Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.

Flat Earth Sunsets - Should the Sun Shrink?




Not sure what this is all about?



Paraphrase from the video, “When we see parallel lines side on we don’t see any apparent change in distance?  “

All one has to do is watch the sun rise, arc over the sky, and sink bellow the horizon.  It’s pretty obvious the sun is a set distance above a rotating earth.  It’s not coming in a straight line at a fixed altitude of 3000 miles then passing over head to go away from you.

Besides.  Many models show the sun wouldn’t set on a flat planet of earth’s dimensions.

The bases of the video seems to be the sun gets cut off by the horizon before we can see it change size.  The problem with FE is, the sun would be coming at you after sunrise, it’s changing distance. There is no “cut off” of the sun that would prevent seeing a change in size because on a FE the sun would be constantly changing the distance from the viewer the entire day.


So the video is based on a falsehood.  The video is wrong. 

Timelapse video of sun from some commercial. 

The sun isn’t going away from the viewer.  The sun is a set distance from a rotating earth. 

Vs object coming at camera straight overhead at a constant height.



Notice how the light appears to travel faster and faster as it approaches the camera. 

Yes. I vote YES.

Yes, the flat Earth sun should shrink and grow, were it swinging around over our dinner plate world on an invisible string.

Flash light coming at camera from 100 to 200 yards.

Had to crop the video to make its file size smaller to get it to upload as a gif.

The video is Timelapse with me walking at a good clip from over 100 yards out.




Still don’t get how a light above the flat plane would have that flat plane “magically jump up” in front of the sun to physically block its light and radiation from view/detection on the dimensions of earth? 

Flat Earth Sunsets - Should the Sun Shrink?




Not sure what this is all about?



Paraphrase from the video, “When we see parallel lines side on we don’t see any apparent change in distance?  “

All one has to do is watch the sun rise, arc over the sky, and sink bellow the horizon.  It’s pretty obvious the sun is a set distance above a rotating earth.  It’s not coming in a straight line at a fixed altitude of 3000 miles then passing over head to go away from you.

Besides.  Many models show the sun wouldn’t set on a flat planet of earth’s dimensions.

The bases of the video seems to be the sun gets cut off by the horizon before we can see it change size.  The problem with FE is, the sun would be coming at you after sunrise, it’s changing distance. There is no “cut off” of the sun that would prevent seeing a change in size because on a FE the sun would be constantly changing the distance from the viewer the entire day.


So the video is based on a falsehood.  The video is wrong.

The Sun moves above the flat surface of Earth, which is bound as a circle. The sun moves around in circular patterns going inward and outward from earths centre point throughout each year. 

The Sun is positioned below the dome of the Firmament, so it moves below the arc in circles above Earth.

And it does look smaller with enough distance away from it, like seeing it from a high mountain peak

The Sun would be seen the SAME size if it was millions of miles away from Earth.

And if the Sun was millions of miles away from Earth, it would be the same temperature everywhere on Earth. At such a great distance away, from one point on Earth, it would be the same temperature from sunrise to sunset, in the same conditions throughout the time

And the higher we are above Earth, we’re closer to the Sun

But it is colder when we’re closer to the sun, not hotter

Because sunlight will only heat up the air above Earth, and only the flat surface, or sea level, and slightly higher than that. 

Their claim of the Sun being millions of degrees in temperatures is nonsense. We’d burn up when we’re higher up in air if it was true. But it’s just a bunch of bs, like usual

The Sun is positioned below the dome of the Firmament, so it moves below the arc in circles above Earth.

So stupid.  Why doesn’t the sun illuminate the bottom of your dome? 24/7? Duh…

Anyway.  The sun would have to turn north after setting in California.  No evidence.

The sun and its radiation are physically blocked by the curvature of the earth to create night. 

The sun wouldn’t set on a flat earth because the sun is too far above the earth in the delusion with the dimensions of the earth too small. 

And.  Again.

If the earth was flat. The sun should still come at you with seemingly very little change in speed for a long time, then seem to speed up and to fly by at a high rate of speed.  Greatly changing in apparent size.

Something like this. 




Which is nothing like reality.



Or this




Where on a flat earth the sun always 300 to 3000 miles above the earth couldn’t illuminate a cloud like this from the bottom. (and seriously, flat earther’s can’t scientifically agree on an actual distance to the sun by now?)




Where the sun stays a constant size as it arcs high into the sky from a earth rotating around its axis as it orbits the sun that is that  center of the solar system.

Where the sun changes very little distance from the viewer. 


Sorry.  No indication a sun 32 miles in diameter orbiting above a flat earth in atmosphere at high speed always relatively above the clouds in the middle of the van Allen belts making a constant right turn illuminating the underside of a dome. 

And it does look smaller with enough distance away from it, like seeing it from a high mountain peak

No, it doesn't.
When viewed with an appropriate filter to remove the glare, it is roughly the same size all the time.
Needing to lie about reality to pretend your fantasy is true wont help you.

And if the Sun was millions of miles away from Earth, it would be the same temperature everywhere on Earth. At such a great distance away, from one point on Earth, it would be the same temperature from sunrise to sunset, in the same conditions throughout the time

Why?
Because you say so?

The Earth is not the same angle throughout, so the incoming sunlight will be spread out over a larger area depending upon the angle.

And the higher we are above Earth, we’re closer to the Sun

Which already shows why your claim is pure BS as getting higher typically results in it getting colder.

This shows distance is not the dominant factor.

Their claim of the Sun being millions of degrees in temperatures is nonsense. We’d burn up when we’re higher up in air if it was true.

Why? Because you say so?
You go through the process of making it clear that distance shouldn't matter due to how far away it is, and then show distance is the most significant factor when moving around Earth, only to now switch back to claiming distance should be incredibly important.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

But it’s just a bunch of bs, like usual

Then stop spouting bunches of BS.
Start trying to make a rational argument.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 10:43:29 PM

And it does look smaller with enough distance away from it, like seeing it from a high mountain peak

No, it doesn't.
When viewed with an appropriate filter to remove the glare, it is roughly the same size all the time.
Needing to lie about reality to pretend your fantasy is true wont help you.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 11:20:50 PM

And if the Sun was millions of miles away from Earth, it would be the same temperature everywhere on Earth. At such a great distance away, from one point on Earth, it would be the same temperature from sunrise to sunset, in the same conditions throughout the time

Why?
Because you say so?

The Earth is not the same angle throughout, so the incoming sunlight will be spread out over a larger area depending upon the angle.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 11:20:50 PM

And the higher we are above Earth, we’re closer to the Sun

Which already shows why your claim is pure BS as getting higher typically results in it getting colder.

This shows distance is not the dominant factor.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 11:20:50 PM

Their claim of the Sun being millions of degrees in temperatures is nonsense. We’d burn up when we’re higher up in air if it was true.

Why? Because you say so?
You go through the process of making it clear that distance shouldn't matter due to how far away it is, and then show distance is the most significant factor when moving around Earth, only to now switch back to claiming distance should be incredibly important.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 11:20:50 PM

But it’s just a bunch of bs, like usual

Then stop spouting bunches of BS.
Start trying to make a rational argument.

Not the same size at all, even with filters.

Same as the moon is seen smaller with distance, and no glare you can use as an excuse either

Same as the moon is seen smaller with distance, and no glare you can use as an excuse either

How is the actual orb, not the glare, of the sun changing size?



Glare..



Vs orb



Anyway.

Same as the moon is seen smaller with distance,

No.

When the moon rises and watching it through my telescope, it takes up the same space in the eyepiece I selected for that night without changing zoom throughout the night. The moon doesn’t grow larger in the eyepiece until it’s highest point in the sky, and doesn’t then grow smaller again. If I use the same eyepiece through the night, the moon takes up the same space in the eyepiece.

Example.  You don’t use 100 times magnification at moon rise then swap to a lower magnification when the moon is at its highest point to keep the same relative size.  Same eyepiece through the night, same size in the eyepiece through the night. 

 The same for the sun if you use the right and safe equip/ filtering.  Or a pinhole device.

When we see both Sun and moon at the same time, during the daytime, with both of them in full view in the skies above us, nothing is between them at all, so your excuse is that sunlight hitting Earth is ‘bouncing upward’ and hits the moons surface, and that’s why the moon is lit up at the time!!

It’s complete crap, of course. The Earth would be burned to a crisp to reflect it out a quarter million miles away, and the light would reflect everywhere above Earth, and the sky would be in light too, not pitch black at all!!

Not the same size at all, even with filters.

Same as the moon is seen smaller with distance, and no glare you can use as an excuse either

Wilful rejection of reality will not save you.

your excuse is that sunlight hitting Earth is ‘bouncing upward’ and hits the moons surface, and that’s why the moon is lit up at the time!!

You mean your strawman?
You can't deal with reality, so you spout delusional BS and pretend we said it?

So.  The only FE’r to debate so far in support of the topic video of this thread is Turbo using their usual blatant lies.   


Reminds me of another thread..

Why are flat earthers so dishonest?

Why are flat earthers so dishonest?

I seem to remember someone telling me when I objected to the new smart meters that I was just imagining things, and then that the sun itself has microwave radiation (nope, UV to infrared, not microwave).

Ummmm, I can literally feel microwave radiation after being exposed to high doses of it thanks to months of oppressive wiring, antennas, and now that damned meter. To the point where I'm finally just outright shutting my door.

The sun? The sun's radiation is healing. Even a few minutes of sunlight on my feet reverses the effects of 5G bombardment. I know for a fact that the sun has no microwave radiation because the overall energy of natural radiation is far more soothing. Microwave radiation comes from magnetrons inside such devices, not from "cosmic particles" as the official trade secret story goes.

They also told me that the natural consequence of drilling for oil was that water would be ruined. That's despite the fact that I have a brother in eastern Texas, and he can probly tell us about nearby oil drilling. His water is just fine.

Liars cannot stop lying.

The Sun moves above the flat surface of Earth, which is bound as a circle. The sun moves around in circular patterns going inward and outward from earths centre point throughout each year.

The Sun is positioned below the dome of the Firmament, so it moves below the arc in circles above Earth.

And it does look smaller with enough distance away from it, like seeing it from a high mountain peak

The Sun would be seen the SAME size if it was millions of miles away from Earth.

When we see both Sun and moon at the same time, during the daytime, with both of them in full view in the skies above us, nothing is between them at all, so your excuse is that sunlight hitting Earth is ‘bouncing upward’ and hits the moons surface, and that’s why the moon is lit up at the time!!

It’s complete crap, of course. The Earth would be burned to a crisp to reflect it out a quarter million miles away, and the light would reflect everywhere above Earth, and the sky would be in light too, not pitch black at all!!

You guys call this lies, but let's do a challenge. Make a picture of how exactly this works. Sun millions of miles away, bounces on a curve and hits the moon, which appears to be opposite it and the same size.

If the sun is the perfect distance away to look the same size as the moon, shouldn't it usually appear behind the moon or above it? But no, except for during an eclipse, the sun and moon are nearly always opposite each other. And shouldn't we see this light transferring one to another? After all, it should be passing by us. But no, we can see the sun's rays from the sun, we can see moonlight from the moon, but we never see sun to moonlight. We also can look directly at the moon, and we do not go blind.

I seem to remember someone telling me when I objected to the new smart meters that I was just imagining things, and then that the sun itself has microwave radiation (nope, UV to infrared, not microwave).

You believe the sun emits energy only in the IR to UV range and not outside that? Why do you think this is true?

Ummmm, I can literally feel microwave radiation after being exposed to high doses of it thanks to months of oppressive wiring, antennas, and now that damned meter. To the point where I'm finally just outright shutting my door.

Unless you're hugging one, a smart meter's RF emissions are completely swamped by other sources like nearby cell phones (technically not microwaves; much of the RF from smart meters isn't either), WiFi in establishments with a WiFi hotspot (WiFi technically uses microwaves, and some smart meters may also communicate short range via WiFi), and many others.

The sun? The sun's radiation is healing. Even a few minutes of sunlight on my feet reverses the effects of 5G bombardment. I know for a fact that the sun has no microwave radiation because the overall energy of natural radiation is far more soothing. Microwave radiation comes from magnetrons inside such devices, not from "cosmic particles" as the official trade secret story goes.

You sound like someone who has never gotten sunburned or suffered from melanoma.

So that's how you've convinced yourself that sunlight contains no microwave radiation - because sunlight "feels soothing" and you believe you can sense even very low levels of microwave radiation? OK... sure.

Actually, the sun emits a large amount of radiation in the 10 to 30 cm band (part of the microwave  band); how much is dependent in part on the number of sunspots, and we're in a period of increasing sunspot activity, so watch out!

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 23, 2023, 07:12:40 AM

Why are flat earthers so dishonest?

I seem to remember someone telling me when I objected to the new smart meters that I was just imagining things, and then that the sun itself has microwave radiation (nope, UV to infrared, not microwave).

Ummmm, I can literally feel microwave radiation after being exposed to high doses of it thanks to months of oppressive wiring, antennas, and now that damned meter. To the point where I'm finally just outright shutting my door.

The sun? The sun's radiation is healing. Even a few minutes of sunlight on my feet reverses the effects of 5G bombardment. I know for a fact that the sun has no microwave radiation because the overall energy of natural radiation is far more soothing. Microwave radiation comes from magnetrons inside such devices, not from "cosmic particles" as the official trade secret story goes.

They also told me that the natural consequence of drilling for oil was that water would be ruined. That's despite the fact that I have a brother in eastern Texas, and he can probly tell us about nearby oil drilling. His water is just fine.

Liars cannot stop lying.

Quote

The Sun moves above the flat surface of Earth, which is bound as a circle. The sun moves around in circular patterns going inward and outward from earths centre point throughout each year.

The Sun is positioned below the dome of the Firmament, so it moves below the arc in circles above Earth.

And it does look smaller with enough distance away from it, like seeing it from a high mountain peak

The Sun would be seen the SAME size if it was millions of miles away from Earth.

Quote

When we see both Sun and moon at the same time, during the daytime, with both of them in full view in the skies above us, nothing is between them at all, so your excuse is that sunlight hitting Earth is ‘bouncing upward’ and hits the moons surface, and that’s why the moon is lit up at the time!!

It’s complete crap, of course. The Earth would be burned to a crisp to reflect it out a quarter million miles away, and the light would reflect everywhere above Earth, and the sky would be in light too, not pitch black at all!!

You guys call this lies, but let's do a challenge. Make a picture of how exactly this works. Sun millions of miles away, bounces on a curve and hits the moon, which appears to be opposite it and the same size.

If the sun is the perfect distance away to look the same size as the moon, shouldn't it usually appear behind the moon or above it? But no, except for during an eclipse, the sun and moon are nearly always opposite each other. And shouldn't we see this light transferring one to another? After all, it should be passing by us. But no, we can see the sun's rays from the sun, we can see moonlight from the moon, but we never see sun to moonlight. We also can look directly at the moon, and we do not go blind.

What are you babbling about.

Therefore, the angle of the moon would naturally also be obstructed, at least from being a perfect full moon.

Why for a spherical earth?  The closest you get is more often lunar eclipses if the moon didn’t orbit the earth at a tilt. 

The diagram shows a simplified view of the moon's orbit around the earth, seen from above the earth's North Pole, with the sun far off screen to the left. The numbered images at right show the appearance of the moon when it is at the corresponding positions on its orbit.

https://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/lunarPage2.html

The top animation shows the Moon's orbit as it would be seen looking down on Earth from high above the North Pole, and it shows the Moon's phases as they would be seen from most places in the northern hemisphere.

http://moongazer.x10.mx/website/astronomy/moon-phases/

Added dude view for further clarification.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/An-illustration-of-the-Moons-orbital-plane-around-the-Earth-and-rotational-axes-of-the_fig2_233086230

The sun lights up the moon by shining light on it.  Like the reason you can see a car in the distance during the day. 

Yes, the sun is about 93,000,000 million miles away.  The earth is in a sweet spot so the earth only gets a tiny portion of the sun’s radiation at the needed intensity.

Vs the FE where earth is not in protective vacuum of space, the sun would be orbiting over head in Earth’s atmosphere, and the sun would be burning in the earth’s atmosphere.  And producing charged particles in the Allen belts.  Not from outside the Allen Belts.


So.  Trying to change the subject again.


The topic is your ridiculous video and it’s false claim.  The sun on a FE would be changing apparent size throughout the day because it would be changing distance.  Unless you were at the North Pole.

The sun wouldn’t set on a FE.

The sun on a flat earth would have to turn relative north and roughly parallel the North America coast after passing over California.

You sound like someone who has never gotten sunburned or suffered from melanoma.

It only took blistering once from the sun/sun burn while young to learn to use sunscreen. 

And straight away fleeing the subject because you know it destroys your FE fantasy.

Your wilful ignorance of the microwaves coming from the sun doesn't magically stop them.

The sun's light is in a weird place of necessary but damaging; but the UV is damaging, not microwaves.
Microwaves just heat.

You are just asserting whatever BS you want to fit your fantasy.

Liars cannot stop lying.

Such as yourself, here lying yet again.

You guys call this lies, but let's do a challenge. Make a picture of how exactly this works. Sun millions of miles away, bounces on a curve and hits the moon, which appears to be opposite it and the same size.

So make a picture of your strawman?

The light from the sun doesn't bounce off Earth to reach the moon.
It goes from the sun to the moon, scattering off the surface and reflecting back to Earth.

A to scale picture is quite hard considering the distances involved.
If you want the moon to be 1 pixel, then the distance from Earth to the sun would need to be ~43 000 px.

Here is a very much not to scale image I prepared early:


I'll leave you to do the math to see just how far out of alignment it needs to be to avoid an eclipse. (Hint: It isn't very much).

If the sun is the perfect distance away to look the same size as the moon, shouldn't it usually appear behind the moon or above it?

No. Why would you think that at all?
Yet again you assert pure BS with no justification at all.

(And they are not the perfect distance away. The apparent size varies with the moon sometimes appearing smaller than the sun and some times larger).

But no, except for during an eclipse, the sun and moon are nearly always opposite each other.

And more lies.
The separation of the moon and sun is periodic, where over the course of roughly 1 month they go from almost overlapping (or actually overlapping in the case of a lunar eclipse), to more and more separated until eventually they are almost 180 degrees apart, to then reduce that separation on the other side until they reach a point of almost overlapping.

And shouldn't we see this light transferring one to another?

No.
Just like I don't see the light from the light on my ceiling moving down to the floor.
In order to see something like that you need something for the light to scatter off.

You can even see this with a laser:


With dust free air, the path of the laser beam can't be seen. But with chalk dust, it can easily be seen.

The same applies to the light from the sun. It either needs to go directly to your eye, or it needs something to scatter off.

We also can look directly at the moon, and we do not go blind.

Just like we can look at the ground illuminated by the sun and not go blind.
What is your point?

Now care to address why the sun doesn't appear to shrink like it should for a FE?

You believe the sun emits energy only in the IR to UV range and not outside that? Why do you think this is true?

Simple.

Barring the nonsense about UVA/UVB rays (fact: people in Saudi Arabia have a much lower incidence that those in Sweden, showing that it is chemicals like sunblock and not ultraviolet radiation that harms the body), the wavelengths that the body reacts to strongly are those it gets the least exposure to.

In much the same way that chemicals that the body has low exposure to naturally (arsenic and plutonium for example) are very toxic to it.

X-ray is not a radiation the sun produces, or its light would produce effects like being able to see our bones and our nudity. And the radiation from x-rays seems to cause thyroid cancer. Likewise, microwave energy is an exotic wavelength that is well outside the norm of radio, tv, and long wave. Cancer society says that it doesn't ionize the body, but they later go on to say this:

In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.

We know the sun does not have the ability to cause heart cancer. That people in 5G zones (the wavelength of radio closest to microwave) has been complaining about health issues says that yes, this is in fact an exotic energy type that we do not know how to deal with. If the sun was a real source of it, 5G would not have any complaints. And yet...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn

An engineer replaced a woodpecker-damaged feed horn of a high-power microwave antenna, a 15-meter dish at an Earth station of a television network, using a cherry picker. After finishing, he sent his technician to power up the transmitter, and attempted to lower the cherry picker down. The engine failed and the engineer was stuck next to the antenna, outside of its main lobe but well within the first sidelobe. The technician, unaware that the engineer was still close to the antenna, powered it up. The engineer was exposed to an intense microwave field for about three minutes, until the error was realized. There were no immediate symptoms; the next morning the engineer detected blood and solid matter in his urine, and visited a doctor, who found blood in stool and massive bowel adhesions. The engineer's medical problems lasted for many years.

The sun does give off infrared and "far-red" (just before infrared) light in addition to UV and the ROYGBIV sub-spectrum. You can see this light in particularly polluted areas at night.

Quote

You believe the sun emits energy only in the IR to UV range and not outside that? Why do you think this is true?

Simple.

Barring the nonsense about UVA/UVB rays (fact: people in Saudi Arabia have a much lower incidence that those in Sweden, showing that it is chemicals like sunblock and not ultraviolet radiation that harms the body), the wavelengths that the body reacts to strongly are those it gets the least exposure to.

In much the same way that chemicals that the body has low exposure to naturally (arsenic and plutonium for example) are very toxic to it.

X-ray is not a radiation the sun produces, or its light would produce effects like being able to see our bones and our nudity. And the radiation from x-rays seems to cause thyroid cancer. Likewise, microwave energy is an exotic wavelength that is well outside the norm of radio, tv, and long wave. Cancer society says that it doesn't ionize the body, but they later go on to say this:

Quote

In large studies published in 2018 by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, researchers exposed groups of lab rats (as well as mice, in the case of the NTP study) to RF waves over their entire bodies for many hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for at least most of their natural lives. Both studies found an increased risk of uncommon heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in male rats, but not in female rats (nor in male or female mice, in the NTP study). The NTP study also reported possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and in the adrenal glands.

We know the sun does not have the ability to cause heart cancer. That people in 5G zones (the wavelength of radio closest to microwave) has been complaining about health issues says that yes, this is in fact an exotic energy type that we do not know how to deal with. If the sun was a real source of it, 5G would not have any complaints. And yet...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn

Quote

An engineer replaced a woodpecker-damaged feed horn of a high-power microwave antenna, a 15-meter dish at an Earth station of a television network, using a cherry picker. After finishing, he sent his technician to power up the transmitter, and attempted to lower the cherry picker down. The engine failed and the engineer was stuck next to the antenna, outside of its main lobe but well within the first sidelobe. The technician, unaware that the engineer was still close to the antenna, powered it up. The engineer was exposed to an intense microwave field for about three minutes, until the error was realized. There were no immediate symptoms; the next morning the engineer detected blood and solid matter in his urine, and visited a doctor, who found blood in stool and massive bowel adhesions. The engineer's medical problems lasted for many years.

The sun does give off infrared and "far-red" (just before infrared) light in addition to UV and the ROYGBIV sub-spectrum. You can see this light in particularly polluted areas at night.

You’re babbling like you can’t come to terms with the simple fact your video is debunked.

So.  Trying to change the subject again.


The topic is your ridiculous video and it’s false claim.  The sun on a FE would change apparent size throughout the day because it would be changing distance relationship to most viewers. Unless you were at the North Pole.

The sun wouldn’t set on a FE.

The sun on a flat earth would have to turn relative north and roughly parallel the North America coast after passing over California.

And still fleeing from the topic.
Can you honestly respond to the topic in question for once in your life?

For a FE, with the sun at a constant altitude above, as it moves away, the sun should appear to shrink. Yet it doesn't.
Care to address that?

fact: people in Saudi Arabia have a much lower incidence that those in Sweden, showing that it is chemicals like sunblock and not ultraviolet radiation that harms the body

You sure love spouting pure BS don't you?

People in Saudi Arabia do get skin cancer. In substantial amounts.
A much larger factor is coverage of your body and skin colour.

the wavelengths that the body reacts to strongly are those it gets the least exposure to.

Wrong again.
The body reacts quite strongly to things like visible light, which it uses to see.
It isn't a negative reaction, but it is still a reaction.

Not being exposed to something doesn't intrinsically make it harmful, and being exposed to something doesn't make it not harmful.

X-ray is not a radiation the sun produces, or its light would produce effects like being able to see our bones and our nudity.

That would only be the case if your eyes are sensitive to it. But the sun doesn't produce any substantial amount of X-rays, as it is too high energy.

Likewise, microwave energy is an exotic wavelength that is well outside the norm of radio, tv, and long wave.

No, microwave energy is not exotic at all. It is all around us, including from the sun.

Cancer society says that it doesn't ionize the body, but they later go on to say this:

Quote

RF waves

So radio waves? (Or more specifically radio frequency waves)

We know the sun does not have the ability to cause heart cancer.

Because the harmful (UV) radiation is blocked by your skin.

That people in 5G zones (the wavelength of radio closest to microwave) has been complaining about health issues says that yes, this is in fact an exotic energy type that we do not know how to deal with. If the sun was a real source of it, 5G would not have any complaints.

You can leave out 5G zones, people complain about all sorts of health issues all the time.

What you need is a causal relationship between 5G exposure and health issues. You have none.

And yet...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn

You can also be burned by a stove.
Does that mean just standing near one causes serious damage? No.

The sun does give off infrared and "far-red" (just before infrared) light in addition to UV and the ROYGBIV sub-spectrum.

And radiowaves and microwaves, and so on.

You can also be burned by a stove.
Does that mean just standing near one causes serious damage? No.

It took the creator of the microwave the better part of twenty years or so to make his tech safe. Is the same consideration extended to 5G? Not a bit! This technology is being rushed out to market, pushed on the public, and when they legitimately ask to opt out, they are instead given a version that looks identical to what they just opted out of.

You also seem to have missed the point that he was near the device, not necessarily touching it.

Or that he had... "blood and solid matter in his urine, and bowel adhesions". His bowels were literally stuck together by the radiation.

Quote

You can also be burned by a stove.
Does that mean just standing near one causes serious damage? No.

It took the creator of the microwave the better part of twenty years or so to make his tech safe. Is the same consideration extended to 5G? Not a bit! This technology is being rushed out to market, pushed on the public, and when they legitimately ask to opt out, they are instead given a version that looks identical to what they just opted out of.

You also seem to have missed the point that he was near the device, not necessarily touching it.

Or that he had... "blood and solid matter in his urine, and bowel adhesions". His bowels were literally stuck together by the radiation.

Can you actually stick to the top of a thread for once instead of trying to totally derail it?

The topic is your ridiculous video and it’s false claim.  The sun on a FE would change apparent size throughout the day because it would be changing distance relationship to most viewers. Unless you were at the North Pole.

The sun wouldn’t set on a FE.

The sun on a flat earth would have to turn relative north and roughly parallel the North America coast after passing over California.

And still fleeing. You must really hate the fact that the sun so trivially refutes your fantasy.

Again, if the sun remains the same altitude above a flat Earth, it should appear to shrink.
Instead, it appears to remain roughly the same size.

It took the creator of the microwave the better part of twenty years or so to make his tech safe.

Based on what?

You also seem to have missed the point that he was near the device, not necessarily touching it.

No, I didn't.

I guess the video is debunked. The only counter argument offered by FE’rs is to derail the thread. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 26, 2023, 07:13:53 AM

Quote

You can also be burned by a stove.
Does that mean just standing near one causes serious damage? No.

It took the creator of the microwave the better part of twenty years or so to make his tech safe. Is the same consideration extended to 5G? Not a bit! This technology is being rushed out to market, pushed on the public, and when they legitimately ask to opt out, they are instead given a version that looks identical to what they just opted out of.

You also seem to have missed the point that he was near the device, not necessarily touching it.

Or that he had... "blood and solid matter in his urine, and bowel adhesions". His bowels were literally stuck together by the radiation.

Can you actually stick to the top of a thread for once instead of trying to totally derail it?

The topic is your ridiculous video and it’s false claim.  The sun on a FE would change apparent size throughout the day because it would be changing distance relationship to most viewers. Unless you were at the North Pole.

The sun wouldn’t set on a FE.

The sun on a flat earth would have to turn relative north and roughly parallel the North America coast after passing over California.

Of course the Sun sets above our flat Earth, it’s basic geometry.

The Sun is much smaller in size than the earths surface below it. 

When the Sun moves away from us, it appears to be going lower and lower above us, while it remains in full view throughout the time.

Even though the Sun is not moving lower at all, and remains above earth at the same distance throughout, it will appear to be going lower, due to perspective, which has a physical change when the Sun moves further away, because its angle relative to where we are, is going lower and lower with more distance away from us.

When perspective makes the sun appear to be moving ever lower and lower, the end result is that it goes out of view, as its angle relative to us is too small to see from where we are.

This can be shown with both sun and flat surfaces at the same scale and relative size of each one, a small light above a massive flat floor, and you are a tiny space on the floor.

The light is near the floor, but high above you, the speck on the floor.

Even though the small light hits a lot of the massive floor below it, the light is too small and close to the floor to hit the entire floor below it.

The light’s angle is not 0 degrees to the floor anywhere at all, but we cannot see it all over the massive surface at such an extremely low angle to where we are.  Flat surfaces do not offer infinite view of objects above that surface, they change their angle lower and sharper with more distance away from us. 

So when the Sun appears to go lower and lower while remaining in full view, this shows what we see of it from a flat surface, looks lower due to perspective. That’s why it cannot be seen at great distances away from us. and it’s light is too far away from us to light up the sky and ground at a great distance away from us.

Notice how you have entirely failed to address the issue at hand?
Basic perspective means a sun over a FE should appear to shrink.
You have made no attempt to address this and instead just focused on it disappearing from view.

Of course the Sun sets above our flat Earth, it’s basic geometry.

No, it isn't.
Instead, it outright defies basic geometry.
Basic geometry says that in order for the sun to set for a viewer above a flat surface, it must go BELOW that surface. That means it will not be found directly above the surface for anyone.

Basic geometry also describes perspective, that for an object at a fixed altitude above a flat surface, moving away from an observer below it at a constant speed, will appear to shrink, and slow down, and appear to approach the ground but never have any part drop below and angle of elevation of 0.

Basic geometry demands that in order for it to appear lower due to perspective, it must appear to shrink.

So basic geometry is entirely incompatible with the sun setting on a FE with the modern FE models.

When the Sun moves away from us, it appears to be going lower and lower above us, while it remains in full view throughout the time.

And as it remains the same angular size, this is clearly NOT due to perspective.

This can be shown with both sun and flat surfaces at the same scale and relative size of each one, a small light above a massive flat floor, and you are a tiny space on the floor.

And you produce a clearly different view to what is observed in reality.
You see the light appear to shrink, and never appear to get cut off by the flat floor.

Even though the small light hits a lot of the massive floor below it, the light is too small and close to the floor to hit the entire floor below it.

It is if you use a light globe without a shade, which is not directional. You can go to any point on the floor and look up and see the light.

Even though the Sun is not moving lower at all,

Eye roll.  This has been posted for you before…



The sun appears to physically move downward keeping its apparent size at a set distance because the earth orbits the sun while the earth rotates about its axis with a tilt.

If the earth was flat, the earth wouldn’t block the sun to create night.  Nightfall is literally the earth’s curvature blocking the sun to create a shadow. 

Amazing how this thread went silent because it debunks a certain video and debunks flat earth.

Funny what happens when you don’t let FE’rs change subjects…

https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&sca_esv=ed897b2776f2f88d&hl=en-ca&q=sun+time+lapse&tbm=vid&source=lnms&prmd=vinsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJma2MopGEAxWZMjQIHeeFCywQ0pQJegQICRAB&biw=320&bih=451&dpr=2#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:2fbdc6dd,vid:p8HNd8F8z0A,st:0

The Sun clearly appears larger in these time lapse clips. The first one shows it nicely.

The Sun and moon are also by far the largest objects in the sky, so their change in size is less noticeable than with planes or whatever. But this proves the Sun does look smaller and bigger with distance. Stop the first clip at the first time the Sun is seen. Stop the clip a second later and it is bigger than it was when further away, and I’d not yet blurred outward like when closer in.

Done