Can't figure it out

I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

It's not the model that will answer what you are trying to understand.  FE explain things like night and day, the seasons, etc. all using different models.  It's highly likely a new model will have to be constructed to accurately answer your question.

Gumwars has provided an interesting link in another thread here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88505.0

It probably won't answer your question either but it's a great visual for understanding why not.

It's not the model that will answer what you are trying to understand.  FE explain things like night and day, the seasons, etc. all using different models.  It's highly likely a new model will have to be constructed to accurately answer your question.

FE have no models, they have no theories lets make that quite clear from the outset. A proper functioning model is one that takes account of all the variables at play and can make predictions, as do properly constructed theories. Flat earth has nothing approaching that. Let’s remember they have no scientists astronomers or physicists at work producing data, all they have in reality is a few individuals dreaming up evidence free stand alone notions that they imagine explain certain individual phenomena which totally ignore and don’t take account of all the other variables at play. They also conveniently ignore reality through their use of conspiracy. None of their notions or ideas are joined up. The complex interwoven system that drives our planet along with the rest of the solar system has no unified flat earth explanation nor could it. The whole flat earth concept is built up from the one notion that it looks flat.

To give an example in line with the original question; some flat earthers believe in a small near sun and moon to help explain various movements of the sun and moon on a flat earth.
What they totally forget is the ramifications of this belief!
How can they explain the small suns energy source or it’s longevity or it’s ability to hold the rest of the solar system in check through gravity( a force they claim is false)
They fail to explain how this particular notion is at odds with our knowledge on star formation. It also ignores all the data we have streaming from the various solar probes that study the sun 24/7.
Let’s remember none of their ideas or notions are a product of research they have all come about through convenience.
No FE idea can stand up to even the slightest investigation.

I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Don’t even try to figure it out. The notion of a flat earth is no more than a fanciful belief. If people wish to believe the earth is flat as early people’s did then that’s fine. But don’t imagine that flat earth belief has robust explanations for any natural event that will stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Have you or anyone else seen or photographed the “shadow moon”? An elusive moon flat earthers claim to exist!

Don’t even try to figure it out. The notion of a flat earth is no more than a fanciful belief.

That is a horrible idea.
That is how to be extremely close minded and dismiss anything you don't agree with.
You should try to figure it out and see if it is possible or not, with this often leading to something contradicting a much simpler observation from reality, or itself.
The harder you try to figure it out, while still being unable to find out a way to make it work, the more confident you can rationally be that it is not possible.

If you simply dismiss it without even trying to see if it is possible, you have no justification to claim it can't work or that it is not possible or the like, and are in no better a position than simply asserting that it works.

It's not the model that will answer what you are trying to understand.  FE explain things like night and day, the seasons, etc. all using different models.  It's highly likely a new model will have to be constructed to accurately answer your question.

If you have to invent a new model for every single observation then you do not have a model at all. You just have a bunch of unconnected half-baked excuses as to why things happen.

If every single 'model' of yours can be disproven, the answer isn't to make more broken models, it's to admit your entire concept is flawed.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 10, 2021, 12:56:54 AM

Don’t even try to figure it out. The notion of a flat earth is no more than a fanciful belief.

That is a horrible idea.
That is how to be extremely close minded and dismiss anything you don't agree with.
You should try to figure it out and see if it is possible or not, with this often leading to something contradicting a much simpler observation from reality, or itself.
The harder you try to figure it out, while still being unable to find out a way to make it work, the more confident you can rationally be that it is not possible.

If you simply dismiss it without even trying to see if it is possible, you have no justification to claim it can't work or that it is not possible or the like, and are in no better a position than simply asserting that it works.

This is a good stance. I love crazy thought experiments. No they don't have to be reality but playing with concepts, ideas and imaginations can be healthy for the mind. Sure, don't get lost in it but the human mind is capable of wonder. How many animals on earth can do the same?

Quote from: JackBlack on June 10, 2021, 03:19:16 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on June 10, 2021, 12:56:54 AM

Don’t even try to figure it out. The notion of a flat earth is no more than a fanciful belief.

That is a horrible idea.
That is how to be extremely close minded and dismiss anything you don't agree with.
You should try to figure it out and see if it is possible or not, with this often leading to something contradicting a much simpler observation from reality, or itself.
The harder you try to figure it out, while still being unable to find out a way to make it work, the more confident you can rationally be that it is not possible.

If you simply dismiss it without even trying to see if it is possible, you have no justification to claim it can't work or that it is not possible or the like, and are in no better a position than simply asserting that it works.

This is a good stance. I love crazy thought experiments. No they don't have to be reality but playing with concepts, ideas and imaginations can be healthy for the mind. Sure, don't get lost in it but the human mind is capable of wonder. How many animals on earth can do the same?

Timmy's entire reason for being here is to stop people having these conversations. Nothing is interesting to him.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 10, 2021, 12:56:54 AM

Don’t even try to figure it out. The notion of a flat earth is no more than a fanciful belief.

That is a horrible idea.
That is how to be extremely close minded and dismiss anything you don't agree with.
You should try to figure it out and see if it is possible or not, with this often leading to something contradicting a much simpler observation from reality, or itself.
The harder you try to figure it out, while still being unable to find out a way to make it work, the more confident you can rationally be that it is not possible.

If you simply dismiss it without even trying to see if it is possible, you have no justification to claim it can't work or that it is not possible or the like, and are in no better a position than simply asserting that it works.

I say it’s fanciful because it is.

Perhaps you could give some information on some of the hard facts that you imagine exist.

Possibly you could include the details of the researchers that produced them.

The problem is fanciful ideas are fanciful. Pointing that out is neither horrible or being closed minded it’s just stating the obvious.

As I said if you know some facts that could blow this open, prove the conspiracy is true then please share, as it would be horrible not to.

Quote from: Shifter on June 10, 2021, 06:17:58 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 10, 2021, 03:19:16 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on June 10, 2021, 12:56:54 AM

Don’t even try to figure it out. The notion of a flat earth is no more than a fanciful belief.

That is a horrible idea.
That is how to be extremely close minded and dismiss anything you don't agree with.
You should try to figure it out and see if it is possible or not, with this often leading to something contradicting a much simpler observation from reality, or itself.
The harder you try to figure it out, while still being unable to find out a way to make it work, the more confident you can rationally be that it is not possible.

If you simply dismiss it without even trying to see if it is possible, you have no justification to claim it can't work or that it is not possible or the like, and are in no better a position than simply asserting that it works.

This is a good stance. I love crazy thought experiments. No they don't have to be reality but playing with concepts, ideas and imaginations can be healthy for the mind. Sure, don't get lost in it but the human mind is capable of wonder. How many animals on earth can do the same?

Timmy's entire reason for being here is to stop people having these conversations. Nothing is interesting to him.

Rather than focusing on me why not address the point of the discussion. I imagine that’s the whole point in coming here to join in discussing the topic rather than the people posting.

I say it’s fanciful because it is.

Perhaps you could give some information on some of the hard facts that you imagine exist.

Possibly you could include the details of the researchers that produced them.

The problem is fanciful ideas are fanciful. Pointing that out is neither horrible or being closed minded it’s just stating the obvious.

As I said if you know some facts that could blow this open, prove the conspiracy is true then please share, as it would be horrible not to.

Notice how you aren't actually objecting to what I said?
I said that not trying to figure things out makes you closed minded.

Imagine it the other way around, a FEer asks about trying to figure out how something works on the RE, and then someone like you responds stating:
"Don’t even try to figure it out. The notion of a round earth is no more than a fanciful belief. If people wish to believe the earth is round then that’s fine. But don’t imagine that round earth belief has robust explanations for any natural event that will stand up to the slightest scrutiny."

Would you consider such a person closed minded? Or is it fine for them to dismiss the RE like that?

After all, they would claim they would say "it's fanciful because it is."

Or because you think FE is wrong and RE is right, they are closed minded and you aren't?
This hypothetical person would respond that because they think RE is wrong and FE is right, that they are not closed minded but you are.

Rather than focusing on me why not address the point of the discussion. I imagine that’s the whole point in coming here to join in discussing the topic rather than the people posting.

Yes, why not address the point of the discussion? Rather than just dismissing the FE as fantasy and telling people to not even bother trying to figure it out, why not actually try to address the issue?
Why not try to explain some of the logical consequences of how sunrise and sunset interacts with a FE.

For example, consider what this would mean without bendy light, and the observation that the sun is ~due west at a specific time for everyone at a given longitude, even if limited to just to the northern parts of Canada to the southern parts of Chile.
That span of areas covers a distance of over 13 000 km.
If we be generous and give a margin of error of 1 degree, that places the sun over 350 000 km away. This would mean it couldn't be observed to be directly overhead for anyone.

But in reality, while the sun is rising or setting for one location, it is directly above a different location ~10 000 km away, on the equinox, that is some point on the equator, roughly 90 degrees of longitude away.

So the only way for this to work is if the light from the sun bends, which raises the question of what is causing it to bend, especially in such a way that makes it appear as a very distant sun and a RE?

I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

Quote from: Timeisup on June 10, 2021, 01:26:55 PM

I say it’s fanciful because it is.

Perhaps you could give some information on some of the hard facts that you imagine exist.

Possibly you could include the details of the researchers that produced them.

The problem is fanciful ideas are fanciful. Pointing that out is neither horrible or being closed minded it’s just stating the obvious.

As I said if you know some facts that could blow this open, prove the conspiracy is true then please share, as it would be horrible not to.

Notice how you aren't actually objecting to what I said?
I said that not trying to figure things out makes you closed minded.

Imagine it the other way around, a FEer asks about trying to figure out how something works on the RE, and then someone like you responds stating:
"Don’t even try to figure it out. The notion of a round earth is no more than a fanciful belief. If people wish to believe the earth is round then that’s fine. But don’t imagine that round earth belief has robust explanations for any natural event that will stand up to the slightest scrutiny."

Would you consider such a person closed minded? Or is it fine for them to dismiss the RE like that?

After all, they would claim they would say "it's fanciful because it is."

Or because you think FE is wrong and RE is right, they are closed minded and you aren't?
This hypothetical person would respond that because they think RE is wrong and FE is right, that they are not closed minded but you are.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 10, 2021, 02:51:34 PM

Rather than focusing on me why not address the point of the discussion. I imagine that’s the whole point in coming here to join in discussing the topic rather than the people posting.

Yes, why not address the point of the discussion? Rather than just dismissing the FE as fantasy and telling people to not even bother trying to figure it out, why not actually try to address the issue?
Why not try to explain some of the logical consequences of how sunrise and sunset interacts with a FE.

For example, consider what this would mean without bendy light, and the observation that the sun is ~due west at a specific time for everyone at a given longitude, even if limited to just to the northern parts of Canada to the southern parts of Chile.
That span of areas covers a distance of over 13 000 km.
If we be generous and give a margin of error of 1 degree, that places the sun over 350 000 km away. This would mean it couldn't be observed to be directly overhead for anyone.

But in reality, while the sun is rising or setting for one location, it is directly above a different location ~10 000 km away, on the equinox, that is some point on the equator, roughly 90 degrees of longitude away.

So the only way for this to work is if the light from the sun bends, which raises the question of what is causing it to bend, especially in such a way that makes it appear as a very distant sun and a RE?

It’s nothing to do with how open ones mind is while it has everything to do with evidence.
You can choose to open your mind as wide as you like but the notion of the earth being flat makes no sense regardless. In the end it’s all about evidence. As I’ve said countless times before the FE side has no evidence to lure even the most open minded individual.
If you are so bothered why don’t you find some, so good luck with that.

Quote from: stankann on June 09, 2021, 02:12:17 PM

I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

I like how dismissive you are of refraction being able to bend light by maybe a degree on the horizon:

As with much else in the model, the refraction argument is used as a sweeping rebuttal to anyone who sees the sun for longer than it should be, shorter than it should be, or as a rebuttal to anyone who sees it rise from a location where it should not rise from. When it comes to specific assertions, the Round Earth model is unable to be justified with a prediction that fits reality.

And then show how light from the sun on a flat earth would need to do something like this:

Quote from: stankann on June 09, 2021, 02:12:17 PM

I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

Firstly there is no such thing as a flat earth theory. I think your kidding yourself if you imagine there is one.

A theory is very different from a notion or an idea. A theory has to stand up to and have a credible explanation for  every  thing it affects and can’t have a conspiracy component.

Your  belief that FE has a theory falls down at the first hurdle as it requires a conspiracy from the outset. I could show you live images and video of the earth that clearly shows it’s a sphere. You would have to explain this away at the outset as part of the conspiracy. I could interview every astronomer on earth for their professional opinion. You would have to say they were all lying and part of a conspiracy. I could interview all the astronauts who have lived on fthe ISS who have actually seen the spherical earth. You would have to say it’s all lies and part of the conspiracy.
I could carry this exercise out with numerous groups and experts and you would have no option other than to pass it all off as lies and a conspiracy.
Ive watched the BBC programme Earth from Space that clearly shows the earth is a sphere many times in every episode.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072n2zr

You would need to explain this away as some massive corporate conspiracy along with use of CGI!

It goes on and on!

You have no flat earth scientists you have no flat earth astronomers  you have no models or theories. In reality all you have is a belief surrounded by a series of ill conceived notions all relying on any number of conspiracies.

The link you posted is full of utter nonsense that doesn’t pass muster.
A theory would have to pass scrutiny. What would you think would happen if your notion on the equinox were past on to a number of astronomers for comment?

What really makes me laugh is there is a world of scientific knowledge out there that would disagree with your single self produced web page that you think constitutes a theory! Think again Tom.

While you are thinking you could provide some evidence of all of the observations you made to put this web page together along with both the data collected and means of collection along with any protocols used. Remember Tom a real theory has to have a plethora of supporting documentation explaining how you went about producing the theory. You have none of that which is why you have no theory only a half baked idea that does not pass muster.

Quote from: stankann on June 09, 2021, 02:12:17 PM

I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it - SPAM LINK REMOVED

I got asked to remove links when replying to spambots so I'm being extra careful here. 

What does FE Theory actually say? Will you answer the OPs questions? Simply spamming a link to something vaguely related with no explanation of how it relates to their question is unhelpful.

He has some specific numbers in there, please explain how FE Theory math predicts them.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it

Or instead of just linking to the "wiki", perhaps you can try to provide a coherent explanation?
Even if you want to try explaining why we see an "apparent sun" instead of just being able to see the actual sun, and why it causes the apparent sun to be in that location.
Then you can try to explain how your magical circular spotlight can manage to provide ~12 hours of daylight on the equinox, until you get to extreme latitudes.

Especially when you want to claim that the scale that it needs to be for people to see it is only a small circle such that over that distance the equator appears straight.

Then you can try explaining why this doesn't mean the sun ALWAYS should appear to rise from roughly due east, as it doesn't matter where the sun is away from the equator, it will still travel in a roughly circular path cantered on the north pole (in the standard FE model anyway), and thus the exact same argument would apply during summer or winter.

And then perhaps deal with the massive distortions to the known landmasses to fit your lines of longitude, and deal with the fact that while that can pretend it works for the rising sun, you also need it to work for the setting sun, requiring it to bend back the other way, giving you 2 contradictory sets of lines of longitude.

All your FE "theory" seems to say about it is a bunch of excuses to pretend it works.

It’s nothing to do with how open ones mind is while it has everything to do with evidence.

Again, why not discuss the actual issue, and how it is evidence against the FE?

It being based upon evidence is quite different to just telling people to not even bother trying to figure things out and dismissing it as fantasy.

The whole basis of evidence is to try to figure things out.

Again, what I objected to was you telling someone to not even bother trying and just dismissing it as fantasy.
That is being closed minded.

And then show how light from the sun on a flat earth would need to do something like this:

That isn't showing the path of light from the sun.
Those lines show how the path of the circle of light that the sun casts approaches from due east, with it claiming you will see the sun rise when that circle of light touches the circle of Earth you can see (i.e. the distance the atmosphere magically causes the horizon at), and that because it is following a circle, that means it will appear to rise from due east.

Quote from: stankann on June 09, 2021, 02:12:17 PM

I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

In no way does this answer the question.  Even if there is a slight variance of the length of day around the equinox at  different locations.   It still does not explain how the sun can set in the West in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,  and rise in the East just 3 hours later in Jerusalem Israel.  How does the sun get to the location necessary in just 3 hours?  It can't.  But, a round Earth explains it perfectly.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2021, 10:27:22 PM

Quote from: stankann on June 09, 2021, 02:12:17 PM

I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

In no way does this answer the question.  Even if there is a slight variance of the length of day around the equinox at  different locations.   It still does not explain how the sun can set in the West in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,  and rise in the East just 3 hours later in Jerusalem Israel.  How does the sun get to the location necessary in just 3 hours?  It can't.  But, a round Earth explains it perfectly.

Did you consider that your friend might not be entirely honest with you?

Quote from: stankann on June 11, 2021, 05:37:17 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2021, 10:27:22 PM

Quote from: stankann on June 09, 2021, 02:12:17 PM

I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

In no way does this answer the question.  Even if there is a slight variance of the length of day around the equinox at  different locations.   It still does not explain how the sun can set in the West in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,  and rise in the East just 3 hours later in Jerusalem Israel.  How does the sun get to the location necessary in just 3 hours?  It can't.  But, a round Earth explains it perfectly.

Did you consider that your friend might not be entirely honest with you?

Also consider that your friend might be a lizardman alien bent on world domination. Or a lizardwoman. Hard to tell.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2021, 10:27:22 PM

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it

Or instead of just linking to the "wiki", perhaps you can try to provide a coherent explanation?
Even if you want to try explaining why we see an "apparent sun" instead of just being able to see the actual sun, and why it causes the apparent sun to be in that location.
Then you can try to explain how your magical circular spotlight can manage to provide ~12 hours of daylight on the equinox, until you get to extreme latitudes.

Especially when you want to claim that the scale that it needs to be for people to see it is only a small circle such that over that distance the equator appears straight.

Then you can try explaining why this doesn't mean the sun ALWAYS should appear to rise from roughly due east, as it doesn't matter where the sun is away from the equator, it will still travel in a roughly circular path cantered on the north pole (in the standard FE model anyway), and thus the exact same argument would apply during summer or winter.

And then perhaps deal with the massive distortions to the known landmasses to fit your lines of longitude, and deal with the fact that while that can pretend it works for the rising sun, you also need it to work for the setting sun, requiring it to bend back the other way, giving you 2 contradictory sets of lines of longitude.

All your FE "theory" seems to say about it is a bunch of excuses to pretend it works.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 10, 2021, 11:55:12 PM

It’s nothing to do with how open ones mind is while it has everything to do with evidence.

Again, why not discuss the actual issue, and how it is evidence against the FE?

It being based upon evidence is quite different to just telling people to not even bother trying to figure things out and dismissing it as fantasy.

The whole basis of evidence is to try to figure things out.

Again, what I objected to was you telling someone to not even bother trying and just dismissing it as fantasy.
That is being closed minded.

Quote from: Unconvinced on June 11, 2021, 12:03:14 AM

And then show how light from the sun on a flat earth would need to do something like this:

That isn't showing the path of light from the sun.
Those lines show how the path of the circle of light that the sun casts approaches from due east, with it claiming you will see the sun rise when that circle of light touches the circle of Earth you can see (i.e. the distance the atmosphere magically causes the horizon at), and that because it is following a circle, that means it will appear to rise from due east.

What is there to discuss? These people think the earth is flat the sun is small and there is some dome enveloping the earth?...and you think thats a basis for a rational discussion?

We all know the earth is a sphere, there is no question surrounding this that is open to discussion. Its akin to discussing if water is really wet. Finally if you want to discuss this issue then go ahead Im not stopping you but don't expect me to give their views any merit, as from where Im standing it has none.

Water isnt wet.
Water is water.
Wet is the state of having water on you.

So if you sprayed your pants with water proof coating you wouldnt be wet.

Haaaa

Quote from: stankann on June 11, 2021, 05:37:17 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2021, 10:27:22 PM

Quote from: stankann on June 09, 2021, 02:12:17 PM

I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox

In no way does this answer the question.  Even if there is a slight variance of the length of day around the equinox at  different locations.   It still does not explain how the sun can set in the West in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,  and rise in the East just 3 hours later in Jerusalem Israel.  How does the sun get to the location necessary in just 3 hours?  It can't.  But, a round Earth explains it perfectly.

Did you consider that your friend might not be entirely honest with you?

Why on Earth would she lie to me?  Besides I have been back and fourth to Israel many times at all times of years.  I can tell you that the Sun comes up at the time the newspaper says the Sun rises.  I have been there on the equinox, and although I never checked the time of sunrise or sunset to the minute, the sunrise does happen about the time that I stated. 

What is there to discuss? These people think the earth is flat the sun is small and there is some dome enveloping the earth?...and you think thats a basis for a rational discussion?

We all know the earth is a sphere, there is no question surrounding this that is open to discussion. Its akin to discussing if water is really wet. Finally if you want to discuss this issue then go ahead Im not stopping you but don't expect me to give their views any merit, as from where Im standing it has none.

How about discussing WHY you know Earth is a sphere.
It is quite easy to say we all think X thus there is no need to discuss it or justify it and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.
It is like the religious people who claim everyone knows that [insert deity here] exists.

If you don't want to discuss it WHY ARE YOU HERE?

In no way does this answer the question.  Even if there is a slight variance of the length of day around the equinox at  different locations.   It still does not explain how the sun can set in the West in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,  and rise in the East just 3 hours later in Jerusalem Israel.  How does the sun get to the location necessary in just 3 hours?  It can't.  But, a round Earth explains it perfectly.

The issue is where is the sun when you see it setting?
A better observation of the location of the sun is the subsolar point. On the equinox, this follows the equator at a fairly steady pace.
So there is no problem with it moving.
The question then becomes how you see it set in the first place?

Quote from: stankann on June 11, 2021, 05:37:17 AM

In no way does this answer the question.  Even if there is a slight variance of the length of day around the equinox at  different locations.   It still does not explain how the sun can set in the West in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,  and rise in the East just 3 hours later in Jerusalem Israel.  How does the sun get to the location necessary in just 3 hours?  It can't.  But, a round Earth explains it perfectly.

The issue is where is the sun when you see it setting?
A better observation of the location of the sun is the subsolar point. On the equinox, this follows the equator at a fairly steady pace.
So there is no problem with it moving.
The question then becomes how you see it set in the first place?

I have asked in the q and a forum and elsewhere, what is the distance the Sun is from the observer when it vanishes from site, as well as "what is the speed of the Sun".  I have not gotten an answer.  But it does not really matter.  We know that the Sun is visible for about 12 hours at that time of year (at whatever speed it is traveling).  We know that the Sun is setting about 6 hours of travel distance to the West of its closest point to Pittsburgh.  We know that the Sun has to be 6 hours distance East of its closest point to Jerusalem in 3 hours time.  It would be impossible for the Sun to arrive at its sunrise point in Pittsburgh in 3 hours as that point is 12 hours away from the Pittsburgh sunset point, let alone its sunrise point in Jerusalem which is 6 thousand miles to the Southeast of Pittsburgh.   I use these points of reference because they are very familiar to me and well populated by observers.   Sunrise and sunset times are easily confirmed by millions of people.

I have asked in the q and a forum and elsewhere, what is the distance the Sun is from the observer when it vanishes from site, as well as "what is the speed of the Sun".  I have not gotten an answer. 

As far as this site goes, you haven't exactly given much time for anyone who might have an honest response to offer one. It could take some time.