12hours of Darkness?

How can half the world be in darkness?

By 12hours, I mean 24hrs in a day. So half the world is in darkness at any given time.

Well, to begin with, there are only two days out of the year when night and day are exactly equal to each other. That's on the Equinoxes. Every other day of the year there is a difference in the time of darkness and light, even if it's only a miniscule one.

How do you know half of the world is in darkness at any one point?

How do you know half of the world is in darkness at any one point?

alright its vague. sure....

but point is. How can one side(ish) of the earth be dark and not the other?

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"

How do you know half of the world is in darkness at any one point?

alright its vague. sure....

but point is. How can one side(ish) of the earth be dark and not the other?

First, pick 2 points along the expected axis of the sun, then monitor the position of the sun. Obviously, it would be expensive to have 2 people with watches jetting around the globe... but you COULD do it. Alternatively, get sunrise / sunset charts for locations matching those criteria.

Clearly, the earth is 50% illuminated at any one time. This is most completely explained if it's assumed to be a sphere.

Next... even if you don't buy that. Attempt to calculate the actual coverage of the sun based on any hypothesis based on a flat earth with the sun zooming around above it in a loop. Good luck. You can't. Explaining for one parameter at a time... like Rowbotham did, fails horribly when you address the parameters simultaneously. Rowbotham conviently ignored this... which is why his work is such crap.

For example: The sun's velocity. During summer in Australia, the suns orbit is larger, forcing the sun to travel faster to 'get there' in one day. Yet... the surface is warmed by the same amount. The sun's not hotter... or closer to the ground... Hmm?

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"

How do you know half of the world is in darkness at any one point?

alright its vague. sure....

but point is. How can one side(ish) of the earth be dark and not the other?

First, pick 2 points along the expected axis of the sun, then monitor the position of the sun. Obviously, it would be expensive to have 2 people with watches jetting around the globe... but you COULD do it. Alternatively, get sunrise / sunset charts for locations matching those criteria.

Clearly, the earth is 50% illuminated at any one time. This is most completely explained if it's assumed to be a sphere.

Next... even if you don't buy that. Attempt to calculate the actual coverage of the sun based on any hypothesis based on a flat earth with the sun zooming around above it in a loop. Good luck. You can't. Explaining for one parameter at a time... like Rowbotham did, fails horribly when you address the parameters simultaneously. Rowbotham conviently ignored this... which is why his work is such crap.

For example: The sun's velocity. During summer in Australia, the suns orbit is larger, forcing the sun to travel faster to 'get there' in one day. Yet... the surface is warmed by the same amount. The sun's not hotter... or closer to the ground... Hmm?

If the world if Flat, what does the sun disappear behind?

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"

How do you know half of the world is in darkness at any one point?

alright its vague. sure....

but point is. How can one side(ish) of the earth be dark and not the other?

First, pick 2 points along the expected axis of the sun, then monitor the position of the sun. Obviously, it would be expensive to have 2 people with watches jetting around the globe... but you COULD do it. Alternatively, get sunrise / sunset charts for locations matching those criteria.

Clearly, the earth is 50% illuminated at any one time. This is most completely explained if it's assumed to be a sphere.

Next... even if you don't buy that. Attempt to calculate the actual coverage of the sun based on any hypothesis based on a flat earth with the sun zooming around above it in a loop. Good luck. You can't. Explaining for one parameter at a time... like Rowbotham did, fails horribly when you address the parameters simultaneously. Rowbotham conviently ignored this... which is why his work is such crap.

For example: The sun's velocity. During summer in Australia, the suns orbit is larger, forcing the sun to travel faster to 'get there' in one day. Yet... the surface is warmed by the same amount. The sun's not hotter... or closer to the ground... Hmm?

Sorry are u aruging for or against FE?

Sorry are u aruging for or against FE?

The earth is a sphere. It orbits a much larger sun. These facts have been proven over and over and over.

In the FE model, the sun never goes 'behind' the earth, it circles above it once every 24 hours. It's also tiny (32 miles around) and close (3000 miles above the earth) There is no explanation of how it stays up, or why it goes around in a circle.

First, pick 2 points along the expected axis of the sun, then monitor the position of the sun. Obviously, it would be expensive to have 2 people with watches jetting around the globe... but you COULD do it. Alternatively, get sunrise / sunset charts for locations matching those criteria.

Yes, we COULD do it.  Let's not make any conclusions until we have done it, though.  

Clearly, the earth is 50% illuminated at any one time.

How do you know?

Next... even if you don't buy that. Attempt to calculate the actual coverage of the sun based on any hypothesis based on a flat earth with the sun zooming around above it in a loop. Good luck. You can't. Explaining for one parameter at a time... like Rowbotham did, fails horribly when you address the parameters simultaneously. Rowbotham conviently ignored this... which is why his work is such crap.

I agree completely with how Rowbotham only takes one parameter at a time and never puts more than one "proof" together.  Also, check out my post here about the area of sunlight on a flat Earth.  I have another post somewhere dealing witht he speed of the sun through the sky.

Sorry are u aruging for or against FE?

The earth is a sphere. It orbits a much larger sun. These facts have been proven over and over and over.

In the FE model, the sun never goes 'behind' the earth, it circles above it once every 24 hours. It's also tiny (32 miles around) and close (3000 miles above the earth) There is no explanation of how it stays up, or why it goes around in a circle.

so you are against FE, as am I. Seemed as if you were arguing against me though.

Question for the FE'ers:

If the sun's light as cast on the earth is a spotlight (ie in a round shape), why are the sunrise and sunset on an equinox in a straight line?

I'll illustrate (assuming an equinox):

This is the sunrise/sunset divider as it exists:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/Solnar/flatmap1.jpg

This is the divider as it should exist if the light cast by the sun were a spotlight:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/Solnar/flatmap2.jpg

Why the disparity?

Question for the FE'ers:

If the sun's light as cast on the earth is a spotlight (ie in a round shape), why are the sunrise and sunset on an equinox in a straight line?

I'll illustrate (assuming an equinox):

This is the sunrise/sunset divider as it exists:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/Solnar/flatmap1.jpg

This is the divider as it should exist if the light cast by the sun were a spotlight:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/Solnar/flatmap2.jpg

Why the disparity?

Good boy this is what I was trying to get outta them in my thread, asking if they believe light travels in a straight line.

If they believe it does, the the sun would illuminate a cirle, not light the entire, unless it was a sphere, which they it is not.

Quote from: "manta_ray007"

Question for the FE'ers:

If the sun's light as cast on the earth is a spotlight (ie in a round shape), why are the sunrise and sunset on an equinox in a straight line?

I'll illustrate (assuming an equinox):

This is the sunrise/sunset divider as it exists:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/Solnar/flatmap1.jpg

This is the divider as it should exist if the light cast by the sun were a spotlight:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/Solnar/flatmap2.jpg

Why the disparity?

Good boy this is what I was trying to get outta them in my thread, asking if they believe light travels in a straight line.

If they believe it does, the the sun would illuminate a cirle, not light the entire, unless it was a sphere, which they it is not.

Well, Tom Bishop says that it's a sphere that acts as a spotlight because of relativistic lensing (yay technobabble!) but either way, if the light it casts is in the shape of a spotlight, the day/night divider should look a LOT different.

Quote from: "edlloyd"

Quote from: "manta_ray007"

Question for the FE'ers:

If the sun's light as cast on the earth is a spotlight (ie in a round shape), why are the sunrise and sunset on an equinox in a straight line?

I'll illustrate (assuming an equinox):

This is the sunrise/sunset divider as it exists:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/Solnar/flatmap1.jpg

This is the divider as it should exist if the light cast by the sun were a spotlight:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/Solnar/flatmap2.jpg

Why the disparity?

Good boy this is what I was trying to get outta them in my thread, asking if they believe light travels in a straight line.

If they believe it does, the the sun would illuminate a cirle, not light the entire, unless it was a sphere, which they it is not.

Well, Tom Bishop says that it's a sphere that acts as a spotlight because of relativistic lensing (yay technobabble!) but either way, if the light it casts is in the shape of a spotlight, the day/night divider should look a LOT different.

But then he's confused mate.

The sun's spotlight is more of an oval shape.

See: http://www.2send.us/uploads/64dcc10571.swf

The sun's spotlight is more of an oval shape.

See: http://www.2send.us/uploads/64dcc10571.swf

Fantastic! Then expalin why it's not MUCH hotter during summer in England than when it's summer in Australia.

It would be if the spotlight were an oval shape, you know.

Reeeeeeally.
All right, I'll bite.  What theory do you have as to why a spherical object would output an oval of light?  A circle might be able to be explained by your lensing theory (I still find that a bit dubious, though...), but how could the light be distorted into an oval shape?

Fantastic! Then expalin why it's not MUCH hotter during summer in England than when it's summer in Australia.

The SWF I linked shows about how the spot would look like during this time of the year. During the summer in the states the oval would move up a bit, so that the wide area is more over the northern "hemisphere."

Remember, when it's winter in the northern hemisphere it's summer in the southern hemisphere. When it's summer in the northern hemisphere it's winter in the southern hemisphere.

Quote

Fantastic! Then expalin why it's not MUCH hotter during summer in England than when it's summer in Australia.

The SWF I linked shows about how the spot would look like during this time of the year. During the summer in the states the oval would move up a bit, so that the wide area is more over the northern "hemisphere."

Remember, when it's winter in the northern hemisphere it's summer in the southern hemisphere. When it's summer in the northern hemisphere it's winter in the southern hemisphere.

I thought we were talking about equinoxes...  i.e. 12 hours of daylight, 12 hours of darkness, as in the topic's title.

I thought we were talking about equinoxes...  i.e. 12 hours of daylight, 12 hours of darkness, as in the topic's title.

I live in California and I don't get 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night.

Daylight started at 7:10am today and ended at 5:40pm. That's only about 10 and a half hours of daylight.

Quote

I thought we were talking about equinoxes...  i.e. 12 hours of daylight, 12 hours of darkness, as in the topic's title.

I live in California and I don't get 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night.

Daylight started at 7:10am today and ended at 5:40pm. That's only about 10 and a half hours of daylight.

Yes.  That's because we're not at an equinox.
The next equinox is five weeks away.

Edit:
And you still haven't answered my question about how the light from the sun is getting distorted into an oval.

Quote

Fantastic! Then expalin why it's not MUCH hotter during summer in England than when it's summer in Australia.

The SWF I linked shows about how the spot would look like during this time of the year. During the summer in the states the oval would move up a bit, so that the wide area is more over the northern "hemisphere."

Remember, when it's winter in the northern hemisphere it's summer in the southern hemisphere. When it's summer in the northern hemisphere it's winter in the southern hemisphere.

That doesn't explain anything. Perhaps you didn't understand the point. The sun travels at a SET SPEED. According to the FE hypothesis, the Southern hemisphere has a FAR larger area, as such it would need a substantially greater exposure time to achieve the same temperature.

I'd like to see a reply to this.  As far as I can see, there are three issues that need resolving:

1) If the sun is round and the earth is flat, and the sun casts a round "spotlight" on the earth, why does everyone in the world get 12 hours of daylight at an equinox?  Shouldn't those at the equator get a lot more than that?  Shouldn't those in, say, Canada, get a lot less?

2)  If the time zones' divisions are relatively flat because the sun's light is cast in an oval shape, how is this oval distortion accomplished?  If not, why are the time zones' divisions relatively flat?

3) If the sun's light is cast in a round/oval shape, why isn't the southern hemisphere much colder in their summer than the northern hemisphere is in theirs (same amount of light for same amount of time over a larger surface)?

I'd like to see a reply to this.  As far as I can see, there are three issues that need resolving:

1) If the sun is round and the earth is flat, and the sun casts a round "spotlight" on the earth, why does everyone in the world get 12 hours of daylight at an equinox?  Shouldn't those at the equator get a lot more than that?  Shouldn't those in, say, Canada, get a lot less?

2)  If the time zones' divisions are relatively flat because the sun's light is cast in an oval shape, how is this oval distortion accomplished?  If not, why are the time zones' divisions relatively flat?

3) If the sun's light is cast in a round/oval shape, why isn't the southern hemisphere much colder in their summer than the northern hemisphere is in theirs (same amount of light for same amount of time over a larger surface)?

Oh Tommy Boy,please explain.

H/o,what am i talking about. Can someone that's inteligent in this matter and won't change answers every 5 min (or edit posts 3 times) answer these?

I myself am curious. If noone answers these questions before i go to sleep in a couple hours I'll just assume nobody knows the answers and that a fe can not exist because of the time zone problem

I myself am curious. If noone answers these questions before i go to sleep in a couple hours I'll just assume nobody knows the answers and that a fe can not exist because of the time zone problem

Yeah that seems like a good way to re-assure yourself of RE  :roll:

That doesn't explain anything. Perhaps you didn't understand the point. The sun travels at a SET SPEED.

The earth in the SWF animation I posted is also traveling at a set speed. One hour per frame.

According to the FE hypothesis, the Southern hemisphere has a FAR larger area, as such it would need a substantially greater exposure time to achieve the same temperature.

Why would the Southern Hemidisk have the same temperature of the Northern Hemidisk on any given day? They're in different seasons, you know. Days are longer in the summer.

If the sun's light is cast in a round/oval shape, why isn't the southern hemisphere much colder in their summer than the northern hemisphere is in theirs

The Southern Hemidisk would be just as hot in its summer as the Northern Hemidisk is in theirs. What makes you think it wouldn't be? The oval moves upwards for the Northern Hemidisk's summer.

how is this oval distortion accomplished?

Imagine a flashlight shining down upon a round dinner table at an altitude of one foot. Angle the flashlight just a tad and you have an oval spotlight instead of a round one.

Quote

I thought we were talking about equinoxes...  i.e. 12 hours of daylight, 12 hours of darkness, as in the topic's title.

I live in California and I don't get 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night.

Daylight started at 7:10am today and ended at 5:40pm. That's only about 10 and a half hours of daylight.

From the FAQ
"The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions."

Thank you Tom you just proved that the earth is a sphere!
according to the FAQ, the earth and the moon have the same specs and they CIRCLE earth at the equator and since we have a 24 hour day that means they would split the time evenly and you would HAVE to have 12 hours of daylight

according to the FAQ, the earth and the moon have the same specs and they CIRCLE earth at the equator and since we have a 24 hour day that means they would split the time evenly and you would HAVE to have 12 hours of daylight

That made absolutely no sense.

I recommend you take a refresher course in Geometry at your local Community College.

a) Tom's model is not always reflective of the FAQ model.

b) Despite this, the effects of daytime/night time would be replicated with the FAQ model.

Wows Tom,that  explination made some sense....but to me The Government 's expliantion sounds like a better one.

And he used your explination....so I guess in fact you made the good expliantion of things.