Sun's Path

Here's a new one for you.  I live in Ohio, and we have an interesting phenomenon in the winter around here.  The sun is always low in the sky, and while that is, by itself explicable in both theories, I have an interesting point that is only possible on a round earth.  The path we see in winter is the sun rising low in the southeast, then drawing closer to overhead (it never gets all that close, but the closest it ever is to overhead is distinctly noon, as ANYONE can observe.  In the FE theory, the suns orbit which, in winter, would certainly be lower to the horizon, should be much more equidistant at all times than on a RE.  I wish I could render an effective image to demonstrate this, but 1, it'd be called part of the conspiracy, and 2, I suck at drawing, so it really wouldn't clear things up so nicely.  JUST CONSIDER THE GEOMETRY.

On a separate point: if the Sun's surface is concave, then the light coming from it has a focal point, like a mirror.  I have no ABSOLUTE proof this doesn't exist, but I'd like to point out that a focal point between the Sun and the Earth would be readily visible, as everything passing through it would be vaporized (imagine all the energy the sun exerts all over earth at one instant, but concentrated onto a single point).  if the focal point is behind earth, then the sun would have to be ENORMOUS (much larger than the earth itself, which isn't consistent with FE theory as is posted in the FAQ), and it should be noted that this would result in decreased energy as altitude increases.  This is verifiably not the case.

The sun does not follow the same path throughout the year.

The sun does not follow the same path throughout the year.

Learn to read.  I said I acknowledged that.  I'm talking about an FE sun on 1 day and a RE sun on one day.  Hence the point about it being only terribly obvious here in WINTER.

How would you know what the path of the sun should look like if you don't even know the shape of your own planet?

Oh jeebus...

alright, someone who believes in this theory, answer this. If the earth was flat, why wouldnt the whole world be lit up at the same time? If it were indeed flat, and the sun were visible anywhere on the planet, it would be visible everywhere, just at a differnt point in the sky. The fact that it disappears at one point as it appears at another clearly suggests a spherical nature of the earth.

If this is in FAQ, sorry, but i cant look at that; too much stupid at once would make me feel disgustingly better than all of you, and right now, just regular old better is working out fine.

alright, someone who believes in this theory, answer this. If the earth was flat, why wouldnt the whole world be lit up at the same time? If it were indeed flat, and the sun were visible anywhere on the planet, it would be visible everywhere, just at a differnt point in the sky. The fact that it disappears at one point as it appears at another clearly suggests a spherical nature of the earth.

Hold a penlight one foot over a circular dinner table. Notice how the entire dinner table does not light up.

In the FE theory, the suns orbit which, in winter, would certainly be lower to the horizon, should be much more equidistant at all times than on a RE.  I wish I could render an effective image to demonstrate this, but 1, it'd be called part of the conspiracy, and 2, I suck at drawing, so it really wouldn't clear things up so nicely.  JUST CONSIDER THE GEOMETRY.

I think you should have drawn a picture. Instead, here's one I drew for you showing the sun's orbit of the tropic of capricorn with distances to ohio.



As you can see there is a lot more variation in distance in FE where the sun is closer and smaller than there is in RE theory where the sun is an incredible distance away and unbelievably huge.

At noon the sun is closest to you and then when it starts to set again it gets further away.

You should also be able to see that when the sun is on the other side of the earth it is ridiculously far away and this is why you can't see it.

On a separate point: if the Sun's surface is concave, then the light coming from it has a focal point, like a mirror.  I have no ABSOLUTE proof this doesn't exist, but I'd like to point out that a focal point between the Sun and the Earth would be readily visible, as everything passing through it would be vaporized (imagine all the energy the sun exerts all over earth at one instant, but concentrated onto a single point).  if the focal point is behind earth, then the sun would have to be ENORMOUS (much larger than the earth itself, which isn't consistent with FE theory as is posted in the FAQ), and it should be noted that this would result in decreased energy as altitude increases.  This is verifiably not the case.

I have no idea why you're speculating that the sun's surface is concave.

Quote from: "jadexg"

In the FE theory, the suns orbit which, in winter, would certainly be lower to the horizon, should be much more equidistant at all times than on a RE.  I wish I could render an effective image to demonstrate this, but 1, it'd be called part of the conspiracy, and 2, I suck at drawing, so it really wouldn't clear things up so nicely.  JUST CONSIDER THE GEOMETRY.

I think you should have drawn a picture. Instead, here's one I drew for you showing the sun's orbit of the tropic of capricorn with distances to ohio.



As you can see there is a lot more variation in distance in FE where the sun is closer and smaller than there is in RE theory where the sun is an incredible distance away and unbelievably huge.

At noon the sun is closest to you and then when it starts to set again it gets further away.

You should also be able to see that when the sun is on the other side of the earth it is ridiculously far away and this is why you can't see it.

Quote from: "jadexg"

On a separate point: if the Sun's surface is concave, then the light coming from it has a focal point, like a mirror.  I have no ABSOLUTE proof this doesn't exist, but I'd like to point out that a focal point between the Sun and the Earth would be readily visible, as everything passing through it would be vaporized (imagine all the energy the sun exerts all over earth at one instant, but concentrated onto a single point).  if the focal point is behind earth, then the sun would have to be ENORMOUS (much larger than the earth itself, which isn't consistent with FE theory as is posted in the FAQ), and it should be noted that this would result in decreased energy as altitude increases.  This is verifiably not the case.

I have no idea why you're speculating that the sun's surface is concave.

First off, that image is broken for me.  Secondly, I'll work out the geometry after a midterm today, but I think I can prove a DIFFERENT kind of variation between FE and RE, which is easily visible.  What I'm referring to is not the absolute angle between the sun and Ohio, but rather the path that it would follow in the sky.  you see, an FE sun sort of rotates about you (yes, I know it's the north pole that it rotates about exactly, but give it a second) the 'spotlight' should, since it's angle to the earth is 0 (parallel discs), and because the horizon is only an illusion, not a real entity, the sun should maintain a fairly constant angle in the sky vertically, whereas an RE sun will have a much more accented vertical rise and fall.

As to the concavity, I hear constant claims that the sun in the FE model acts more or less like a spotlight, not a pointsource.  for that to be the case it has to be concave, or else you would have a diffuse pattern of light shed around the world at all times. (this is gemoetrically provable, and evident in the way lighting around your home works.)

First off, that image is broken for me.  Secondly, I'll work out the geometry after a midterm today, but I think I can prove a DIFFERENT kind of variation between FE and RE, which is easily visible.  What I'm referring to is not the absolute angle between the sun and Ohio, but rather the path that it would follow in the sky.  you see, an FE sun sort of rotates about you (yes, I know it's the north pole that it rotates about exactly, but give it a second) the 'spotlight' should, since it's angle to the earth is 0 (parallel discs), and because the horizon is only an illusion, not a real entity, the sun should maintain a fairly constant angle in the sky vertically, whereas an RE sun will have a much more accented vertical rise and fall.

Are you suggesting that the FE sun shouldn't rise and fall as it gets closer and further away? That's what I read into it and allow me to let you in on a little secret... there's this thing called perspective!

Can you see this image?



The height of the building doesn't change but as it gets further away from you it appears to get "smaller". When the sun is closer to you it appears higher in the sky, when it is further away from you it appears lower in the sky. It's basic perspective.

As to the concavity, I hear constant claims that the sun in the FE model acts more or less like a spotlight, not a pointsource.  for that to be the case it has to be concave, or else you would have a diffuse pattern of light shed around the world at all times. (this is gemoetrically provable, and evident in the way lighting around your home works.)

The spotlight is referring to the "footprint" left on the earth. The affect is cause by the majority of the sun's light being reflected off the atmosphere due to the angle of that light.

Are you suggesting that the FE sun shouldn't rise and fall as it gets closer and further away? That's what I read into it and allow me to let you in on a little secret... there's this thing called perspective!


The height of the building doesn't change but as it gets further away from you it appears to get "smaller". When the sun is closer to you it appears higher in the sky, when it is further away from you it appears lower in the sky. It's basic perspective.

Speaking of perspective, then shouldn't the Sun get larger as it gets closer?  Please perform the following experiment:  extend your arm.  Give a thumb's up.  Cover the sun with your thumb.  Now, perform the same experiment at a different point in time.  You will find the Sun occupies the same angular area at all times.  This is only possible if the Sun is always the same distance from Earth, or is constantly changing volume, or both.

The spotlight is referring to the "footprint" left on the earth. The affect is cause by the majority of the sun's light being reflected off the atmosphere due to the angle of that light.

Which gas in the atmosphere relfects light?  Why doesn't that gas reflect light on the Earth's surface?

Hold a penlight one foot over a circular dinner table. Notice how the entire dinner table does not light up.

Ha! Why don't you try it? Hold the penlight a couple feet over a circular dinner table. Now put your head directly under the penlight and look at the light. It's a circle isn't it? Now put your head at the edge of the area that is lit up and look at the penlight. It's an oblong shape!

And as we all know, the sun is not an oblong shape, but a circle throughout the day. If the earth is indeed flat, then the fact that the sun is continually circular throughout the day would mean that the earth is continually being lit by the sun.

[EDIT]
I took the pictures myself.

Flashlight, straight on:


Looks pretty circular, no?

Flashlight at an angle:


Looks not as circular, no?

Flashlight at slightly greater angle:


Looks nowhere near circular, no?

*in whiny baby voice* Waaahhh, why won't anybody reply to me?

Pffff. Forget about the Sun's path, etc. If the Sun really were flat, pointed directly at the surface of Earth, and acted like a spotlight then just how in the hell are we able to see the other planets?

Most FEs (or at least the DAs) seem to agree that the other planets are spheroids, so that rules out the spotlight theory.

Speaking of perspective, then shouldn't the Sun get larger as it gets closer?  Please perform the following experiment:  extend your arm.  Give a thumb's up.  Cover the sun with your thumb.  Now, perform the same experiment at a different point in time.  You will find the Sun occupies the same angular area at all times.  This is only possible if the Sun is always the same distance from Earth, or is constantly changing volume, or both.

Cover the sun with my thumb and then cover it again... The first problem I see with this is that there's no comparison of relative sizes. Perform the same action with the moon and a tape measure held at 75cm from your eye and you soon discover that the further away it is the smaller it is (slightly).

The actually problem here is that because of the angles involved when the sun's light is refracted by the atmospher it gets distorted so it almost always appears as the same size until the light is suddenly reflected.

Which gas in the atmosphere relfects light?  Why doesn't that gas reflect light on the Earth's surface?

It's the ether.