Seasons

This model is incorrect.

Why?

No angular effect. It is proven by using angle of shadows compared to obects struck by the sun's light, that the sun changes level's in the sky. This map does not demonstrate this effect.

You can argue it does, but that is assuming that the sun is to scale on that diagram (and by scale I mean actual size) and also that exact distance from the earth, which is not true either.

The sun is much farther away, and according to all the FE models, the flat disc we call the earth in this model always faces the sun. Thus being nightless and seasonless, due to that the earth always faces (to what seems to be) a perfect perpendicular angle to the sun.

However, since we do have seasons, plus night and day, this helps to show that the earth is not flat, but spherical, rotates on an axis not perpendicular to the sun, and at a rotational angle great enough for the sun to shift in the sky to create summer and winter, demonstrated by the latitude lines called the tropic of cancer, the equator, and the tropic of Capricorn.

This can also be proven that as the sun moves across the sky from to setting, you see the shadow of a stick which is perpendicular to the surface on which it rests move as the sun passes by. When left out throughout the year, you will see the length of the shadow change from long to short, and short to long. This indicates that the earth, is in fact tilted in a fashion that is not facing the sun. Because if it was, you would not have that kind of change, nor seasons, nor day or night. Which defies whatever theories about a flat earth there may be.

No angular effect. It is proven by using angle of shadows compared to obects struck by the sun's light, that the sun changes level's in the sky. This map does not demonstrate this effect.

Is that what it proves? Because I thought in your round earth the sun didn't move but the earth rotated. In any case if the sun isn't "rising" on the flat earth you'd still get angular effect. When the sun appears to be rising it is getting closer to you but staying at the same height, this will cause a variation in the angles of the sun. Example (not to scale):



You can see that the object that is closest to the sun (ie when the sun is highest to the object) there is a small shadow and when it is further away the shadow becomes longer).

You can argue it does,

Thanks for your permission. I don't know what I would've done if you said I couldn't.

but that is assuming that the sun is to scale on that diagram (and by scale I mean actual size) and also that exact distance from the earth, which is not true either.

Read the FAQ for supposed distances, the diagram was not to scale.

The sun is much farther away, and according to all the FE models, the flat disc we call the earth in this model always faces the sun. Thus being nightless and seasonless, due to that the earth always faces (to what seems to be) a perfect perpendicular angle to the sun.

There's two things here: seasons and nights.

The seasons are caused by the sun's "orbits getting smaller and larger throughout the year. This is demonstrated in the diagram you provided. When the sun is closer and to the north pole it is the northern hemidisc's summer, when it's closer to the Ice Wall it is the northern hemidisc's winter.

The nights are caused by the fact that at some point the sun's light reaches an angle where it is no longer refracted by the earth's atmosphere but reflected. This means that there is in effect a day and night.

However, since we do have seasons, plus night and day, this helps to show that the earth is not flat, but spherical, rotates on an axis not perpendicular to the sun, and at a rotational angle great enough for the sun to shift in the sky to create summer and winter, demonstrated by the latitude lines called the tropic of cancer, the equator, and the tropic of Capricorn.

The tropics are exactly the same in the flat earth model. They denote the sun's extreme "orbits" which it travels to and from each year.

This can also be proven that as the sun moves across the sky from to setting, you see the shadow of a stick which is perpendicular to the surface on which it rests move as the sun passes by. When left out throughout the year, you will see the length of the shadow change from long to short, and short to long. This indicates that the earth, is in fact tilted in a fashion that is not facing the sun. Because if it was, you would not have that kind of change, nor seasons, nor day or night. Which defies whatever theories about a flat earth there may be.

Nice try. Again, look at the picture and think of the varying "orbits" of the sun.

I cannot see anything, your image fails, just like you do.

And you saying that they are not to scale supports my side, and also would show that because the sun is so massive, that no matter what distance, on a flat surface you would get no shadow. Yet on a curved model you would, when placing an object perpendicular to it surface.

E.G. , on the flat model, you can put a stick anywhere and it wouldn't cast a shadow, because the rays of light from the sun would be at that exact same angle as well. However, on a round model, if you place an object perpendicular at any location other than a point perpendicular  to the sun (such as the equator for instance during the right time of year), you would get a shadow.

Explain just how does the sun change these "orbits"? Does it magically shift from one plane to the other, is it a gradual change (as is apparent in real life)? Also, as stated above using the shadow, it would not matter the exact orbit that the sun was in regarding a flat model. All point would be hit by the same amount of light in a optically uniform patter, thus nullifying any seasons, because all points receive the same amount of solar energy.

This is not the case on a round model. Because of the differentiating angels caused by the earths curvature, different parts recieve different amounts of light. The greater the angle in relation to the surface, the less powerful the light will be, because that's where refraction and reflection takes place.

The rotation of the earth is what causes day and night. As demonstrated by the disc model and the shadow, again, all points would receive the same amount of light, and reflection and refraction would not occur because all points are perpendicular to the sun. Your disc model would have eternal day. We know this is false, and the only logical coherant way to understand this is by making the earth a sheroid, and spinning it on an axis not perpendicular to the sun.
On a flat earth, it wouldn't matter the position of the sun, all points have equal light, and eternal day, so seasons wouldn't exist even if the sun changed orbits.

Oh, and the sun does not orbit anything but the center of our galaxy. The earth orbits the sun, along with the other planets. Unless you are now taking on a heliocentric model now...

I cannot see anything, your image fails, just like you do.

The image is fine, it's your computer that's stuffed.

And you saying that they are not to scale supports my side, and also would show that because the sun is so massive, that no matter what distance, on a flat surface you would get no shadow. Yet on a curved model you would, when placing an object perpendicular to it surface.

Way to jump to conclusions. It's not to scale because the sun is smaller than what was pictured, read the FAQ and you'll get the respective measurements.

E.G. , on the flat model, you can put a stick anywhere and it wouldn't cast a shadow, because the rays of light from the sun would be at that exact same angle as well. However, on a round model, if you place an object perpendicular at any location other than a point perpendicular  to the sun (such as the equator for instance during the right time of year), you would get a shadow.

As I said, the sun is tiny compared to the earth. This is in the FAQ, perhaps you should go and read it before you post any more.

Explain just how does the sun change these "orbits"? Does it magically shift from one plane to the other, is it a gradual change (as is apparent in real life)?

I'm not sure what causes the sun to change it's direction, I just know it does. Yes, it's gradual.

Also, as stated above using the shadow, it would not matter the exact orbit that the sun was in regarding a flat model. All point would be hit by the same amount of light in a optically uniform patter, thus nullifying any seasons, because all points receive the same amount of solar energy.

I'm not even going to argue this. If you can't understand the flat earth model I'm not going to waste my time trying. I already explained about the different orbits, if you don't understand how the sun being closer to one part of the earth and further away than another creates the seasons that's your own problem.

This is not the case on a round model. Because of the differentiating angels caused by the earths curvature, different parts recieve different amounts of light. The greater the angle in relation to the surface, the less powerful the light will be, because that's where refraction and reflection takes place.

The greater the angle of the sun the more atmosphere the light has to travel through - that's what you're actually trying to say. That's also what happens with the flat earth.

The rotation of the earth is what causes day and night. As demonstrated by the disc model and the shadow, again, all points would receive the same amount of light, and reflection and refraction would not occur because all points are perpendicular to the sun. Your disc model would have eternal day. We know this is false, and the only logical coherant way to understand this is by making the earth a sheroid, and spinning it on an axis not perpendicular to the sun.
On a flat earth, it wouldn't matter the position of the sun, all points have equal light, and eternal day, so seasons wouldn't exist even if the sun changed orbits.

I wonder if you think you're coming up with anything new or whether you actually realise you're repeating yourself?

The sun is small compared to the earth. Do you think there's still going to be no angles?

Oh, and the sun does not orbit anything but the center of our galaxy. The earth orbits the sun, along with the other planets. Unless you are now taking on a heliocentric model now...

You are stupid aren't you? Heliocentric vs. Geocentric: Heliocentric, earth orbits sun; Geocentric: sun orbits earth.

The sun goes around in circles about the earth, it's not technically an orbit of the earth but for sake of convenience I do refer to it as an "orbit".

I am geocentric and nothing in that post suggested otherwise.

No 1, your a fucking retard, how the fuck do you know that the sun is smaller than the earth? Because it looks the same size as the moon? If that's the case, look into linear distances, and you will see that the sun is farther then the moon by a great deal more, and because of that, it looks small compared to the earth, yet we know from scientific studies that the sun is in fact millions of times larger than the earth. So how am I jumping to conclusions? It's your stupid arrogant faith that blinds you from the truth.

The distance of the sun relative to the earth does not make the seasons. In fact, if you did your research you would discover the fact that during the summer time, the sun is the farthest distance form Earth, and during the winter, it is the closest. It is the ANGLE of the earth rotational axis which creates the seasons. A flat model does not represent nor demonstrate this phenomenon. If you can't understand this, I am not going to argue it either, because you are, again, blinded by your arrogant faith.

A flat earth experiences no angular differences from the sun, because all points would have to be perpendicular to the sun. You're mixing apples and oranges here, and thats not allowed when trying to defend a flat model versus a round model. Only a round model can experience angular differences, because of the curvature of it's surface. Again, if you cannot see the logic behind this, then you are still yet blinded.

Well, until you start defending your flat model in non repetitive way, you'll see the same response in return to the same defense.

The sun is, again, NOT smaller than the earth. Your silly FAQ is wrong. Do some actual scientific research.

You are right, my bad, I've been up all night and I am a bit tired. Excuse me for making a terminology error, I did mean Geocentric, not Heliocentris. But even so... you said that the sun "orbits" over or around a certain area of the earth, so that must infer a geocentris model of the solar system, which if you, again, did some fucking scientific research and not follow your silly FAQ, you would see that the opposite of the geocentric model is true.

Well, for the sake of argument and correct factual statements, you cannot refer to that pattern of movement as an orbit. That's a simple fact that you cannot ignore. You don't want

:roll:

I cannot see anything

qtf

No 1, your a fraking retard,

 :lol: Looks like somebody's getting upset. Why don't you go have a nap or something and try to calm down.

Originally I was going to go through point by point but in the end it doesn't matter.

You're argument is based on a RE sun which is pointless. Basically all you're doing is pointing out why the sun can't be the same for a RE or FE. Saying it's a scientific fact proves nothing - you need to demonstrate how you can prove it's massive and really far away. Otherwise why bother with this post, all you'd have to do is say, "The earth is round if you did some actual scientific research you'd realise this."

Face it, you wrote a bad argument based on the mixing up the RE & FE models.

I don't need to prove anything that's already been proved, hence why I said to do a little research. :roll:

Try building your flat earth around actual scientific facts instead of making them up as you go along. Then you'll have a better understanding of the RE model and why I believe it is superior.

You guys remind me of Jahovis Witnesses and Zealot Christians.. so stubborn and stuck in your imaginitive little beliefs, and simple minded excuses as to why the FE model exists, and you conjur up falsehoods with no factual backing.

:roll:

Doesn't surprise me. In the end it doesn't really matter, because I have done my research and I know what to believe and what not to believe. And I certainly don't believe in something such as a flat earth, with no factual proofs to support it. Your "FAQ" doesn't provide the requirements needed to convert me, sorry, so provide me with a lot more than whats in there, and then maybe we'll see.

:roll:

When you're in a debate and you bring up a fact you're usually expected to source that fact - otherwise people will just think you're telling lies to win the debate.  That's the standard practice for debates in the legal system, in political systems and in any other debating format.  Source your facts or don't bother saying them.  To claim something as true and then to ask the other person to check your facts is ludicrous.  How do you know they just won't make something up like you did?

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I think that for the majority, excluding common sense things, I have cited most of my evidence.

Where's the citation for the conspiracy? Or the Ice Wall? Or guards?

:roll: Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I don't need to prove anything that's already been proved, hence why I said to do a little research. :roll:

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

What you're actually saying is that you can't prove it.

Try building your flat earth around actual scientific facts instead of making them up as you go along. Then you'll have a better understanding of the RE model and why I believe it is superior.

How do you think the Round Earth model came about? They worked it out as they went along.

You guys remind me of Jahovis Witnesses and Zealot Christians.. so stubborn and stuck in your imaginitive little beliefs, and simple minded excuses as to why the FE model exists, and you conjur up falsehoods with no factual backing.

:roll:

We're not the one's quoting scripture. That's right: you quote scripture.

You say it's a fact that the sun is massive and really far away but you can't prove it.

Doesn't surprise me. In the end it doesn't really matter, because I have done my research and I know what to believe and what not to believe. And I certainly don't believe in something such as a flat earth, with no factual proofs to support it. Your "FAQ" doesn't provide the requirements needed to convert me, sorry, so provide me with a lot more than whats in there, and then maybe we'll see.

:roll:

The amazing thing is that you're acutally doing what you think we're doing. You get taught that the sun is massive and that it's millions of kms away but you can't prove it... unless you quote from the scripture of scientific FACT.

It's not a fact unless you can prove it and you can't.

But why should I have to prove somethings that has been fact and scientific law for hundreds of years. Some even THOUSANDS of years?

Every time I say that certain combinations of the number two, when added together, make 4, 6, 8, 12 and so on? Do I have to prove this as well? Or can we agree that it is factual and does not need to be proven every time it is stated?

Like I said, stop nit picking my words, and do some fucking research. You say that the sun is smaller than the earth: Cite it, show me documentation. Otherwise, it holds no water. As for me having to prove to you something that you were also most likely taught by the modern education system, that's nonsense. You know where to find it, go look, you lazy fuck.

But why should I have to prove somethings that has been fact and scientific law for hundreds of years. Some even THOUSANDS of years?

God and religion were "facts" long before science came around. I'm not one to believe in god and dogma. The funny thing is you don't even realise how much you're accepting on faith.

Every time I say that certain combinations of the number two, when added together, make 4, 6, 8, 12 and so on? Do I have to prove this as well? Or can we agree that it is factual and does not need to be proven every time it is stated?

If you can't see the difference between this statement and the one's you've been making about the sun it's no wonder you're stupid.

Like I said, stop nit picking my words, and do some fraking research. You say that the sun is smaller than the earth: Cite it, show me documentation. Otherwise, it holds no water. As for me having to prove to you something that you were also most likely taught by the modern education system, that's nonsense. You know where to find it, go look, you lazy frak.

Again, the only difference between you and some religious wacko is he at least knows his beleifs are based on faith.

You're boring me now, I'm done with you.

Your missing the point completely and trying to justify it by using points that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

It isn't faith if I believe in a atom, is it? What, with there being some good research papers, thesis', and well documented experiments that prove it's existence. How is that faith?

Definition of Faith

# religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
# complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
# religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
# loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

And again, you avoid my questions. Ultimately you are the stupid one. I am PROVIDING YOU WITH DOCUMENTED, CITED FACTS AND SOURCES AND YOU PROVIDE NOTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR CONSPIRACY

It is you who is the boring one, But yes, we are through. I obviously cannot break your blind faith in something in which you have no facts or sources to back with... :roll:

:lol:

Whatever you say oh faithful one.

Indeed.