saying 'perspective.'"

What a shame perspective will never be able to explain why it is in the completely wrong direction.

Quote from: Hannibaal on April 29, 2017, 02:54:32 AM

Could earth still be a sphere, but instead of circling the sun; the sun, moon and other planets circle earth?
Could we still observe the same movement of the sun and the moon around a spherical earth?

In both cases we wouldn't feel it moving, because we are riding the Milkyway!

From a mathematical point of view, there is no difference between the Earth orbiting the sun and rotating on its axis and the sun orbiting Earth in an extremely insane orbit, with the planets then orbitting the sun.
The issue is that there is no justification for such an insane path and all the other planets orbiting the sun, but not us.

Great post.

This.

Could earth still be a sphere, but instead of circling the sun; the sun, moon and other planets circle earth?
Could we still observe the same movement of the sun and the moon around a spherical earth?

In both cases we wouldn't feel it moving, because we are riding the Milkyway!

I don't think that is very logical because of multiple reasons:
in order an object to orbit a body, this body must be significantly bigger than the object in orbit. Otherwise, the object would just attract the body to his own path. this would mean that the sun would be much smaller than the earth.

The moon orbits in roughly a month around the earth. So, the sun needs to be much much faster than the moon.
on top of that, the moon phases won't match anymore.

in a globe model, the sun is  very very far away from earth 8,5 minutes with the speed of light.
because of this great distance, we can say that the sun's rays are parallel.

in this new model, the sun can't be this far away from the Earth, because that would mean it travels in semi-lightspeeds around the Earth.

in order the seasons to work, the sun constantly needs to change his orbit slightly to be able to swing north-south. which mechanism would then be responsible for this swinging?

An object cannot orbit a body in a random orbit. the orbit HAS to go past the center of the body.
That is one of the nature's laws.
that's why every geostational satellite is at the equator.

This would mean only partial northern hemisphere and partial southern hemisphere would be summer at the same time.

So, there are some serious questions which need to be answered to be able to make that model work.

in this new model, the sun can't be this far away from the Earth, because that would mean it travels in semi-lightspeeds around the Earth.

Unless my math is wrong, it works out to be roughly 1 30th of the speed of light, so still quite slow in the grand scheme of things.

It gets even easier if Earth is a sphere which rotates with everything orbiting us.

Quote from: napoleon on May 03, 2017, 02:31:59 AM

in this new model, the sun can't be this far away from the Earth, because that would mean it travels in semi-lightspeeds around the Earth.

Unless my math is wrong, it works out to be roughly 1 30th of the speed of light, so still quite slow in the grand scheme of things.

It gets even easier if Earth is a sphere which rotates with everything orbiting us.

No I did the math too, with C = 300.000km/s I get a speed of sun: 11.126,474km/s
which is 1 26,96th of the speed of light.
But still...a sun at a distance of 153.000.000 km must be pretty massive to be able to radiate the Earth. (much bigger than the Earth).
knowing that...how logical does it sound? an object much bigger than the Earth, traveling at 1/27 the speed of light, and still in orbit around the Earth?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 03, 2017, 04:18:05 AM

Quote from: napoleon on May 03, 2017, 02:31:59 AM

in this new model, the sun can't be this far away from the Earth, because that would mean it travels in semi-lightspeeds around the Earth.

Unless my math is wrong, it works out to be roughly 1 30th of the speed of light, so still quite slow in the grand scheme of things.

It gets even easier if Earth is a sphere which rotates with everything orbiting us.

No I did the math too, with C = 300.000km/s I get a speed of sun: 11.126,474km/s
which is 1 26,96th of the speed of light.
But still...a sun at a distance of 153.000.000 km must be pretty massive to be able to radiate the Earth. (much bigger than the Earth).
knowing that...how logical does it sound? an object much bigger than the Earth, traveling at 1/27 the speed of light, and still in orbit around the Earth?

It isn't realistic at all.

The key point though is that the vast majority of observations would be identical (ignoring any limitations due to the speed of light on distant objects).

Quote from: napoleon on May 03, 2017, 07:19:02 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 03, 2017, 04:18:05 AM

Quote from: napoleon on May 03, 2017, 02:31:59 AM

in this new model, the sun can't be this far away from the Earth, because that would mean it travels in semi-lightspeeds around the Earth.

Unless my math is wrong, it works out to be roughly 1 30th of the speed of light, so still quite slow in the grand scheme of things.

It gets even easier if Earth is a sphere which rotates with everything orbiting us.

No I did the math too, with C = 300.000km/s I get a speed of sun: 11.126,474km/s
which is 1 26,96th of the speed of light.
But still...a sun at a distance of 153.000.000 km must be pretty massive to be able to radiate the Earth. (much bigger than the Earth).
knowing that...how logical does it sound? an object much bigger than the Earth, traveling at 1/27 the speed of light, and still in orbit around the Earth?

It isn't realistic at all.

The key point though is that the vast majority of observations would be identical (ignoring any limitations due to the speed of light on distant objects).

No it wouldn't.
like I said on my earlier post in this thread:

Quote from: Hannibaal on April 29, 2017, 02:54:32 AM

Could earth still be a sphere, but instead of circling the sun; the sun, moon and other planets circle earth?
Could we still observe the same movement of the sun and the moon around a spherical earth?

In both cases we wouldn't feel it moving, because we are riding the Milkyway!

the moon phases won't match anymore.

in order the seasons to work, the sun constantly needs to change his orbit slightly to be able to swing north-south. which mechanism would then be responsible for this swinging?

An object cannot orbit a body in a random orbit. the orbit HAS to go past the center of the body.
That is one of the nature's laws.
that's why every geostational satellite is at the equator.

This would mean only partial northern hemisphere and partial southern hemisphere would be summer at the same time.

Imagine New york and Australia having summer at the same time and 6 months later Argentina and China having summer at the same time.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 03, 2017, 02:23:18 PM

It isn't realistic at all.

The key point though is that the vast majority of observations would be identical (ignoring any limitations due to the speed of light on distant objects).

No it wouldn't.
like I said on my earlier post in this thread:

Again, it is not discussing the reality of it.
With orbits, objects orbit their barycenters, which is inside the sun for the Earth sun system.

From a mathematical point of view, it is equivalent for Earth to be stationary and everything move around us, or for us to rotate and orbit. (at least regarding astronomical observations).

You also ignore more complex "orbits" with various station keeping mechanisms, including simple things like solar sails.

It is hypothetically possible to have "orbits" which do not cross the centre, they just need some form of power.

Quote from: napoleon on May 03, 2017, 09:51:30 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 03, 2017, 02:23:18 PM

It isn't realistic at all.

The key point though is that the vast majority of observations would be identical (ignoring any limitations due to the speed of light on distant objects).

No it wouldn't.
like I said on my earlier post in this thread:

Again, it is not discussing the reality of it.
With orbits, objects orbit their barycenters, which is inside the sun for the Earth sun system.

From a mathematical point of view, it is equivalent for Earth to be stationary and everything move around us, or for us to rotate and orbit. (at least regarding astronomical observations).

You also ignore more complex "orbits" with various station keeping mechanisms, including simple things like solar sails.

It is hypothetically possible to have "orbits" which do not cross the centre, they just need some form of power.

Again, I am not discussing the reality of it.
I am only referring to your argument about "the majority of the observations would be identical"

The only observation that would be identical is the sunrise in east and sunset in west.
other observations like moonphases and summer and winter in different parts of the world would be totally different.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

please explain

Jack already has.

Quote from: napoleon on May 03, 2017, 09:51:30 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 03, 2017, 02:23:18 PM

It isn't realistic at all.

The key point though is that the vast majority of observations would be identical (ignoring any limitations due to the speed of light on distant objects).

No it wouldn't.
like I said on my earlier post in this thread:

Again, it is not discussing the reality of it.
With orbits, objects orbit their barycenters, which is inside the sun for the Earth sun system.

From a mathematical point of view, it is equivalent for Earth to be stationary and everything move around us, or for us to rotate and orbit. (at least regarding astronomical observations).

You also ignore more complex "orbits" with various station keeping mechanisms, including simple things like solar sails.

It is hypothetically possible to have "orbits" which do not cross the centre, they just need some form of power.

Jack already has.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 04, 2017, 12:43:00 AM

Quote from: napoleon on May 03, 2017, 09:51:30 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 03, 2017, 02:23:18 PM

It isn't realistic at all.

The key point though is that the vast majority of observations would be identical (ignoring any limitations due to the speed of light on distant objects).

No it wouldn't.
like I said on my earlier post in this thread:

Again, it is not discussing the reality of it.
With orbits, objects orbit their barycenters, which is inside the sun for the Earth sun system.

From a mathematical point of view, it is equivalent for Earth to be stationary and everything move around us, or for us to rotate and orbit. (at least regarding astronomical observations).

You also ignore more complex "orbits" with various station keeping mechanisms, including simple things like solar sails.

It is hypothetically possible to have "orbits" which do not cross the centre, they just need some form of power.

Wait!! I suddenly understand it...I think...
It's like:
If you imagine the whole solar system as a giant round disk with the sun in the middle...
 the whole disk turns around the earth in a circular motion, except the axis on which the disk turns around is not in the center where the sun is located, but on the position of earth.
That way, the model looks just like the RE model...in fact...it IS the same model, because movement is relative...
thanks dispute, I needed that...

Again, I am not discussing the reality of it.
I am only referring to your argument about "the majority of the observations would be identical"

But you are. You are appealing to the nature of real orbits which reside in a plane in which the barycentre is in.

If you ignore that and allow orbits to be in other planes, then it all matches.

Mathematically, there is no difference.
The phases of the moon and summer and winter would remain identical.

No problem, like Jack says you need to ignore speed of light limits and have some magic forces but the maths can work.