Sunlight on a flat Earth map

Seems no one has posted this video before:


There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

However, by understanding the map as an azimuthal equidistant projection of a sphäroid earth, the patterns perfectly make sense.

>48h no comment... is this argument too one unfair?

If you want to debate something start a debate.

If you want to debate something start a debate.

Ok.
Did this convince you and if not, why not?

I think the debate might be :
Does the sun shine down only on the earth like a spotlight ?   (FE)
Does the sun shine in all directions ? (RE)

Seems no one has posted this video before:


There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

However, by understanding the map as an azimuthal equidistant projection of a sphäroid earth, the patterns perfectly make sense.

An FE explanation might be that the sun acts like a spotlight and has something like a lamp shade that expands and contracts to make all those different light patterns controlled by the same celestial gears that control the orbits of the sun and the moon ?

But to get something like in video minute 1:00, you would need something like a halo sun, which we don't see every day for several months. That's why I wrote "single spherical light source".

also solar eclipse cannot be explained with FET 


Even if you claim this picture is fake, you know that you can see a 100% lunar eclipse only in a small area on earth. If sun would be only ~6000 km high and small, and the moon lower to be able to hide the sun, then the shadow would be much larger. And "dome projections" don't work either, because if you would make a projected sun to an eclipse, then it would have to be dark everywhere on earth.

Quote from: Souleon on May 14, 2019, 01:23:10 AM

Seems no one has posted this video before:


There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

However, by understanding the map as an azimuthal equidistant projection of a sphäroid earth, the patterns perfectly make sense.

An FE explanation might be that the sun acts like a spotlight and has something like a lamp shade that expands and contracts to make all those different light patterns controlled by the same celestial gears that control the orbits of the sun and the moon ?

If it was a spotlight it wouldn't be able to illuminate the moon to cause lunar phases.

The Sun can't have a lamp shape that acts as a spotlight because then it wouldn't have a spherical shape.

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 16, 2019, 12:49:08 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 14, 2019, 01:23:10 AM

Seems no one has posted this video before:


There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

However, by understanding the map as an azimuthal equidistant projection of a sphäroid earth, the patterns perfectly make sense.

An FE explanation might be that the sun acts like a spotlight and has something like a lamp shade that expands and contracts to make all those different light patterns controlled by the same celestial gears that control the orbits of the sun and the moon ?

If it was a spotlight it wouldn't be able to illuminate the moon to cause lunar phases.

The Sun can't have a lamp shape that acts as a spotlight because then it wouldn't have a spherical shape.

Another thing you might consider  :
Since the sun is said "to act like a spotlight" , some FE's say this means the sun
is not a spotlight but just ''acts like a spotlight.''
The moon is said to be ''self illuminating ''
It supplies its own light .
A lunar eclipse occurs when " a dark object " gets in front of the moon and blocks the light from the moon.
Some FE' s say the moon is  illuminated by some kind of " bioluminescent" creatures called by some FE's as "moonshrimp."
The phases of the moon are caused by the migration of these creatures across the face of the moon.
Sunlight plays no part in phases or lunar eclipses on a flat Earth.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 16, 2019, 10:44:39 AM

If you want to debate something start a debate.

Ok.
Did this convince you and if not, why not?

By "this" I take it you mean both the YouTube video and your two previous statements.

No. This did not convince me.

The video does not provide any evidence in opposition to sunlight over a flat earth. It only asks the question of how it is possible.
The video assumes a particular configuration of a flat earth.
Your statement "There is obviously no way..." does not present any evidence, only an assertion.

Quote from: Souleon on May 16, 2019, 11:27:49 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on May 16, 2019, 10:44:39 AM

If you want to debate something start a debate.

Ok.
Did this convince you and if not, why not?

By "this" I take it you mean both the YouTube video and your two previous statements.

No. This did not convince me.

The video does not provide any evidence in opposition to sunlight over a flat earth. It only asks the question of how it is possible.
The video assumes a particular configuration of a flat earth.
Your statement "There is obviously no way..." does not present any evidence, only an assertion.

It is impossible for a spotlight/celestial body to emit energy in the predicted geometry on a flat earth model on the December solstice because light can't interfere with the other side of the world because it is night, yet it is supposed to provide light to all of the Ice Wall along a 360 degree perimeter, as it is well-known that Antarctica experiences 24 hour sunlight. Using the same logic, the Arctic Circle experiences 24 hour darkness, and very northern cities do too.

Try and replicate the light shining on the flat earth that we should expect during the December solstice, where it shows sunlight in one hemisphere, but shows darkness in the Arctic Circle AND can somehow provide light to the outer edges of a 2d surface (the Ice Wall).

Your statement "There is obviously no way..." does not present any evidence, only an assertion.

Using your logic, you need to demonstrate and provide evidence that the spotlight on the flat earth can change shape every three months to account for the seasons and equinoxes, since the areas where the most light is focused will change. Saying that the spotlight Sun "changes shape" to demonstrate this is weak because there is no evidence for this.

Seems no one has posted this video before:


There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

However, by understanding the map as an azimuthal equidistant projection of a sphäroid earth, the patterns perfectly make sense.

RE : That animation shown in the video.
Is for the Unipolar or North Pole centered flat Earth map.
Is there an animation showing the path of the sun for the Bi-Polar flat Earth map ? (Which is supported by some FE's.)

Quote from: Souleon on May 14, 2019, 01:23:10 AM

Seems no one has posted this video before:


There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

However, by understanding the map as an azimuthal equidistant projection of a sphäroid earth, the patterns perfectly make sense.

RE : That animation shown in the video.
Is for the Unipolar or North Pole centered flat Earth map.
Is there an animation showing the path of the sun for the Bi-Polar flat Earth map ? (Which is supported by some FE's.)

I haven't seen a diagram for the movement of Sun on the bi-polar flat earth map, but I think the sun would move in a straight line along the Tropic of Cancer for June solstice, Tropic of Capricorn on the December solstice, and move in a straight line along the equator for the equinoxes. But I'm not certain. Ask sandokhan.

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 18, 2019, 08:26:56 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 14, 2019, 01:23:10 AM

Seems no one has posted this video before:


There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

However, by understanding the map as an azimuthal equidistant projection of a sphäroid earth, the patterns perfectly make sense.

RE : That animation shown in the video.
Is for the Unipolar or North Pole centered flat Earth map.
Is there an animation showing the path of the sun for the Bi-Polar flat Earth map ? (Which is supported by some FE's.)

I haven't seen a diagram for the movement of Sun on the bi-polar flat earth map, but I think the sun would move in a straight line along the Tropic of Cancer for June solstice, Tropic of Capricorn on the December solstice, and move in a straight line along the equator for the equinoxes. But I'm not certain. Ask sandokhan.

But, if you are a realist, like some of we RE's , you have to realize that those so-called "flat Earth maps" are really Unipolar and Bi-Polar Projections of the Globe.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 18, 2019, 07:10:09 PM

Your statement "There is obviously no way..." does not present any evidence, only an assertion.

Using your logic, you need to demonstrate and provide evidence that the spotlight on the flat earth can change shape every three months to account for the seasons and equinoxes, since the areas where the most light is focused will change. Saying that the spotlight Sun "changes shape" to demonstrate this is weak because there is no evidence for this.

I need do no such thing. The question was posed by Souleon if the evidence presented convinced me, and if not why not. That is what I answered. Nor did I suggest the spotlight sun changes shape.

It would help you to read the subject at hand prior to telling me what I am required to do.

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 18, 2019, 08:26:56 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 14, 2019, 01:23:10 AM

Seems no one has posted this video before:


There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

However, by understanding the map as an azimuthal equidistant projection of a sphäroid earth, the patterns perfectly make sense.

RE : That animation shown in the video.
Is for the Unipolar or North Pole centered flat Earth map.
Is there an animation showing the path of the sun for the Bi-Polar flat Earth map ? (Which is supported by some FE's.)

I haven't seen a diagram for the movement of Sun on the bi-polar flat earth map, but I think the sun would move in a straight line along the Tropic of Cancer for June solstice, Tropic of Capricorn on the December solstice, and move in a straight line along the equator for the equinoxes. But I'm not certain. Ask sandokhan.

There was this thread (I'm sure among others) from a ways back regarding the bi-polar model sun path:

End of the Bipolar Model

The Equinox in the Bi-Polar model is described here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model

Q. How the sun can rise from near the east under this configuration?
A. An answer to this query may be that it is similar to its operation in the standard Monopole model. When we observe the sun, we are observing its projection upon the atmolayer. The sun which is seen is local and individual to each observer. Accordingly, the easterly sunrise is a consequence of the following:

- The points along the edges of the sun's circular area of light are sunrise (or sunset).
- Our vision is very limited. One cannot see infinitely into the distance.
- The edge of the sun's circular area of light is approaching the observer from the East as it intersects the observer's latitude line.

Sunrise will occur from an Eastward direction as a natural consequence of the observer's limited range of vision. The sun's circular area of light generally intersects the observer's area of vision from an Eastward direction. During Equinox the sun's circular area of light is pivoting around the Northern and Southern poles in a figure eight. The points along the edge of the sun's area of light are close to traveling along the observer's latitude line as it intersects the observer's viewing area, even if the sun is not, and will intersect and appear from near the East in initial bearing.

If a cloud were traveling along the circle of your latitude line, and you only see it when it is close to you, would you see it appear from the east or near the east? The same explanation for this occurrence is given for the local sun and the manifestation of its initial Eastward bearing. The points along the edge of sun's area of light are projections of the sun which will appear to the observer once in his or her viewing range.

For additional details see: Equinox

The Equinox in the Bi-Polar model is described here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model

And you still fail to address the issue being asked.
How does illuminate the world?
The pattern required makes no sense for a sun which illuminates half the world, unless that world is round.
The Bipolar model in some regards just makes it worse.
Your explanation of it rising in the east requires just a tiny portion of Earth to be illuminated.

It makes no sense at all.

Why drop in to just post these non-answers, without even putting in the slightest bit of effort to see if your non-answer even attempts to address the question?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2019, 12:50:51 PM

The Equinox in the Bi-Polar model is described here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model

And you still fail to address the issue being asked.
How does illuminate the world?
The pattern required makes no sense for a sun which illuminates half the world, unless that world is round.
The Bipolar model in some regards just makes it worse.
Your explanation of it rising in the east requires just a tiny portion of Earth to be illuminated.

It makes no sense at all.

Why drop in to just post these non-answers, without even putting in the slightest bit of effort to see if your non-answer even attempts to address the question?

"How does illuminate the world?" What are you talking about? Please use proper grammar.

Monopole theorists usually question the data and say that the people on Antarctica are government, or say that perpetual daylight is due to the sun intersecting with ice crystals in the upper strata.

Under the Bi-Polar model the sun's area of light is more circular in the Bi-Polar model all throughout the year.

The Equinox in the Bi-Polar model is described here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model

Quote

Q. How the sun can rise from near the east under this configuration?
A. An answer to this query may be that it is similar to its operation in the standard Monopole model. When we observe the sun, we are observing its projection upon the atmolayer. The sun which is seen is local and individual to each observer. Accordingly, the easterly sunrise is a consequence of the following:

- The points along the edges of the sun's circular area of light are sunrise (or sunset).
- Our vision is very limited. One cannot see infinitely into the distance.
- The edge of the sun's circular area of light is approaching the observer from the East as it intersects the observer's latitude line.

Sunrise will occur from an Eastward direction as a natural consequence of the observer's limited range of vision. The sun's circular area of light generally intersects the observer's area of vision from an Eastward direction. During Equinox the sun's circular area of light is pivoting around the Northern and Southern poles in a figure eight. The points along the edge of the sun's area of light are close to traveling along the observer's latitude line as it intersects the observer's viewing area, even if the sun is not, and will intersect and appear from near the East in initial bearing.

If a cloud were traveling along the circle of your latitude line, and you only see it when it is close to you, would you see it appear from the east or near the east? The same explanation for this occurrence is given for the local sun and the manifestation of its initial Eastward bearing. The points along the edge of sun's area of light are projections of the sun which will appear to the observer once in his or her viewing range.

For additional details see: Equinox

There are a few problems with all of that.

For one, no one knows what that word salad of a wiki entry even means. Case in point: "When we observe the sun, we are observing its projection upon the atmolayer. The sun which is seen is local and individual to each observer." That statement means literally nothing. What's this "projection"? What happens to the projector? i.e., the Sun? The sun is local to each observer? I have my own Sun separate from yours? Huh?
Secondly, the bipolar sun has to make this figure 8 move, backtracks. Even if we each have our own Sun to stare at, we never observe that business.
Lastly, what's the moon up to during all this zig-zagging about the planet? How is it dancing around the sky in a way we don't observe it either?

The Bipolar model gets you out of the jam of monopolists not recognizing Antarctica as a continent. But that's about it. It introduces all kinds of magical things we humans just don't observe.

The projected sun is described in Earth Not a Globe. It has always been in the Flat Earth model. The wiki also has a page on it called "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset"

Secondly, the bipolar sun has to make this figure 8 move, backtracks. Even if we each have our own Sun to stare at, we never observe that business.

The path of the sun does retrograde throughout the year.

https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/sunandseasons.html



Caption:

"This simulated multiple-exposure image shows the path of the rising sun through the eastern sky on the morning of the 21st of each month, from December at the right through June at the left. The latitude was set to 41° north. (The spreading of the trails as they go upward is a distortion caused by stretching the domed sky onto a flat semicircle.)"

Notice how they can't explain it with regular straight line geometry between the sun and earth and go with "The spreading of the trails as they go upward is a distortion caused by stretching the domed sky onto a flat semicircle."

They are proposing that the sun is projected onto a "domed sky"

Academic diagrams of the sun's path for RE usually shows straight lines.

The projected sun is described in Earth Not a Globe. It has always been in the Flat Earth model. The wiki also has a page on it called "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset"

Just because SBR wrote something in ENAG doesn't mean much of anything. So that's a big so what. And still, "projection on the atmoplayer" means nothing. And don't get me started on "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset" because that is easily debunked with a simple timelapse of a sunset with a solar filter, of which, there are many.

Quote

Secondly, the bipolar sun has to make this figure 8 move, backtracks. Even if we each have our own Sun to stare at, we never observe that business.

The path of the sun does retrograde throughout the year.

https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/sunandseasons.html



Caption:

"This simulated multiple-exposure image shows the path of the rising sun through the eastern sky on the morning of the 21st of each month, from December at the right through June at the left. The latitude was set to 41° north. (The spreading of the trails as they go upward is a distortion caused by stretching the domed sky onto a flat semicircle.)"

Notice how they can't explain it with regular straight line geometry between the sun and earth and go with "The spreading of the trails as they go upward is a distortion caused by stretching the domed sky onto a flat semicircle."

They are proposing that the sun is projected onto a "domed sky"

Academic diagrams of the sun's path for RE usually shows this:

No where does it mention the Sun retrogrades.
No where does it mention not being able to explain some "straight line geometry". You just made up the need for such for reasons.
No where does it state the sun is projected onto a "domed sky". Again, just making something up around this "projection" business you're hung up on that makes no sense.

And again, what's the moon doing during all the sun figure eights/double Salchows?

Just because SBR wrote something in ENAG doesn't mean much of anything. So that's a big so what. And still, "projection on the atmoplayer" means nothing. And don't get me started on "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset" because that is easily debunked with a simple timelapse of a sunset with a solar filter, of which, there are many.

A Solar Filter just dims the scene for eye safety, much like looking through a pair of sunglasses. A pair of sunglasses does not eliminate projections or reflections of light. Put a pair of sunglasses on in a movie theater sometime.

The projection of the sun on the atmolayer is part of Flat Earth Theory. Read Earth Not a Globe. If you want to discuss the theory, you need to discuss this.

No where does it mention the Sun retrogrades.

These are basic words with basic definitions. Retrograde means moving backwards in direction, which the sun is depicted to do. It is also seen in polar sun plot charts.

You can do your own research on this subject. The sun does not move in straight lines throughout the year.

If you want someone to hand-hold you, I'm not going to do it. You aren't a baby. Educate your own self on what the sun does.

"Nah-uh" is a totally invalid response when you are given evidence. There is an applet in that link which depicts the sun's paths. Learn to debate. You are horrible at it. Better yet, just go away and learn on your own.

Quote from: Unepic Globetard on May 18, 2019, 07:47:14 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 18, 2019, 07:10:09 PM

Your statement "There is obviously no way..." does not present any evidence, only an assertion.

Using your logic, you need to demonstrate and provide evidence that the spotlight on the flat earth can change shape every three months to account for the seasons and equinoxes, since the areas where the most light is focused will change. Saying that the spotlight Sun "changes shape" to demonstrate this is weak because there is no evidence for this.

I need do no such thing. The question was posed by Souleon if the evidence presented convinced me, and if not why not. That is what I answered. Nor did I suggest the spotlight sun changes shape.

It would help you to read the subject at hand prior to telling me what I am required to do.

Well, this is a debate thread to convince you that a spotlight on a flat earth would be impossible. The Sun would have to change shape to adjust to the different areas of the focused lighting we would expect on a flat earth. Also, you haven't provided any evidence for HOW this could be possible.

Quote

Just because SBR wrote something in ENAG doesn't mean much of anything. So that's a big so what. And still, "projection on the atmoplayer" means nothing. And don't get me started on "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset" because that is easily debunked with a simple timelapse of a sunset with a solar filter, of which, there are many.

A Solar Filter just dims the scene for eye safety, much like looking through a pair of sunglasses. A pair of sunglasses does not eliminate projections or reflections of light. Put a pair of sunglasses on in a movie theater sometime.

Incorrect. There is no "Magnification of the sunset"...as "projected on the atmolayer" nonsense.

The projection of the sun on the atmolayer is part of Flat Earth Theory. Read Earth Not a Globe. If you want to discuss the theory, you need to discuss this.

I've read it several times. And so what if it's a part of flat earth theory? That doesn't make it any less nonsensical. Describe what you think projection of the sun on the atmolayer actually means. You can't. It's just some catch phrase you toss about like it's supposed to mean something to something.

Quote from: Stash on May 19, 2019, 03:47:39 PM

No where does it mention the Sun retrogrades.

These are basic words with basic definitions. Retrograde means moving backwards in direction, which the sun is depicted to do. It is also seen in polar sun plot charts.

Where is the sun depicted as "moving backwards". The broken image you cited was this:



Is this what you mean as "depicted moving backwards", or "retrograde"? Seriously? Does it look like it's moving backwards to you?

You can do your own research on this subject. The sun does not move in straight lines throughout the year.

I did. Seems like you haven't. The sun not moving in a straight line is a hell of a lot different than you making up that it moves backwards.

If you want someone to hand-hold you, I'm not going to do it. You aren't a baby. Educate your own self on what the sun does.

It seems that you are the one that needs to get some education. Or at least maybe do some zetetic observations and see where the sun moves backwards. You're the only person on the planet that seems to think so.

"Nah-uh" is a totally invalid response when you are given evidence. There is an applet in that link which depicts the sun's paths. Learn to debate. You are horrible at it. Better yet, just go away and learn on your own.

The only proper response to some such as yourself who is out and out lying is basically "Nah-uh". Though I've gone beyond that.

I already said that your citation doesn't mention nor show the sun going backwards or in retrograde even though you stated it did. I wasn't aware that lying was a proper debate style. I've shown you above a sunset with a filter where magic magnification doesn't occur, it's the sun, not some projection on an atmoplane and it's not vanishing into some Rowbotham made up "laws of perspective" nonsense.

Just because a bi-polar model is a complete fail, that's not my problem. And you seem to have to fabricate things to try and make it work. And you still don't know what to do with the moon. Again, not my problem.

So best you go back, do some more research on the matter, squeeze the moon in there, stop appealing to some "authority" like SBR and come back when you have some evidence/facts for a proper debate.

Quote

Just because SBR wrote something in ENAG doesn't mean much of anything. So that's a big so what. And still, "projection on the atmoplayer" means nothing. And don't get me started on "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset" because that is easily debunked with a simple timelapse of a sunset with a solar filter, of which, there are many.

A Solar Filter just dims the scene for eye safety, much like looking through a pair of sunglasses. A pair of sunglasses does not eliminate projections or reflections of light. Put a pair of sunglasses on in a movie theater sometime.

The projection of the sun on the atmolayer is part of Flat Earth Theory.

There is nothing to project "the sun on the atmolayer". That would require something acting as a lens or mirror.
And there is nothing in "the atmolayer" to project any image onto. "The atmolayer" is very nearly transparent.

If you disagree please present evidence for the cause of the projection and the surface it is projected onto.

Then I note that your suggested reading includes: The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions by Albert Smith (Zetetes).
That book does have some interesting claims with the section starting at page 31 on "TWO POLES" stating this on page 33:

It then goes round with the southern currents, daily, contracting its circle in a fine spiral until it arrives at 23¹/₂°S. when, having lost its further southern tendency or swirl, electrical and magnetic forces, doubtless under intelligent supervision, drive it again northwards. Similar explanations apply to the moon, and to the planets, but with different periods, owing to their different altitudes, as already explained in a former article.

Albert Smith (Zetetes) states doubtless under intelligent supervision for his hypotheses and that sounds like admitting 'this bit's just magic' to me.

I do not regard any hypothesis with no supporting evidence as  worthy of consideration.

Quote

Just because SBR wrote something in ENAG doesn't mean much of anything. So that's a big so what. And still, "projection on the atmoplayer" means nothing. And don't get me started on "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset" because that is easily debunked with a simple timelapse of a sunset with a solar filter, of which, there are many.

A Solar Filter just dims the scene for eye safety, much like looking through a pair of sunglasses. A pair of sunglasses does not eliminate projections or reflections of light. Put a pair of sunglasses on in a movie theater sometime.

The projection of the sun on the atmolayer is part of Flat Earth Theory. Read Earth Not a Globe. If you want to discuss the theory, you need to discuss this.

Quote from: Stash on May 19, 2019, 03:47:39 PM

No where does it mention the Sun retrogrades.

These are basic words with basic definitions. Retrograde means moving backwards in direction, which the sun is depicted to do. It is also seen in polar sun plot charts.

You can do your own research on this subject. The sun does not move in straight lines throughout the year.

If you want someone to hand-hold you, I'm not going to do it. You aren't a baby. Educate your own self on what the sun does.

"Nah-uh" is a totally invalid response when you are given evidence. There is an applet in that link which depicts the sun's paths. Learn to debate. You are horrible at it. Better yet, just go away and learn on your own.

Mr. Tom Bishop, all though I am a so-called '' Round Earther '' and I know for certain that the earth is a globe , that there is such a thing as " outer space " and many other details.
And I do know that most , if not all, of flat earth has no basis, is false and is just pseudoscience at best or delusion and denial and nonsense  at worst.
I do admire you for your steadfast tenacity and sticktoitifness .

"How does illuminate the world?" What are you talking about? Please use proper grammar.

You should know what I am talking about, even with the typo, as I have raised the issue before.
Again, hypothetically when the sun is at its southern most point, taking south as the bottom of your map and north as the top, how does the northern region get illuminated while the region in the middle is in darkness?
It makes no sense at all.

I have brought up this issue before and you just repeatedly deflected then ran away.

Here is an image, derived from the one provided on your site:

Please explain how Alaska/West America, Eastern Russia and Australia/NZ have daytime/are illuminated by the sun, but Africa and England are not.
Please draw in your nice roughly circular patch of light.
I can draw one in quite easily thanks to your longitude lines:

Notice how instead of a circle of light we get a circle of darkness?
But don't worry, you can still get the semicircle of light/dark and various other shapes.

Under the Bi-Polar model the sun's area of light is more circular in the Bi-Polar model all throughout the year.

No it isn't. You just push the problem around. You still have the ridiculous patches of light.
All it does is change the timing of when the ridiculous patches of light are and for how long. It doesn't solve the issue. But yes, it does manage to get a nice circular patch of light for one point of the year as it is an azimuthal equidistant projection of the real round Earth, centred on a point that sun can be directly above.

The path of the sun does retrograde throughout the year.

If you mean it changes it's apparent position, yes, it does. But that doesn't mean it takes a figure of 8 path.

Notice how they can't explain it with regular straight line geometry between the sun and earth and go with "The spreading of the trails as they go upward is a distortion caused by stretching the domed sky onto a flat semicircle."

No, they can explain it. They are just stating that projecting an intrinsically non-flat image onto a flat surface results in distortion.
We have also been over this.
Projecting an angular based view onto a 2D image will result in distortion.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 19, 2019, 11:21:26 AM

Quote from: Unepic Globetard on May 18, 2019, 07:47:14 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 18, 2019, 07:10:09 PM

Your statement "There is obviously no way..." does not present any evidence, only an assertion.

Using your logic, you need to demonstrate and provide evidence that the spotlight on the flat earth can change shape every three months to account for the seasons and equinoxes, since the areas where the most light is focused will change. Saying that the spotlight Sun "changes shape" to demonstrate this is weak because there is no evidence for this.

I need do no such thing. The question was posed by Souleon if the evidence presented convinced me, and if not why not. That is what I answered. Nor did I suggest the spotlight sun changes shape.

It would help you to read the subject at hand prior to telling me what I am required to do.

Well, this is a debate thread to convince you that a spotlight on a flat earth would be impossible.

Souleon's information, as presented, does not do a good job convincing me.

The Sun would have to change shape to adjust to the different areas of the focused lighting we would expect on a flat earth.

Please point out where the information presented by Souleon in the YouTube video and his two statements proves that the Sun changes shape. Remember, the question is "Did this convince you and if not, why not?" where I specifically stated my assumption about what was meant by "this."

Also, you haven't provided any evidence for HOW this could be possible.

Also, I don't have to.

Presenting evidence for a possible explanation of a phenomenon is not a prerequisite for not being convinced by a different explanation.