Flat Earth

[Shawn Henry]

On a flat earth, people should be able to see the same stars in the sky whereever they are located.

Not true. Light does not travel that far through a medium. Put a flashlight in a lake under water and try viewing the light under water 300 ft away. There is a large moisture content over large distances of air. That's what gives the appearance of a setting sun. We simply lose visual acuity, because as the sun gets farther away our angle of view decreases are we start getting our view blocked by larger particles in the air that are heavier and lower to the ground.

In our dry season, the humidity level gets quite low where I live. Down in the ten percent to twenty percent range. The sun still sets and at the same size as when the sun is at the noontime position. Same can be said for the moon.

You still haven't answered the question about how people south of the equator cannot see the North Star at all, nor people north of about Tampa and Corpus Christi cannot see Alpha Centauri or the Southern Cross. The stars are in different positions in the sky and they move.

There's also the question of procession that has been proven with the Egyptians who had a different North Star, and when Sirius rose for them it marked the start of the rainy season for them whereas now, it rises one month after the rainy season starts.

The earth being a globe was settled with the Greeks. The Book of Mormon settled the question that the Earth moves around the Sun and not the Sun surrounding the Earth.

I did answer that question. It's in this quote chain, it's my first response to you about light traveling through a medium. The movement of the stars above is actually entirely independent of the shape of the earth, no matter what the shape, the stars move in their pattern. Basically, we all see the set of stars that are directly above us and that changes depending on our location.

[Subcomandante]

On a flat earth, people should be able to see the same stars in the sky whereever they are located.

Not true. Light does not travel that far through a medium. Put a flashlight in a lake under water and try viewing the light under water 300 ft away. There is a large moisture content over large distances of air. That's what gives the appearance of a setting sun. We simply lose visual acuity, because as the sun gets farther away our angle of view decreases are we start getting our view blocked by larger particles in the air that are heavier and lower to the ground.

In our dry season, the humidity level gets quite low where I live. Down in the ten percent to twenty percent range. The sun still sets and at the same size as when the sun is at the noontime position. Same can be said for the moon.

You still haven't answered the question about how people south of the equator cannot see the North Star at all, nor people north of about Tampa and Corpus Christi cannot see Alpha Centauri or the Southern Cross. The stars are in different positions in the sky and they move.

There's also the question of procession that has been proven with the Egyptians who had a different North Star, and when Sirius rose for them it marked the start of the rainy season for them whereas now, it rises one month after the rainy season starts.

The earth being a globe was settled with the Greeks. The Book of Mormon settled the question that the Earth moves around the Sun and not the Sun surrounding the Earth.

I did answer that question. It's in this quote chain, it's my first response to you about light traveling through a medium. The movement of the stars above is actually entirely independent of the shape of the earth, no matter what the shape, the stars move in their pattern. Basically, we all see the set of stars that are directly above us and that changes depending on our location.

On a flat plane you should be able to see the same stars no matter where you are located. That simply is not the case even for smaller distances of say, Salt Lake City to Phoenix.

[Niemand]

Not true. Light does not travel that far through a medium. Put a flashlight in a lake under water and try viewing the light under water 300 ft away. There is a large moisture content over large distances of air. That's what gives the appearance of a setting sun. We simply lose visual acuity, because as the sun gets farther away our angle of view decreases are we start getting our view blocked by larger particles in the air that are heavier and lower to the ground.

In our dry season, the humidity level gets quite low where I live. Down in the ten percent to twenty percent range. The sun still sets and at the same size as when the sun is at the noontime position. Same can be said for the moon.

You still haven't answered the question about how people south of the equator cannot see the North Star at all, nor people north of about Tampa and Corpus Christi cannot see Alpha Centauri or the Southern Cross. The stars are in different positions in the sky and they move.

There's also the question of procession that has been proven with the Egyptians who had a different North Star, and when Sirius rose for them it marked the start of the rainy season for them whereas now, it rises one month after the rainy season starts.

The earth being a globe was settled with the Greeks. The Book of Mormon settled the question that the Earth moves around the Sun and not the Sun surrounding the Earth.

I did answer that question. It's in this quote chain, it's my first response to you about light traveling through a medium. The movement of the stars above is actually entirely independent of the shape of the earth, no matter what the shape, the stars move in their pattern. Basically, we all see the set of stars that are directly above us and that changes depending on our location.

On a flat plane you should be able to see the same stars no matter where you are located. That simply is not the case even for smaller distances of say, Salt Lake City to Phoenix.

On a north-south axis yes, but the stars do not change from east to west. I see many of the same stars you do, even though you are thousands of miles west from me (and quite a bit south). People in British Columbia, Japan, Siberia and Scandinavia will all see the same stars, but if you head down to NZ, South Africa and Argentina you'll see many very different ones such as the Southern Cross.

[Subcomandante]

In our dry season, the humidity level gets quite low where I live. Down in the ten percent to twenty percent range. The sun still sets and at the same size as when the sun is at the noontime position. Same can be said for the moon.

You still haven't answered the question about how people south of the equator cannot see the North Star at all, nor people north of about Tampa and Corpus Christi cannot see Alpha Centauri or the Southern Cross. The stars are in different positions in the sky and they move.

There's also the question of procession that has been proven with the Egyptians who had a different North Star, and when Sirius rose for them it marked the start of the rainy season for them whereas now, it rises one month after the rainy season starts.

The earth being a globe was settled with the Greeks. The Book of Mormon settled the question that the Earth moves around the Sun and not the Sun surrounding the Earth.

I did answer that question. It's in this quote chain, it's my first response to you about light traveling through a medium. The movement of the stars above is actually entirely independent of the shape of the earth, no matter what the shape, the stars move in their pattern. Basically, we all see the set of stars that are directly above us and that changes depending on our location.

On a flat plane you should be able to see the same stars no matter where you are located. That simply is not the case even for smaller distances of say, Salt Lake City to Phoenix.

On a north-south axis yes, but the stars do not change from east to west. I see many of the same stars you do, even though you are thousands of miles west from me (and quite a bit south). People in British Columbia, Japan, Siberia and Scandinavia will all see the same stars, but if you head down to NZ, South Africa and Argentina you'll see many very different ones such as the Southern Cross.

I'm far enough south where I can see the Southern Cross and Alpha Centauri, though they hang rather low in the sky, no more than ten degrees above the horizon. The North Star also hangs pretty low, about 19 degrees from the horizon. If I lived up in Mexicali at 32.5 degrees north, I would not be able to see the Southern Cross or Alpha Centauri.

My Portuguese teacher that lives down in Salvador BR, is unable to see the North Star.

[gkearney]

I have lived in Australia and can tell you from personal experience that you can not see the north star from the southern hemisphere. Also, many of the constellations the northern hemisphere viewers are a custom true are not in the southern sky.

[h_p]

I did answer that question. It's in this quote chain, it's my first response to you about light traveling through a medium. The movement of the stars above is actually entirely independent of the shape of the earth, no matter what the shape, the stars move in their pattern. Basically, we all see the set of stars that are directly above us and that changes depending on our location.

Are the stars, sun, and moon all on the dome? Or do they fly around inside it?

[Shawn Henry]

I did answer that question. It's in this quote chain, it's my first response to you about light traveling through a medium. The movement of the stars above is actually entirely independent of the shape of the earth, no matter what the shape, the stars move in their pattern. Basically, we all see the set of stars that are directly above us and that changes depending on our location.

Are the stars, sun, and moon all on the dome? Or do they fly around inside it?

I try not to use the word dome, simply because the Bible doesn't, but I suppose it fits. What the 3 creations tell us is that the waters of the earth are above the sun, moon, and stars. There is an assumption that the above waters are still connected to the below waters on the sides, but the that's not in the text, despite being a good assumption. So, when you look up, you see the heavens and the sun and stars and then beyond them you see the earths waters. How the waters stay up there is a mystery.

How they rotate or if they interact with the waters or reflect off them, we can only speculate.

[Niemand]

I have lived in Australia and can tell you from personal experience that you can not see the north star from the southern hemisphere. Also, many of the constellations the northern hemisphere viewers are a custom true are not in the southern sky.

There are certain ones that can be seen on both sides of the equator.

The other weird thing is that where I live (at a high latitude), the Sun tends to be very much in the south, especially in winter. Just now the Sun hangs quite low in the southern sky during much of the day which is annoying if you're driving. (In high summer it rises more to the north east and sets more to the north west rather than pure east and west like the equator)

"Down Under", the Sun is in the northern section of the sky during the day. I never particularly paid any attention to this when I was there, because it didn't feel unnatural.

I don't find Flat Earth theory explains any of this very well. The Sun is always shining on some portion of the Earth's surface. In extreme latitudes it doesn't stop shining for days on end.

[FrankOne]

In our dry season, the humidity level gets quite low where I live. Down in the ten percent to twenty percent range. The sun still sets and at the same size as when the sun is at the noontime position. Same can be said for the moon.

You still haven't answered the question about how people south of the equator cannot see the North Star at all, nor people north of about Tampa and Corpus Christi cannot see Alpha Centauri or the Southern Cross. The stars are in different positions in the sky and they move.

There's also the question of procession that has been proven with the Egyptians who had a different North Star, and when Sirius rose for them it marked the start of the rainy season for them whereas now, it rises one month after the rainy season starts.

The earth being a globe was settled with the Greeks. The Book of Mormon settled the question that the Earth moves around the Sun and not the Sun surrounding the Earth.

I did answer that question. It's in this quote chain, it's my first response to you about light traveling through a medium. The movement of the stars above is actually entirely independent of the shape of the earth, no matter what the shape, the stars move in their pattern. Basically, we all see the set of stars that are directly above us and that changes depending on our location.

On a flat plane you should be able to see the same stars no matter where you are located. That simply is not the case even for smaller distances of say, Salt Lake City to Phoenix.

On a north-south axis yes, but the stars do not change from east to west. I see many of the same stars you do, even though you are thousands of miles west from me (and quite a bit south). People in British Columbia, Japan, Siberia and Scandinavia will all see the same stars, but if you head down to NZ, South Africa and Argentina you'll see many very different ones such as the Southern Cross.

maybe the earth is flat , but has a bend in it down the E-> W meridian. Maybe it should be called the bent plate theory. I'm sure that there is an explanation for this found in studying the official Flat Earth Model. *sarc

[Allison]

I am a scientist that worked for a few years with government agencies (mostly military) on deep space projects. I was involved in certain classified laser projects that involved items placed on the moon during maned lunar landings as well as other laser projects that were conducted during maned voyages going to and from the moon.

I believe in agency and the right for someone to believe whatever they will. I choose to believe that we have the capability to land on the moon and that it was done. I also believe space exploration to be a viable science and that Hubble and Webb projects are providing a wealth of valid and true information. And that from our efforts we will learn a lot more about our universe (including Dark Matter and Dark Energy) and perhaps even about G-d our creator than was ever known previously by any intelligence living on our planet earth.

Are you referring to the alleged device that was allegedly put on the surface of the moon in order to bounce a laser back to earth? Because it's been pointed out that you can bounce a laser off the surface of the moon without any such device.

But I do think we need to separate the question of flat earth from the question of whether we went to the moon. They might be connected in that a flat earth obviously precludes space travel, but being skeptical of the flat earth claim does not automatically mean acceptance of the claim we went to the moon.

Plus I notice no one yet answered my question above --

Do we have a coherent model for a universe involving a flat earth that can be compared with the model for a globe earth?

Do you now understand that there is no one “Flat Earth Theory,” no “Flat Earth Model?” Haven’t we been saying that? Recognizing an obvious lack of curvature is not a declaration of having all other answers, nor should it be required, in order to observe the fallacy of a Spinning and Cavorting Ball Model.

[Shawn Henry]

Do you now understand that there is no one “Flat Earth Theory,” no “Flat Earth Model?” Haven’t we been saying that? Recognizing an obvious lack of curvature is not a declaration of having all other answers, nor should it be required, in order to observe the fallacy of a Spinning and Cavorting Ball Model.

Haven't they all said to us for 5 or 6 years now that we can't say anything against their model unless we have a model to replace it with. What a logical fallacy and a bunch of nonsense. Testing what has been put forth is the essence of science. What does pointing out holes in a model have to do with a replacement model, nothing. It's like desiging an artificial heart that kills people, but insisting you have to keep using it until a better one is invented.

[Allison]

I have lived in Australia and can tell you from personal experience that you can not see the north star from the southern hemisphere. Also, many of the constellations the northern hemisphere viewers are a custom true are not in the southern sky.

There are certain ones that can be seen on both sides of the equator.

The other weird thing is that where I live (at a high latitude), the Sun tends to be very much in the south, especially in winter. Just now the Sun hangs quite low in the southern sky during much of the day which is annoying if you're driving. (In high summer it rises more to the north east and sets more to the north west rather than pure east and west like the equator)

"Down Under", the Sun is in the northern section of the sky during the day. I never particularly paid any attention to this when I was there, because it didn't feel unnatural.

I don't find Flat Earth theory explains any of this very well. The Sun is always shining on some portion of the Earth's surface. In extreme latitudes it doesn't stop shining for days on end.

What flat earth theory, exactly?

Isn’t it remarkable though, that in any given location, the position of stars has been predictable for millennia, in spite of the claim that the spinning earth ball supposedly chases the spiraling sun while circling around it, all at astronomical speeds and distances? Oh, and the moon ball also stays in hot pursuit of the earth, while only showing us the same side. Everything is in commotion, they say, while nothing changes.

[Niemand]

I have lived in Australia and can tell you from personal experience that you can not see the north star from the southern hemisphere. Also, many of the constellations the northern hemisphere viewers are a custom true are not in the southern sky.

There are certain ones that can be seen on both sides of the equator.

The other weird thing is that where I live (at a high latitude), the Sun tends to be very much in the south, especially in winter. Just now the Sun hangs quite low in the southern sky during much of the day which is annoying if you're driving. (In high summer it rises more to the north east and sets more to the north west rather than pure east and west like the equator)

"Down Under", the Sun is in the northern section of the sky during the day. I never particularly paid any attention to this when I was there, because it didn't feel unnatural.

I don't find Flat Earth theory explains any of this very well. The Sun is always shining on some portion of the Earth's surface. In extreme latitudes it doesn't stop shining for days on end.

What flat earth theory, exactly?

Isn’t it remarkable though, that in any given location, the position of stars has been predictable for millennia, in spite of the claim that the spinning earth ball supposedly chases the spiraling sun while circling around it, all at astronomical speeds and distances? Oh, and the moon ball also stays in hot pursuit of the earth, while only showing us the same side. Everything is in commotion, they say, while nothing changes.

60% of the Moon's surface is visible due to libration, so there is an extra 10% which can be seen beyond the expected 50%. It is not uncommon for objects in the solar system to be tidally locked.

The position of stars changes regularly. At high latitudes such as where I live, the constellations move appreciably with the seasons, as do the Sun and the Moon. The planets move all the time (hence the etymology of their name which means wandering star). There are also slower shifts in general star patterns that we can discern from archaeo-astronomy etc.

all at astronomical speeds and distances?

It's a given that in astronomy things would be "astronomical".

[Allison]

I have lived in Australia and can tell you from personal experience that you can not see the north star from the southern hemisphere. Also, many of the constellations the northern hemisphere viewers are a custom true are not in the southern sky.

There are certain ones that can be seen on both sides of the equator.

The other weird thing is that where I live (at a high latitude), the Sun tends to be very much in the south, especially in winter. Just now the Sun hangs quite low in the southern sky during much of the day which is annoying if you're driving. (In high summer it rises more to the north east and sets more to the north west rather than pure east and west like the equator)

"Down Under", the Sun is in the northern section of the sky during the day. I never particularly paid any attention to this when I was there, because it didn't feel unnatural.

I don't find Flat Earth theory explains any of this very well. The Sun is always shining on some portion of the Earth's surface. In extreme latitudes it doesn't stop shining for days on end.

What flat earth theory, exactly?

Isn’t it remarkable though, that in any given location, the position of stars has been predictable for millennia, in spite of the claim that the spinning earth ball supposedly chases the spiraling sun while circling around it, all at astronomical speeds and distances? Oh, and the moon ball also stays in hot pursuit of the earth, while only showing us the same side. Everything is in commotion, they say, while nothing changes.

60% of the Moon's surface is visible due to libration, so there is an extra 10% which can be seen beyond the expected 50%. It is not uncommon for objects in the solar system to be tidally locked.

The position of stars changes regularly. At high latitudes such as where I live, the constellations move appreciably with the seasons, as do the Sun and the Moon. The planets move all the time (hence the etymology of their name which means wandering star). There are also slower shifts in general star patterns that we can discern from archaeo-astronomy etc.

all at astronomical speeds and distances?

It's a given that in astronomy things would be "astronomical".

What I am saying is that their movements and positions are and always have been predictable.

[FrankOne]

I am a scientist that worked for a few years with government agencies (mostly military) on deep space projects. I was involved in certain classified laser projects that involved items placed on the moon during maned lunar landings as well as other laser projects that were conducted during maned voyages going to and from the moon.

I believe in agency and the right for someone to believe whatever they will. I choose to believe that we have the capability to land on the moon and that it was done. I also believe space exploration to be a viable science and that Hubble and Webb projects are providing a wealth of valid and true information. And that from our efforts we will learn a lot more about our universe (including Dark Matter and Dark Energy) and perhaps even about G-d our creator than was ever known previously by any intelligence living on our planet earth.

Are you referring to the alleged device that was allegedly put on the surface of the moon in order to bounce a laser back to earth? Because it's been pointed out that you can bounce a laser off the surface of the moon without any such device.

But I do think we need to separate the question of flat earth from the question of whether we went to the moon. They might be connected in that a flat earth obviously precludes space travel, but being skeptical of the flat earth claim does not automatically mean acceptance of the claim we went to the moon.

Plus I notice no one yet answered my question above --

Do we have a coherent model for a universe involving a flat earth that can be compared with the model for a globe earth?

Do you now understand that there is no one “Flat Earth Theory,” no “Flat Earth Model?” Haven’t we been saying that? Recognizing an obvious lack of curvature is not a declaration of having all other answers, nor should it be required, in order to observe the fallacy of a Spinning and Cavorting Ball Model.

thanks for the clarification.

so, it's a theory that has many obvious conflicts which appear to disprove it but we should disregard those conflicts and accept this theory that is actually quite broken, fragmented and incoherent. There isn't a full working model because there is no way to reconcile all the disparities.

As I have said in off-forum conversations, It would be wise to study out the science of those experiments which seemingly prove the earth is flat and examine them to see if there is another phenomena occurring which gives the appearance of proving this. I don't know if the earth is flat or spherical, and neither do you.

[Allison]

I am a scientist that worked for a few years with government agencies (mostly military) on deep space projects. I was involved in certain classified laser projects that involved items placed on the moon during maned lunar landings as well as other laser projects that were conducted during maned voyages going to and from the moon.

I believe in agency and the right for someone to believe whatever they will. I choose to believe that we have the capability to land on the moon and that it was done. I also believe space exploration to be a viable science and that Hubble and Webb projects are providing a wealth of valid and true information. And that from our efforts we will learn a lot more about our universe (including Dark Matter and Dark Energy) and perhaps even about G-d our creator than was ever known previously by any intelligence living on our planet earth.

Are you referring to the alleged device that was allegedly put on the surface of the moon in order to bounce a laser back to earth? Because it's been pointed out that you can bounce a laser off the surface of the moon without any such device.

But I do think we need to separate the question of flat earth from the question of whether we went to the moon. They might be connected in that a flat earth obviously precludes space travel, but being skeptical of the flat earth claim does not automatically mean acceptance of the claim we went to the moon.

Plus I notice no one yet answered my question above --

Do we have a coherent model for a universe involving a flat earth that can be compared with the model for a globe earth?

Do you now understand that there is no one “Flat Earth Theory,” no “Flat Earth Model?” Haven’t we been saying that? Recognizing an obvious lack of curvature is not a declaration of having all other answers, nor should it be required, in order to observe the fallacy of a Spinning and Cavorting Ball Model.

thanks for the clarification.

so, it's a theory that has many obvious conflicts which appear to disprove it but we should disregard those conflicts and accept this theory that is actually quite broken, fragmented and incoherent. There isn't a full working model because there is no way to reconcile all the disparities.

As I have said in off-forum conversations, It would be wise to study out the science of those experiments which seemingly prove the earth is flat and examine them to see if there is another phenomena occurring which gives the appearance of proving this. I don't know if the earth is flat or spherical, and neither do you.

That’s all your language, not mine. The requisite curve for the ball model is not upheld by the evidence. And we are anxious to learn more about what really IS, but that discussion is not allowed to happen because Ballers can’t handle a challenge to their paradigm.

I think we can agree that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK, without having to know who actually did do it, though we have some leads and there is more to learn.

[Allison]

Here is the much longer discussion, for anyone who might be interested:

viewtopic.php?t=49528

[Niemand]

There are certain ones that can be seen on both sides of the equator.

The other weird thing is that where I live (at a high latitude), the Sun tends to be very much in the south, especially in winter. Just now the Sun hangs quite low in the southern sky during much of the day which is annoying if you're driving. (In high summer it rises more to the north east and sets more to the north west rather than pure east and west like the equator)

"Down Under", the Sun is in the northern section of the sky during the day. I never particularly paid any attention to this when I was there, because it didn't feel unnatural.

I don't find Flat Earth theory explains any of this very well. The Sun is always shining on some portion of the Earth's surface. In extreme latitudes it doesn't stop shining for days on end.

What flat earth theory, exactly?

Isn’t it remarkable though, that in any given location, the position of stars has been predictable for millennia, in spite of the claim that the spinning earth ball supposedly chases the spiraling sun while circling around it, all at astronomical speeds and distances? Oh, and the moon ball also stays in hot pursuit of the earth, while only showing us the same side. Everything is in commotion, they say, while nothing changes.

60% of the Moon's surface is visible due to libration, so there is an extra 10% which can be seen beyond the expected 50%. It is not uncommon for objects in the solar system to be tidally locked.

The position of stars changes regularly. At high latitudes such as where I live, the constellations move appreciably with the seasons, as do the Sun and the Moon. The planets move all the time (hence the etymology of their name which means wandering star). There are also slower shifts in general star patterns that we can discern from archaeo-astronomy etc.

all at astronomical speeds and distances?

It's a given that in astronomy things would be "astronomical".

What I am saying is that their movements and positions are and always have been predictable.

People four thousand years ago wouldn't be aware of some of the miniscule changes between then and now. Some of them aren't noticeable by casual observers.

Other than the Moon and Sun, most are only predictable with the most intense observation over the period of months, years and decades and cloudless skies. Even with the Sun and Moon it took a very long time to nail down when eclipses would happen and they scared primitive peoples when they took them by surprise.

The third brightest object, Venus was considered to be TWO separate bodies by many ancient observers – the Morning and Evening stars.

[jdt]

ok, Shawn, here's a teaser for you.

Get on a lifeguard tower on the beach on the west coast.
Watch the sun track through the sky.
It approaches the horizon and all of a sudden....it's starting to "disappear". You get out your telescope because it might just be getting smaller? Yet the size doesn't diminish ! The atmosphere isn't obscuring it, it's just vanishing behind something in just a matter of a few minutes. The full size sun is becoming blocked by....something. What is that something? There's something in-the-way.

What is that obstacle on a flat earth? The weird thing is that this occurs wherever the sun is setting. What is blocking the view of the sun? If it's descending below the plane of the flat earth, the entire planet would go dark. ....but....it doesn't. You can hop on a fast plane and chase the setting sun all around the entire world , every day, all day.... What is blocking it from view ...all...the...way...around...the...world?

this subject is a funny one, I hope you see the entertainment.

What is funny is seeing people think these things through for the first time.

I actually answered that a few posts up in my response to Sub. There are heavier air particles near the earth's surface. When we look up at almost all angles, we have can see through the atmosphere easily enough. When an object gets farther away, the angle of view eventually becomes more or less parallel with the horizon and lines up with all the heavier particles that block the view. This is why things disappear bottom first.

It's the same phenomenon as ships disappearing hull first. This isn't because they go over a curve, but rather the bottom of anything is the first part to lose the viewing angle and to be blocked by a denser atmosphere.

It also depends on the moisture content of the air as water is quite efficient at blocking your view. On days with low humidity levels, there have actually been recordings of the sun setting by getting smaller and smaller with the whole sun still in view, meaning the no disappearing bottom first. That footage alone disproves a rotating earth. Imagine seeing the sun turn to a dot.

Interesting claim. I would like to verify your model, in particular "When an object gets farther away, the angle of view eventually becomes more or less parallel with the horizon". Can you give me 2 points of data:
- What is the radius of the flat earth?
- What is the distance of the sun from the earth (closest point)?
This is an open question to any flat earth proponents, I get that there might be several different models out there. I am curious to crunch some numbers on this.

[Shawn Henry]

I don't find Flat Earth theory explains any of this very well.

For all who don't understand how the sun could work on a Flat Earth, here is a short 8 minute primer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM_lH8RJ94A

[Shawn Henry]

. so, it's a theory that has many obvious conflicts which appear to disprove it but we should disregard those conflicts and accept this theory that is actually quite broken, fragmented and incoherent. There isn't a full working model because there is no way to reconcile all the disparities.

I agree, those are all your words and your understanding. It is rather clear to us.

Remember, it's the very holes in current science that have had made us look in this direction.

[Cruiserdude]

I don't find Flat Earth theory explains any of this very well.

For all who don't understand how the sun could work on a Flat Earth, here is a short 8 minute primer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM_lH8RJ94A

I'm simply embedding this for the ease of viewing

[Shawn Henry]

- What is the radius of the flat earth?
- What is the distance of the sun from the earth (closest point)?

I wish I knew. First off, how do you presume a radius when we don't even know the shape. I don't mean shape as in flat. I mean shape as in a flat disk, a flat rectangle, a flat triangle, a flat plane. If none of us has any data about where the edges are or even if there even are any, how would we answer that. The perimeter of Antarctica is locked down militarily, no one explores beyond except the government.

As far as the height of the sun in the sky, other than basic triangulation, I don't know, 50-100 miles is my worthless guess.

[Shawn Henry]

I'm simply embedding this for the ease of viewing

Thanks, I haven't learned that yet.

[FrankOne]

. so, it's a theory that has many obvious conflicts which appear to disprove it but we should disregard those conflicts and accept this theory that is actually quite broken, fragmented and incoherent. There isn't a full working model because there is no way to reconcile all the disparities.

I agree, those are all your words and your understanding. It is rather clear to us.

Remember, it's the very holes in current science that have had made us look in this direction.

we are closer to the same understanding than most would interpret. I'm not presenting any of this to argue. I say what I say to only demonstrate the "unknowingness" of everyone, especially myself.

We all choose to research topics of our interest. I haven't devoted much time to the FET . I choose to spend effort in understanding something that I don't bring up much here because my studies and positions are heretical by any standard.

The simulation that we are in,
who created it, why, ?
what role we played in this choice,
does choice even exist?,
is there a spiritual script that is already written and now we are simply living it out in the physical?
Can there be any will in contrary to He who created will?
What exactly is the Natural Man and how is to be ended and to what result?
Is sin what we have been taught it to be?
Can perfectly created children ever "sin"? (can a perfectly created being be tainted?)
How does perfect forgiveness actually occur?
Is the action of forgiveness what we think it is?
What is the relativity between Karma and God's punishment/reward?
Is there a construct in time that metes out consequence to action or is it God?
Is sin the cause of punishment or is it guilt from sin?
What did Christ actually do? Did Christ change time itself? If so... why and to what result?
Is the veil what we have been taught that it is? What if it isn't? Are there layers or degrees to this "veil"? (think, Inception)
Is the ultimate goal only to "remember?? (that action would end the simulation for that person).

I have no intention of derailing this thread....

I thought I'd post this and see if there is any interest. If so... I'll start a thread on it in the heretic forum.