Here's a question:  Why can a human look directly into the rising/setting sun, (and even the morning/evening sun) but not look directly into the midday sun?  Why does the sun's light/heat diminish in brightness when it rises/sets?  This makes no sense on a global/helio model.  Because the sun is so far away, its brightness and heat intensity should be constant as either it revolves around earth (geocentrism) or the earth revolves around it (heliocentrism).  There's nothing in either of these models that explains why the sun's intensity changes.

For FE however, the sun is not some huge ball of fire which is millions of light years away, but a smaller light source, which gives off light and heat in the same way as a flashlight, style lamp does.  One can see the brightness of a flashlight from the side, but the light is not focused towards you, therefore the brightness of the light is less intense to the eyes.  However, when the flashlight is shown directly towards you, it is impossible to look directly into it.

From a heat perspective, the analogy is that of standing directly in front of a fireplace fire vs standing to the side of it.  The heat given off by the fireplace is constant, but it's focused towards the front opening.  You can still experience the heat from the side, but it's not as intense. 

The same thing happens with the FE sun.  It rotates above the flat-land, and moves in a circular pattern above the earth.  And as it moves away from a continent, and towards another continent, it also directs its light/brightness towards the 2nd continent and away from the 1st.  Thus, from the perspective of the 1st continent, the sun seems to "set" (i.e. disappear over the horizon, like a boat that sails off too far into the ocean) and one can easily look at the sun because it's powers are directed in the opposite direction of the 1st continent.

But on a global geo or helio model, from the moment the sun rises til the moment the sun sets, the heat and light given off from it should be constant, since the sun's powers do not depend on the earth and are constant.  The only thing that changes in these models is the degree/angle of the earth's view of the sun.  

Much like a hot dog which rotates on a grilling machine or like a person who rotates a marshmello over an open fire, as soon as the hot dog or mashmello is rotated, it immediately is heated with full intensity.  This is how the earth should be heated/lit from the sun as either it/or the earth rotates.  Neither Helio/Geo account for the changes in light/heat from the sun.

Here's a question:  Why can a human look directly into the rising/setting sun, (and even the morning/evening sun) but not look directly into the midday sun?  Why does the sun's light/heat diminish in brightness when it rises/sets?  This makes no sense on a global/helio model.  Because the sun is so far away, its brightness and heat intensity should be constant as either it revolves around earth (geocentrism) or the earth revolves around it (heliocentrism).  There's nothing in either of these models that explains why the sun's intensity changes.

Maybe because above our heads the sun has less atmosphere to go through so we have more exposure to the sun.  On setting and rising it is coming at us from across the terrain.

For FE however, the sun is not some huge ball of fire which is millions of light years away, but a smaller light source, which gives off light and heat in the same way as a flashlight, style lamp does.  One can see the brightness of a flashlight from the side, but the light is not focused towards you, therefore the brightness of the light is less intense to the eyes.  However, when the flashlight is shown directly towards you, it is impossible to look directly into it.

I am really not good at explaining the things I see in my head.  I am not technical enough to draw a picture and post it here on the forum.  So please bear with me.

For your example I see a flashlight shining at a flat earth and then the flash light moving around.  For my example I see a stationary sun (flashlight) shining on the earth (ball), the ball is turning.  Both pictures actually gives the same result of the object being hotter in the center and cooler on the edges.

From a heat perspective, the analogy is that of standing directly in front of a fireplace fire vs standing to the side of it.  The heat given off by the fireplace is constant, but it's focused towards the front opening.  You can still experience the heat from the side, but it's not as intense. 

The same thing happens with the FE sun.  It rotates above the flat-land, and moves in a circular pattern above the earth.  And as it moves away from a continent, and towards another continent, it also directs its light/brightness towards the 2nd continent and away from the 1st.  Thus, from the perspective of the 1st continent, the sun seems to "set" (i.e. disappear over the horizon, like a boat that sails off too far into the ocean) and one can easily look at the sun because it's powers are directed in the opposite direction of the 1st continent.

But on a global geo or helio model, from the moment the sun rises til the moment the sun sets, the heat and light given off from it should be constant, since the sun's powers do not depend on the earth and are constant.  The only thing that changes in these models is the degree/angle of the earth's view of the sun. 

Much like a hot dog which rotates on a grilling machine or like a person who rotates a marshmello over an open fire, as soon as the hot dog or mashmello is rotated, it immediately is heated with full intensity.  This is how the earth should be heated/lit from the sun as either it/or the earth rotates.  Neither Helio/Geo account for the changes in light/heat from the sun.

Even with a marshmallow or hot dog, I think the edges of the item cook more slowly than the part of the object that is right over the heat source.

I am really trying to think through this logically.  And the math part of all of this is why I have a hard time.

I'm not sure, but I don't think it's a straight geometry question.  In addition to its dependency on the magnitude of the light emitted, there are factors such as the atmosphere, possible obstructions from geography (e.g. mountains), etc. Also, in the hypothetical/working FE model, I believe most hold that the sun is approximately 32 miles in diameter, so it would obviously shrink the farther it got away from you, and the intensity of its light would diminish, not to mention that it would begin converging with the horizon, which also would obstruct the light.  If you had a hypothetical perfectly flat plane, with no atmosphere whatsoever, I believe that one would be able to see the sun from one end of the earth to the other with the right optics/magnification, since I'm not sure how big an object would appear from, say, 10,000 miles away if it's 32 miles in diameter.  That's one of the problems I have with the allegation that many stars that we can see at night are actually billions of light years away.  That is such a staggering distance that there's no way the light would still be visible (we'd probably get maybe a couple photons of light across the entire surface of the earth) ... and the odds that there's nothing in between us and the star would be astronomically small, pun intended.

So the math is the same for a 32 diameter sun, 3000 miles from the earth and a NASA said 864000 diameter sun 93000000 miles from the earth.  How it looks to us would be the same mathematically.

Lets try the converging point of land and sun as it moves away from you.  Assuming that the sun is parallel to the flat earth at 3000 miles away. It would look to us that the sun cam down 1500 miles and the land when up 1500 miles. If you start with a 90 45 45 triangle then the distance of the earth meeting the sun would be 1500 miles.  So this implies that at sunset I will see the sun 1500 miles away.  Wouldn't this then mean that I should be able to stand on the top of a mountain with no obstructions in the way and see land for 1500 miles.  I might not be able to make out details, but I should see a light that far away.

The 90 45 45 triangle doesn't really give you an accurate geometric perspective.  A better example would be using a 90 85 5 triangle.  Which would calculate to 17000 miles.  The distance from Maryland to England to Japan back to Maryland is about 20000 miles.

I really don't know what to think about the stars, but I am not sure they are relevant to the geometry of the sun and the earth and how far it should be seen.

I know what I wrote might be confusing.  I am just trying to use my simple understanding of geometry and try to apply them to the Flat Earth concept.  When I don't understand things I try to go back to simpler things and see if that makes sense.  

None of the videos I have seen on here talk about the math.  If you can give me one to view, I will.

So I am not an expert on optical allusions.  Those get a lot more complicated.

Pick one, so we can discuss it.  I know there are many out there.  Please don't be upset with me, but you know exactly what experiments convinced you that the earth is flat.  I am new here and a mother, so if I don't respond right away, I will when I can.

There are hundreds of observations and experiments that show objects that should not be visible given the sheer math/geometry involved.

What I infer to be your answer here is that they are all optical illusions of some kind.  I find that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate which such illusion is responsible for the phenomena.  I'll help you out here.  Most globers use throw the word "refraction" out there.  Indeed, if it were the question of a single such observation, I might give "refraction" some thought, but the fact that there are hundreds and thousands of observations, most of them repeatable, with properties inconsistent with refraction, and the fact that two-way laser experiments rule it out completely ... refraction is absolutely unconvincing as an explanation for the observed phenomena.

Hi Gray,
FE is being heavily censored, so I had to use Firefox to go to Yandex to find this for you. Hope it helps.

https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/sun-moon-yin-yang/

The distance of the sun can be measured with much precision, the same way as a tree or a house, or church steeple is measured, by plane triangulation. It is the principle on which a house is built, a table made or a man-of-war constructed … The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeeze itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only? But look at the distance, say the professors! We have already done that and not one of the wise men we have so often challenged, has ever attempted to refute the principle on which we measure the sun’s distance … If the navigator neglects to apply the sun’s semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun’s diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. Let him disprove this who can. If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (114-120)
Measuring with sextants and calculating with plane trigonometry both the Sun and Moon figure to be only about 32 miles in diameter and approximately 3,000 miles away.

“The results of recent research prove that the heavenly luminaries are not Worlds, but lights, and should cause all men who have been led to accept as proven Copernicus’ theory of the motions of the Earth, to reconsider this subject.” -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (3)

Please do not infer anything from what I write.

I had no choice because you didn't actually say anything, just threw out there this vague notion of optical "allusions" [sic].

Burden of proof is on you.  If the math does not work for things that can be seen too far, you propose the explanation.  We have the phenomena, which if take at face values suggests that the earth is flat rather than a globe.  Consequently, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate and propose some condition that could explain this, not on us.  This is highly dishonest where you're demanding that I produce an explanation for why the earth is still a globe despite the evidence of flatness, when I don't believe it to be the case.

So if you don't want ME to infer anything, then YOU propose an explanation for why things can be seen "too far".

This was an obvious dodge to refuse to answer the question, but somehow placing the onus on me to answer it.

So please answer the question, or stop posting about this subject.  I asked you this question before, and you responded by saying, basically, "you tell me".

I had no choice because you didn't actually say anything, just threw out there this vague notion of optical "allusions" [sic].

Burden of proof is on you.  If the math does not work for things that can be seen too far, you propose the explanation.  We have the phenomena, which if take at face values suggests that the earth is flat rather than a globe.  Consequently, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate and propose some condition that could explain this, not on us.  This is highly dishonest where you're demanding that I produce an explanation for why the earth is still a globe despite the evidence of flatness, when I don't believe it to be the case.

So if you don't want ME to infer anything, then YOU propose an explanation for why things can be seen "too far".

This was an obvious dodge to refuse to answer the question, but somehow placing the onus on me to answer it.

So please answer the question, or stop posting about this subject.  I asked you this question before, and you responded by saying, basically, "you tell me".

I don't work well with hypotheticals.  Please see my answer to your question.