Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

my parabola model.

The lie you have no proof of that really doesn’t explain anything.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 11, 2023, 05:05:18 AM

If you think the sun and moon are at ground level, no wonder you have issues. The sun isn't actually falling in the sky.

Spherical earth rotating while orbiting the sun explains how the the sun goes relatively below the viewer to become physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature to create night.  And the sun’s radiation.

FE earth has no credible explanation.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 11, 2023, 05:05:18 AM

So basically what you've proven is that a light source lightens the entire sky.

No.  What I proven in your delusion of a moon being seen on “screen” at moonset would also reflect the image of the sun rising in the east on the days these events occur simultaneously.

I didn’t prove anything about “lighting up the whole sky”. All the glass should be a red tint, and is clearly not.   What I proved, there would be multiple images of the sun and moon by reflection in your delusion they are projections on a dome.

In my example, lights besides the  laser pointer would also cause reflections in your needed delusional of a screen.  Everything from stars to ground lights would cause multiple reflections

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 11, 2023, 05:05:18 AM

Btw, what is "space dust"? Is it some kind of product? Or is this just glitter?

Just foot powder.

You never seen how the line of projection lights up in a smokey movie theater?  Or a projection through a dry ice cloud?

Something like this..


https://walkerart.org/magazine/moviegoing-and-the-architecture-of-theaters-in-the-age-of-virtual-reality

Funny.  The movie projector doesn’t light up the whole theater to the same brightness as it does the screen…


There is NO proof the moon and sun are projections.

There is evey indication the sun and moon are three dimensional objects.

It’s ok to question.  You’re delusional and ignorant because you can’t excepted the sun and moon are physical three dimensional objects.  The sun a source of radiation and charged particles.  The sun oversimplified is the lamp.  Which explains what illuminates planets, comets, meteorites, satellites for visual detection. The moon a solid body illuminated by the sun like seeing a passenger jet illuminated in the sky by the sun.  The moon’s gravity influencing earth’s rotation and tides.

If you think the sun is a projection on a screen.  Notice you can see the light coming from the projector.  There is no evidence the sun is a projection from sunburns by UV light to charged particles.  Then the light from the screen is scattered after hitting the screen making it hard for light to cast a directional shadow which is seen in my cloud photo.



Where you ignore there is still clouds east of your parabola the sun still would have to shine down through from time to time to project on you delusional parabola, but somehow never casts cloud shadows onto your parabola. The reason is, there’s no parabola.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 12, 2025, 08:15:30 PM

Don't see the problem?

Bulma, that your model doesn’t explain reality so you have to use cartoons?




And thought about how photography and and amateur astronomy is just line of sight, composition, and lens choice.  The right telescope brings objects in the night sky to faint to be seen with the unaided eye into view.  Unless that object like a moon of Jupiter is behind it, or a planet sets below the curvature of the earth.  Or if the moon or a particular galaxy hasn’t risen yet.

Watching the rain storm, I remembered an old argument that shows you ignore the consequences of your made up parabola from the context of down into your model.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 19, 2023, 01:34:41 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 19, 2023, 06:42:42 AM

Look at this picture. 



Why does the tree line fill the field of vision from side to side.

With this..



Why is the much farther away cloud  line just as visible, and fills the photo side to side like the much closer tree line




If your cone of perception was true, then the much farther away cloud formation shouldn’t fill the picture side to side.  It should only look like a cloud column or a sliver. 

Light and sight work nothing like what the parabola needs it to do.

Like this set of photos with the horizon.

Sight ahead of my car.


Same area and light pole looking left from my car.



The much farther away cloud line is just as visible and takes up the whole picture side to side like the horizon.  And the cloud didn’t “disappear top down”. Or in this case didn’t reveal itself top down? 

Parabola delusion totally dead on arrival and debunk!

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 14, 2025, 10:53:50 AM

I'm not. I watched him zoom the camera in. I've done similar zooming, and this doesn't feel odd.

What are you incoherently babbling about.

Why did you abandon the below argument that has “zooming”  involved?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 13, 2025, 07:44:41 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 12, 2025, 08:15:30 PM

Seems simple enough.

?

What happens when a cloud bank is large enough to straddle both ends of the parabola.



Added.  Where the sun still isn’t illuminating the clouds bottom up like this picture.

Especially for the below with clouds all the way to the east horizon for sunrise.  With no evidence the sunlight is reflecting off the ground.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 21, 2023, 10:05:28 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 21, 2023, 05:45:20 AM

Funny you should mention that. Let's watch a video together. ❤

Meanwhile.

Another impossible flat earth sunrise you have to ignore. Run away like a coward.  You have no explanation, you change the subject from the opening post, lie, use BS, and go into delusion rants, and try to derail another thread…







Clouds illuminated bottom up before sunrise is a property of spherical earth.  Not explained by FE without lies, BS, delusion

The clouds would have to do bendy crap like this, climbing up then turning overhead.



Where these low altitude clouds, maybe 1000 feet altitude.


Are just a going away from the camera, like this ball down the hallway.



Which is nothing like the motion of the setting sun.



Where “zooming” in from the original didn’t visually uncompress anything. 

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.

Remember this video Bulma..

Sun rise under the clouds at FL280

Bulma. There is no evidence of your parabola.  The sun would still have to shine down through the clouds to shine on your parabola making unexplained shadows and disappearances of the sun.  Or it would result in mirror images of clouds running into each other.

Bulma.  Your parabola is complete BS and a delusion, would change how reality worked, and doesn’t explain what is actually witnessed.

There's the dot, and then it scatters nearby, similar to how the sun lights all the clouds around it.

Hmm.

My much earlier experiment looking up into a dome.

What happens if you project on a dome with some “space dust” floating around….

For an angle close to sunrise or sunset.



(The little white lights on the dome are from two separate light bulbs illuminating a china cabinet about 4 feet away. And a single light bulb lamp in the living room about 18 feet away. Three lights making about 5 to 7 reflections in the “dome”?)

From inside the “dome”

vs..



Where your parabola should cast a shadow? 

Where you are just exaggerating a glare on the glass that you have no proof of your claim unless you look from under up into your glass dome.

Where a laser is going to produce a more directional light than your glare on the glass from looking actually under the glass up into the dome.  Where your sun should project a second image on the opposite side of your parabola.

Where there is no “glare” in a real sunrise unless clouds or fog is present. 

Great job debunking yourself Bulma. The self debunking.

A tiny amount of light is hitting this domed glass on the flying saucer.

Funny your glare doesn’t look like a little sun.

Now for the sun set below,  try to get the same thing to happen looking up into your dome by circling a flashlight 10 feet above it.



Bulma, their own worst enemy.

😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

Please do go about ohms.  How many ohms in your ufo glass dome to transmit light?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I would much rather see your artistic pictures over your same repeating arguments against FE.

Yes, you tend to hate seeing things which so clearly show you are wrong.

Notice how yet again, you just fill a post with crap which in no way helps defend your BS.
Still no explanation at all for how any of it works in your fantasy.

as I have demonstrated several times with my parabola model.

No, you haven't.
You drew a crappy diagram that fails to explain anything.

Again, go try drawing a side on view, showing the physical position of the sun and cloud and observer, and draw the path of the light that results in what we see.
And then importantly, explain any changes in the path.

Until you do something like that, you haven't explained or demonstrated anything.

You are so incapable of defending your nonsense you can't even remain consistent on if the parabola is a real physical thing which effects light, or just a tool for understanding.

There's the dot, and then it scatters nearby, similar to how the sun lights all the clouds around it.

So…

If you take a light representing the sun around what you used to represent your parabola, a glass dome.  And circle the parabola dome like how the sun doesn’t pass directly overhead for me in the winter.



And actually do a video coming up from under the dome parabola.



Th projected glare on the parabola dome acts nothing like an actual sun.




And acts nothing like your false assurances.



Even passing the light representing the sun directly over the parabola didn’t help.

Bulma, debunking themselves. 

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 30, 2025, 06:55:49 AM

There's the dot, and then it scatters nearby, similar to how the sun lights all the clouds around it.

(too many GIFs slowing stuff down)

Even passing the light representing the sun directly over the parabola didn’t help.

Bulma, debunking themselves.

I had a flashlight that had three problems:
1. The light radius was far too big
2. I needed one hand to wind the mech flashlight and another hand to hold  it.
3. I also needed another person to hold a picture with a Kindle  and take the shot.

So then I turned on a light, and voila, a dot in the side of the dome.


The question is, how to move the dot? I tried moving the lamp (such as I could, with it tethered to my bed). But there simply wasn't enough room.
I tried turning the dome (turns out, rotating doesn't create the effect you think it does, it stayed on center making your delusion of rising in an arc invalid). I tried changing position, and noticed with no adjustment to the light nor the dome, just the camera and myself, the dot rose slightly.

The dome (glass of water really) has little side slats and it went up to the next one.

And I tried moving the dome. Now this is a butterfly and Lao Tzu scenario. Is the Earth moving or is the sun moving? Well, it turns out, in your rotating orbiting Earth, the Earth cannot physically move  much because one side of the Earth having the sun physically low in the sky would have to be quite a different distance from where it is high in the sky. That makes no sense, assuming Earth is instead conveniently shifting group of spatial islands that can adjust in distance to your whims. It is far easier to move the sun.

You see that rather distinctive anchor from the previous pictures? The dot is now level with it.

And yes, I have been casually reading The Magic of Oz.

I had a flashlight that had three problems:

You parabola has no evidence of existing, you have no explanation, and doesn’t even solve problems for flat earth where the sun in areas would have to travel north / south to circle above a flat earth.

Look at your own picture example.
 



Your example works more in accordance to my observations how your model fails.



If your cone of perception was true, then the much farther away cloud formation shouldn’t fill the picture side to side.  It should only look like a cloud column or a sliver. 

  Not quite the same thing, but your example shows the “sun” on your parabola as a vertical glare.  A sliver coming into your cone of perception.  You have repeatedly killed your own delusion.  Bulma, you have repeatedly made flat earth into a contradictory hot mess of self debunking. 


Bulma, your last post is meaningless because it makes no attempt to document from beneath the dome looking up.  Where things would be first seen in your parabola as slivers of clouds and light.  Your parabola delusion is self debunking and doesn’t work.  Read what was actually posted and address the actual argument and what was observed.

So…

If you take a light representing the sun around what you used to represent your parabola, a glass dome.  And circle the parabola dome like how the sun doesn’t pass directly overhead for me in the winter.



And actually do a video coming up from under the dome parabola.



Th projected glare on the parabola dome acts nothing like an actual sun.




And acts nothing like your false assurances.



Even passing the light representing the sun directly over the parabola didn’t help.

Bulma, debunking themselves.

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.

More damned bullshit

That's a total strawman to the point of being disrespectful.
1. In the flash post, I mentioned that I tried directly shining a flashlight and the radius was too big. So what do we have here? A bigass flashlight shining directly over the surface.
2. I at no point described the circle around the dome in the way your first animation shows.

You have it going completely around the glass object here, being extra careful not to stray too far away. Which is exactly the point! If it strays far enough away, it very definitely will move outside the circle of life.

*ahem* The circle of light.
3. The second animation appears to involve a camera trick with at least two mirrored surfaces. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you taped a glass to a mirror. The point where light scatters in multiple directions is also a good indicator of mirrors mirroring mirrors. Like so...

The thing is, the ground is not nearly that reflective (you're thinking water or glass), and I don't think I've ever said the parabola does reflection. I said projection. So intentionally making heavily mirrored surfaces is not at all what I asked.
4. But even if it were the case, I was able to (with some reflection) use a punch bowl similar to this one

and yes, light can be moved out of range from a face down flashlight. Try moving that circling flashlight a little bit farther from the center. 
5. Did you even read my last post? Let's review...

I had a flashlight that had three problems:
1. The light radius was far too big
2. I needed one hand to wind the mech flashlight and another hand to hold  it.
3. I also needed another person to hold a picture with a Kindle  and take the shot.

So then I turned on a light, and voila, a dot in the side of the dome.


The question is, how to move the dot? I tried moving the lamp (such as I could, with it tethered to my bed). But there simply wasn't enough room.
I tried turning the dome (turns out, rotating doesn't create the effect you think it does, it stayed on center making your delusion of rising in an arc invalid). I tried changing position, and noticed with no adjustment to the light nor the dome, just the camera and myself, the dot rose slightly.

The dome (glass of water really) has little side slats and it went up to the next one.

And I tried moving the dome. Now this is a butterfly and Lao Tzu scenario. Is the Earth moving or is the sun moving? Well, it turns out, in your rotating orbiting Earth, the Earth cannot physically move  much because one side of the Earth having the sun physically low in the sky would have to be quite a different distance from where it is high in the sky. That makes no sense, assuming Earth is instead conveniently shifting group of spatial islands that can adjust in distance to your whims. It is far easier to move the sun.

You see that rather distinctive anchor from the previous pictures? The dot is now level with it.

And yes, I have been casually reading The Magic of Oz.

As you can clearly see, the dot in the distant picture has descended to where the anchor is. This means the further that ambient light is from the center of a dome, the lower it descends. Which is not possible on a round Earth, as it would require the Earth to massively move out of its way to create this effect. It is only possible then, if the light source instead moves.

But thanks for proving to everyone just how dishonest you are. The more you do that, the more the credibility of RE suffers.

1. In the flash post,

That your stupid parabola doesn’t exist and it’s idiotic.

And you can’t address what was actually posted in any logical or meaningful way.  And your post is pure gibberish at this point.

I had a flashlight that had three problems:

You parabola has no evidence of existing, you have no explanation, and doesn’t even solve problems for flat earth where the sun in areas would have to travel north / south to circle above a flat earth.

Look at your own picture example.
 



Your example works more in accordance to my observations how your model fails.



If your cone of perception was true, then the much farther away cloud formation shouldn’t fill the picture side to side.  It should only look like a cloud column or a sliver. 

  Not quite the same thing, but your example shows the “sun” on your parabola as a vertical glare.  A sliver coming into your cone of perception.  You have repeatedly killed your own delusion.  Bulma, you have repeatedly made flat earth into a contradictory hot mess of self debunking. 


Bulma, your last post is meaningless because it makes no attempt to document from beneath the dome looking up.  Where things would be first seen in your parabola as slivers of clouds and light.  Your parabola delusion is self debunking and doesn’t work.  Read what was actually posted and address the actual argument and what was observed.

So…

If you take a light representing the sun around what you used to represent your parabola, a glass dome.  And circle the parabola dome like how the sun doesn’t pass directly overhead for me in the winter.



And actually do a video coming up from under the dome parabola.



Th projected glare on the parabola dome acts nothing like an actual sun.




And acts nothing like your false assurances.



Even passing the light representing the sun directly over the parabola didn’t help.

Bulma, debunking themselves.

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid

Quote

More damned bullshit

That's a total strawman to the point of being disrespectful.
 credibility of RE suffers.

Bulma.  Are you in the right thread.  You’re the only one that made use of the term bullshit for the last two pages of this thread. 

that have lasted millennia without (*cough* bullshit *cough* *cough*) gone supernova, nor worn apart through constant motion.

Bulma.  Maybe you should be more respectful because people don’t fall for your idiotic babbling.  And you might get more respect. 

Bulma.  Is this the quote you’re using without proper context?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 20, 2025, 04:08:10 AM

Meanwhile, in an orbiting, spinning, wobbling Earth trailing the sun, there is no way to trust any navigation, because the Earth constantly shifts position in regard to other celestial objects.

Bullshit. Orbiting and spinning are why we need to know date and time for celestial navigation to work.

Yes.  Celestial navigation and celestial south have meaning and are accurate because the earth is spherical. Where the sun would have to rise some other direction than due east for a majority of areas on the equinox for a flat earth where the sun circles above.  Flat earth doesn’t even accurately predict the path of the sun.  It’s that easy to debunk flat earth. 



Anyway..

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid

"It's still in line of sight!"



There's something you're not seeing here.

1. Tape layers of translucent blue paper to a punchbowl. Inside or outside, I don't care.


2. It should be thick enough that light passes through when a flashlight shines directly at it but not when indirect light is nearby. You'll want a dim overhead light to make ambient light (lowest watt you can find, and/or high ceiling)
3. Set a smartphone or whatever face up, and start record or delayed shot or whatever (no flash)
4. Set the punchbowl on top of the camera/smartphone, covering it completely so that it takes pictures of a dark blue "sky"
5. With a flashlight face down (I can't believe when I showed you a literal model, I have to explain this) move the flashlight from far enough away that the outer ring of light is well away from the punchbowl, and move it in a slow arc so that it crosses the bottom right part of the punchbowl.
6. Slowly sweep the flashlight toward the top center, then toward the bottom left, without changing the direction of the flashlight or the elevation of the flashlight.
7. If you want to be fancy, cut star-shaped holes in the vellum so certain points appear as "stars" in contrast to the brighter sections provided by the "sun." 

Now, if you can't follow my directions, I'll do it myself. Only I have brown parchment rather than blue vellum.   

This sun is not in line of sight. It might as well be viewed from a box for all that you can see it.

There's something you're not seeing here.

I watch and photograph the sun just fine. 

Your parabola is made up BS that in no way helps you in the numerous ways explained.

Where the sun would have to rise some other direction than due east for a majority of areas on the equinox for a flat earth where the sun circles above.

Where things would enter your parabola as slivers and grow.

And..

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.  With no valid reason then should be blocked physically from view.  Where the sun to invoke vanishing point would have to visibly change apparent size and shrink all afternoon.  And does not.



Bulma, don’t you understand the above was captured with a filter over my camera’s lens.  I think I posted specifically what that filter was if you want me to quote it.  The curvature of the earth is what is literally blocking the light from the sun as it increasingly sets relatively below the horizon. 

Where the sun’s light would have to take a longer path for your parabola BS to illuminate a cloud bottom up before sunrise.

Contradicting light dies.  Especially when a telescope can bring into view the moons of Jupiter too faint to be seen with the unaided eye.

  But you claim the cloud is illuminated by the sun’s light that has to travel a longer and more torturous path to reach your person.  Purple arrow. The sun’s light has to travel down, reflect off some magical thing you can’t prove, up to the cloud, and then down to the person.  That path is longer than the line of sight path to the sun. 

It’s that easy to debunk flat earth. 

So then I turned on a light, and voila, a dot in the side of the dome.

Which in no way helps to demonstrate your model, and in no way addresses the multitude of issues with it.

Especially as yet again, you are doing it from outside the dome rather than inside. So you are not showing what someone inside would see.
In effect, this makes pretty much all you have done entirely useless.

This also helps with a much simpler way for you to take your photos.
Put the kindle down, and put the dome over the top.

I tried turning the dome (turns out, rotating doesn't create the effect you think it does, it stayed on center making your delusion of rising in an arc invalid).

Do you mean your delusion?
Remember, we are the ones saying that if the sun is just circling overhead, then it should appear to circle overhead instead of appearing to set.

I tried changing position, and noticed with no adjustment to the light nor the dome, just the camera and myself, the dot rose slightly.

Which you would understand if you understood how reflections work.
And again links back to how all you have done there is entirely useless at showing your model.
You are not showing what someone inside the dome would see.

Well, it turns out, in your rotating orbiting Earth, the Earth cannot physically move  much because one side of the Earth having the sun physically low in the sky would have to be quite a different distance from where it is high in the sky.

No, it wouldn't.
That is just your repeated lie you cannot justify at all.

Again, basic geometry shows that is pure BS.
You are yet again trying to invoke your BS model and explanation for why the sun sets, rather than the RE model.

e.g. consider this, but have the sun heaps further to the left of the image.


For a person at position c, the sun is high in the sky.
For a person at position a or b, it is low in the sky.

If you have Earth and the sun remain in the position they are in, and just have Earth rotate, then you have the person initially at a, seeing the sun quite low in the sky, then as Earth rotates they move towards c, where it gets higher in the sky, and then as they continue moving towards b it gets lower back down the other side of the sky.

Just what is wrong with that?

To also include the orbit, have the entire picture rotate while this is happening, so Earth rotates 365 times while the picture rotates once.

That makes no sense, assuming Earth is instead conveniently shifting group of spatial islands that can adjust in distance to your whims. It is far easier to move the sun.

And more delusional BS.
We have Earth rotating, as basically a solid ball.
Conversely, you have all the stars magically rotating together.

1. In the flash post, I mentioned that I tried directly shining a flashlight and the radius was too big.

i.e. you recognise your garbage doesn't work, and then look for excuses.
Having the sun as a smaller spotlight doesn't help. The only way in which that would help is if you had the sun vanish while still high in the sky.
There is no reason to not have the sun be an omnidirectional light source.

3. The second animation appears to involve a camera trick with at least two mirrored surfaces.

No, it is simply looking from inside the dome.
Something which so clearly demonstrates your model is wrong.

I don't think I've ever said the parabola does reflection. I said projection

Yes, you have said vague crap you cannot explain or justify at all.
Meanwhile, you have your magic parabola magically reflect light upwards onto the bottom of a cloud.
This is also quite hypocritical of you, given you were appealing the reflection of the light in the dome in your last post.

Do you know how we can tell?

If you project something onto a screen, you can then move around and look at the screen from different positions and see that projected image in the same location on the screen.
But if you have a light reflecting off a screen, then as you move around, the apparent position of that light on the screen moves.

5. Did you even read my last post? Let's review...

Yes, where you provided complete crap, a view from outside the dome which in no way helps your case.

As you can clearly see...

You are still using pictures from outside the dome. Making it useless.

Which is not possible on a round Earth, as it would require the Earth to massively move out of its way to create this effect.

Which only serves to demonstrate that the RE model does not use your delusional BS.\
Is that really the best argument you have?
That your delusional BS, which causes so many issues it isn't funny, isn't used in the RE model, and instead the RE model has the angle of the sun being the angle to the sun?

But thanks for proving to everyone just how dishonest you are. The more you do that, the more the credibility of RE suffers.

You mean how dishonest you are?
Like how you say it isn't a reflection yet appeal to reflections, and how you pretend the RE model can't work because it doesn't use your BS.

The only dishonesty you are demonstrating is your own.

There's something you're not seeing here.

And yet you still make no attempt at all to do it yourself.
Instead just providing more useless pictures.
It is as if you know it will show you are wrong, so you refuse to do it so you can dismiss anyone else doing it.

2. It should be thick enough that light passes through when a flashlight shines directly at it but not when indirect light is nearby.

i.e. so you will only ever see the direction to the sun and you will not get indirect light.
So we can entirely discard the dome in terms of determining the direction to the sun.

If you need more help with that:


This further makes your model not work.

What you are really saying you want is a laser, which shines straight down onto the dome.

But that has the multitude of issues already pointed out.
There is no reason at all for the sun to act like that.
But more importantly, that would mean you only see the sun when it is within that 3 mile distance, meaning the vast majority of Earth would not see the sun.
Instead, only a narrow band would see it on any one day, and only for a few minutes.

i.e. your model has no chance at all of matching reality.

This sun is not in line of sight.

Except there is no reason at all to think that.
All the available evidence shows it is line of sight.

Sun relatively below the clouds and not even set yet…



Casting direct light on this tree.



Where the sun would have to be 300 miles to 5000 miles above the clouds.  Where cowardly flat earthers will not state a specific altitude because it will be soundly debunked and isn’t the vague word salad game.  Flat earth is nothing but word salad BS.

There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.  With no valid reason then should be blocked physically from view.

Here's an idea. Walk around with a protractor.


If at the end of the day, if you are not put into a mental institution (as you rightly should for thinking the Earth is round), you will be able to realize that angles to objects changes to distance, and that our eyes work by translating distance into angles.  This "line of sight" that you think is there is not there. Let's convert the parabola into angles, and see if you understand.

Each of these letters corresponds to a (general) angle as it moves past from east to west. B and L are sunrise and sunset respectively, thinking you ought to be able to see it is just plain off-base. The sun here is not in line of sight, but appears below the horizon.

It's too cramped to line up perfectly, but you get the idea.

If you need to understand it better, I can draw it some other way, but I know you'll think there is a vertical arc when in fact this is a level oval path.

Where the sun would have to be 300 miles to 5000 miles above the clouds.  Where cowardly flat earthers will not state a specific altitude...

Because we don't pretend to know things!

But I've actually told you a specific altitude. I believe the sun is at or below the Karman Line. That's pretty darn specific. I'm putting it in about a 60 mile range from Earth's ground level. Whereas you have a 4700 mile range from 300 miles to 5000. Very specific there!

---

I don't do math. I had a math teacher in high school whose way of talking gave me literal stress ulcers.
Even so, other flat Earthers maybe like that sort of thing. Like this guy.



He says 2390.54 miles. I don't like that distance, I think it's too far away. But he uses math, while I'm going by the idea that it's within our atmosphere.  Well, he might be measuring the hypotenuse.  I'm estimating height from ground. Anyway.

Is it specific enough for you?

Meanwhile... (I'm not bothering to look up the correct spelling for these names)

• Copernicus: 3,391,200 miles away to the sun
• Johannes Kepler: 12,376,800 miles
• Isaac Newton: "It matters not whether we say 28 or 54 million..." (Okay, Isaac Newton, since you literally claim to have discovered gravity, and you don't seem to thing stronger or weaker pull to distance matters, let's go with that assumption. It doesn't matter.  But they continue)
• Benjamin Martin: 81 to 82 million miles
• Thomas Dillworth: 93,726,900 miles
• John Heinz: 95,298,260 miles
• Benjamin Gould: more than 96 million miles
• Christian Mayer: more than 104 million miles
• Most modern astronomers: 93 million miles (except I've heard 96 million miles too on occasion online)

Why will cowardly round Earthers not state a specific distance?

Maybe because it's all crap.
An abstract object projects from an abstract distance, and I'm supposed to care?
Meanwhile, you've been wrong multiple times from the looks of it.

Here's an idea.

Which has nothing to do with…

I watch and photograph the sun just fine. 

Your parabola is made up BS that in no way helps you in the numerous ways explained.

Where the sun would have to rise some other direction than due east for a majority of areas on the equinox for a flat earth where the sun circles above.

Where things would enter your parabola as slivers and grow.

And..

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.  With no valid reason then should be blocked physically from view.  Where the sun to invoke vanishing point would have to visibly change apparent size and shrink all afternoon.  And does not.



Bulma, don’t you understand the above was captured with a filter over my camera’s lens.  I think I posted specifically what that filter was if you want me to quote it.  The curvature of the earth is what is literally blocking the light from the sun as it increasingly sets relatively below the horizon. 

Where the sun’s light would have to take a longer path for your parabola BS to illuminate a cloud bottom up before sunrise.

Contradicting light dies.  Especially when a telescope can bring into view the moons of Jupiter too faint to be seen with the unaided eye.

  But you claim the cloud is illuminated by the sun’s light that has to travel a longer and more torturous path to reach your person.  Purple arrow. The sun’s light has to travel down, reflect off some magical thing you can’t prove, up to the cloud, and then down to the person.  That path is longer than the line of sight path to the sun. 

It’s that easy to debunk flat earth.  Because FE total fails to predict the path of the sun accurately.  Where if you want to invoke vanishing point for sunset, the sun needs to change apparent size all afternoon and shrink and does not. 

If at the end of the day, if you are not put into a mental institution (as you rightly should for thinking the Earth is round)

Why should people who accept reality and reject your indefensible BS be put in a mental institution?

you will be able to realize that angles to objects changes to distance, and that our eyes work by translating distance into angles.

No, our eyes work based upon angles, the angle to the object, as dictated by simple geometry.

This "line of sight" that you think is there is not there. Let's convert the parabola into angles, and see if you understand.

Lets see if YOU understand.
You have the sun shining directly down to a small spot on this parabola.
That means the sun needs to above a point on the parabola to be seen.
You claim this parabola has a radius of roughly 3 miles to produce the horizon that we see.
That means the sun needs to be above a point within 3 miles.

That would make the vast majority of Earth dark.

Because we don't pretend to know things!

You most certainly do pretend to know. So much so that you are quite confident in dismissing a model you cannot show fault with and trying to replace it with vague crap.

But I've actually told you a specific altitude. I believe the sun is at or below the Karman Line. That's pretty darn specific.

Not compared to the RE measurements you say are not.
But do you notice how insane that is?
The Karmen line puts it no more than 100 km away when it is directly overhead, yet it can be observed when it is over a point 10 000 km away.

I don't do math.

Of course not, as it would show your model is pure garbage.

Meanwhile...
Why will cowardly round Earthers not state a specific distance?

Now try it with context and understanding.
When you have the sun incredibly close and moving quite a distance, the distance to it is very important.
When you have it very far away with the change in angle to it based upon the rotation of Earth it is far less important.
Some of those measurements were just a lower bound.
The modern one varies between aphelion and perihelion.
147098450 to 152097597 km.


And still, your parabola fails entirely.
Still no explanation for why it should be like that at all.
Still no explanation for how it produces the observed illumination patterns on Earth.
You can't even remain consistent.
Here you have the sun shining straight down onto the parabola, until you get to H. Yet other times you have it come in from an angle. And other times you just have the parabola as a tool for understanding.
You still can't explain how the parabola magically bends light to illuminate clouds from below.

 I believe the sun is at or below the Karman Line. That's pretty darn specific.

From various trips from aircraft, balloons and high altitude parachute jumps, amateur high altitude balloon flights and photography, how UV light and charge particles interact with the atmosphere, and the sun would have to be inside the van Allen belts, with you having to no explanation how the sun and moon being physical objects especially how the moon blocks light during solar eclipses where both stay in orbit above the earth, to parallax of the sun, where we have a good idea the moon is over 200,000 miles away from the difference in angles by two people simultaneously viewing the moon and parallax knowing the moon gets in front of the sun during a solar eclipse, to the path of the sun would have to be north / south for large areas when it rises due east during the equinox.

Bulma, your false assurances are baseless, have no evidence, evidence showing otherwise, and totally discredited, and proven absolutely wrong.  The sun is easily at a greater distance than the moon’s 200,000 miles where the moon’s distance is somewhat easily determined by parallax by two people observing the moon in the same instant.

Added. Where we know that gravity of the moon and sun dives tides on earth. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 29, 2024, 09:22:14 PM

You're just guessing,

Nope.

Funny that two people in the United States over 2000 miles apart can watch the moon at the same instance, rise and set times that match the radius of a earth of 3,963 miles, with enough parallax to calculate the distance to the moon.  Backed by lunar and solar eclipses.




How big is the parabola again Bulma?


Where your parabola doesn’t explain why on the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due east.


Where if you parabola was real, after a certain point, increasing in altitude should cause the amount of visible earth below you to decrease.  And your only explanation this doesn’t occur is light is magic and has a trick floor.

Poor Bulma the debunked, just has contractions that doesn’t represent reality. 

Asked you a question..

Why can’t I see this set sun.




But still see clouds east of me 16 minutes after sunset.

Here's an idea.

That you been shown how baseless things by you like “I believe the sun is at or below the Karman Line” are.  How it has no evidence, and is totally contradicted, and evidence and observation shows otherwise.  So your past the point of actual ignorance, but now in the realm of right out lies, and your FE view is a house of cards built on a foundation of you right out lying. 

Man Bulma, you are the worst thing to ever happen to FE. 

You sure you’re not a government agent, a plant, to make FE look ignorant and stupid?  Or is FE really just ignorant and stupid? 

It’s that easy to debunk flat earth. You just completely ignore what the other person says and assume the you know best.

Again. You totally ignore this to tell me nothing is in the way. Just stuff like angles from eye level to the object.

---

As for predicting the sun's path... People with a trigonometry background who are flat Earthers can predict the angle of the sun. People who know things like seasons and times can predict correctly the sun's relative position on a map.

This math means little to nothing to me, but it assumes at least a locally flat plane and a domed parabolic sky.

As does this, if we want to be technical.


People who are either flat Earthers or round Earthers can look at a chart that tells sunrise and sunset with no formal training at all.

It's because of a math bias where you assume the shape of the Earth and then calculate based on that assumption (getting the answers you want doesn't always mean you're right; tautological reasoning always gives you "right" answers because they feed into a circle).

Predicting the location of the sun at a certain time of day has nothing at all to do with flat Earth. It has to do with calculating solar angles (above). And time zones vs the local time of day.  These angles come from mathematics that still worked when people built pyramids. And dumbasses like Eratosthenes never thought, "Hmmmm, this pyramid is built on level ground and is a perfect triangle that lasts thousands of years despite being pelted by sandstorms." They instead thought, "The sun has a circular shadow. The Earth must be a sphere." We call this kind of reasoning non sequitur.  Now I don't have a math background enough to solve for those symbols above, but I do know that calculation for declineation has nothing to do with real prediction of sun's position.

I also know that while I can't predict anything besides occasionally the weather, given a tool such as a protractor or sextant, I can tell the sun's current angle.

As for predicting the sun's path...

Again, your babbling and your idiocy means nothing.



Which has nothing to do with the actual argument the sun would have to travel north / south for large areas to complete a circuit above a flat earth.  FE doesn’t explain how the sun rises due east for those areas the sun would have to travel north / south for the FE model to be true.  FE utterly fails to predict the path of the sun through the course of the day.  Especially on the equinox.  Where, if you want to invoke vanishing point for sunset, the sun would have to change apparent size and shrink in apparent size all afternoon.  Where the FE would required the sun changing distance from a person throughout the day so the sun would have to change apparent size because of changing distance from the viewer hour by hour.  The sun doesn’t change apparent size.  FE utterly fails to predict the path of the sun.  The heliocentric model where the sun stays basically a fixed distance from the earth explains how the sun doesn’t noticeably change apparent size to the unaided eye.  And explains the sun rising due east and setting due west on the equinox. 

FE completely and utterly fails to accurately and reliably predict the path of the sun. 

As for predicting the sun's path...

Which has nothing to do with….

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.

https://cdn.hackaday.io/images/9172341565179925215.png

So.  Again Bulma you hijack someone else’s work with no context.

The context…

SunTracker 2 Revision 3

Suntracker 2 Revision 3 is a single axis tracker for the suns azimuth angle. Main feature is a dual-color LED circle that will display the sun location (green) in relation to north (red, center). Two more red LED will show the sunrise/sunset azimuth, which limit the range for daytime solar tracking.

https://hackaday.io/project/166918-suntracker-2-revision-3

Bulma, do you understand azimuth angle as it relates to solar noon.

So glad you approve of AI, makes life simple.








Solar non is just another thing that debunks flat earth because you don’t understand the path the sun travels the whole world vs the angle the sun reaches into the sky for a stationary observer because of earth’s tilt.  Nor do you understand latitude vs where a person is observing the North Star.



Flat earth sill debunked. Bulma, now you have to try to word salad your way out of FE and the discrepancy it causes with solar noon.

I think this has been posted for you Bulma.




Bulma, I guess lāhainā noon is also a problem for flat earth as in FE doesn’t actually predict / model what is observed.





Man Bulma, you are the worst thing to happen to FE.  You’re like a government plant out to make FE look stupid.  Or is FE just stupid. 

It’s that easy to debunk flat earth. You just completely ignore what the other person says and assume the you know best.

You mean it is easy for you to pretend to debunk the RE?
Because that pretty much sums up what you do.

Meanwhile, people pay attention to what you say and explain why it is wrong, with you just ignoring it.

I have explained many times why your parabola BS doesn't work, and you just keep on ignoring it, as if ignoring the refutations will magically make it work.

Again, here is the refutation of your steaming pile of garbage:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2426003#msg2426003
It clearly explains how your parabola cannot work without pure magic.

If the sun shines straight down onto the parabola to cause it to then project the image of the sun, then either the vast majority of the world is dark, or the sun should take up the entire sky.
Instead you need the sun to magically project onto each parabola to magically produce the results expected directly for a RE.

If you want to keep appealing to your BS and have any semblance of integrity, you need to deal with that.

People with a trigonometry background who are flat Earthers can predict the angle of the sun.

No, that would be REers, or dishonest FEers that know Earth is round, and use the math for a RE.
Notice what you provided, a direct path to the sun, and the simple angle based upon that.

This math means little to nothing to me

Of course it doesn't, because it so trivially shows that you are wrong.

And no, that does not assume a locally flat plane, nor a domed/parabolic sky.
Instead it uses the fact that vision works based upon angles.

Predicting the location of the sun at a certain time of day has nothing at all to do with flat Earth.

This depends entirely upon if you are trying to predict it from a series of past observations with absolutely no idea about the shape of Earth; or if you are trying to predict it from a model which has the locations.
For the former it is a quite limited method which requires lots of data, but importantly has no justification for any model, nor any explanation for why the sun appears there.
If the latter, the shape of Earth most certainly does matter if you want to consider different points on Earth.

These angles come from mathematics that still worked when people built pyramids.

As explained repeatedly, the ancient FE models had far more in common with the modern RE model than you steaming pile of garbage.
One big issue which you keep fleeing from is why the sun sets.
These ancient FE models had the sun go BELOW Earth with Earth physically blocking the sun from view.
The modern RE model has the sun go below Earth relative to the observer. i.e. take a coordinate system centred and levelled on the observer. Then the sun sets because in this coordinate system the sun is below Earth, with Earth blocking the view.

In your steaming pile of crap, the sun remains above Earth with magic, which you can't even decide on if it is magic perspective or a magic parabola causing it to set.
Completely different.

Those people who made the pyramids, if they could see your delusional garbage, would dismiss it as the garbage that it is.
And do you know the simple reason why?
They can see the sun set. Not magically go away, but set going down below Earth.

They instead thought, "The sun has a circular shadow. The Earth must be a sphere."

No, they didn't.
We call this kind of pathetic BS a strawman.
Because you are inventing pure BS to attack rather than even attempting to deal with what is said.
There are many ways to get to the fact that Earth is round.

One example is the shadow of Earth on the moon.
During a lunar eclipse, the moon passes into Earth's shadow.
And we can see that the edge of that shadow is round, regardless of when it is, so regardless of the orientation of Earth.
And do you know the only shape that has a roughly circular shadow regardless of orientation? A shape that is roughly a sphere.

But there are other methods as well.
Such as observations of the constellations, which work even better than the equivalent observations of the sun.
We can observe celestial objects like the sun and moon and constellations and see that they retain roughly the same angular size regardless of where they are in the sky.
The main exception here is the moon, which over the course of a month does change significantly, but over the course of a day it does not.
And even better, not only are those angular sizes roughly the same regardless of when it is, it is also roughly the same regardless of where you are.
This means the distance to them does not change significantly as time goes on or as you move around Earth.
This means the distance to them must be many many times the size of Earth, and that everyone on Earth that is looking at these objects, are looking at them from the same direction.
e.g. it doesn't matter where you are on Earth, the direction to the sun is basically the same; likewise, the direction to Polaris or any other star or the moon is basically the same
So the only way for the angle of the object relative to Earth to be different is if the orientation of Earth is different.
i.e. Earth must be round.
And you can measure the angle of Earth's surface relative to these very distant objects to get an idea of the radius of Earth.
That is what Eratosthenes did.
That is what modern celestial navigation relies upon (but we know the radius of Earth and just use the angle directly).
But even without the angle, seeing that different stars are visible depending upon location also demonstrates Earth is round, for the same kind of reasoning as above, with Earth blocking the view to some stars.

Then there are more direct observations, such as observing an object going over the horizon disappearing from the bottom up.

There are countless ways for even a fool like you to determine that Earth is round.
But you just ignore it all and present strawmen.

I also know that while I can't predict anything besides occasionally the weather, given a tool such as a protractor or sextant, I can tell the sun's current angle.

i.e. you have the minimal brainpower necessary to determine an angle from an observation.
i.e. you have nothing to defend your steaming pile of garbage.

These ancient FE models had the sun go BELOW Earth with Earth physically blocking the sun from view.

Visually, this is what it appears to do.

Meanwhile, time moved on, and Eric Dubay is using a zoom camera to bring a set sun back into view (for a few more minutes).

Meanwhile, any attempts to set up the RE model inevitably lead to the sun being put under the guy standing on the top of Earth (as in your infamous picture where the sun's light is below the clouds) by moving the sun to the position you want.

A third time. Do you notice that in position B and L, the sun actually appears to be below the horizon?  No special moving of the sun required.

There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.

It's been three attempts now, to show said picture. Is it that the parabola is stupid, or you are?

Use your finger to draw a line from the person looking ahead to the sky. As even kindergarten kids know, you can't look infinitely ahead because the sky (not the curvature) descends into the horizon, just as the ground ascends into the horizon. So you, standing on the ground, looking outward at the sky can see 90° worth of angles ahead of you, 90° behind you 90° to your left and 90° to your right. That's an upright dome with 360° degrees in horizontal angles. However, the ground sorta kinda stops you from seeing more than 180° of vertical angles (in other words, looking below you there really isn't that same arch).

The further away the sun, the more it appears to be below the onlooker.

Which has nothing to do with….

You are correct. I'm responding to sidetracking questions. Maybe if you bothered to look around, you'd notice you're not the only person posting, SpamBot2022.

Meanwhile, time moved on, and Eric Dubay is using a zoom camera to bring a set sun back into view (for a few more minutes).

How.  The setting sun works no way how you need it to to justify FE.

Visually,

Through dip of the horizon and a good landscape shot of the sea you can capture the curvature of the earth.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 14, 2025, 07:58:18 PM

It always appears to be rising upward over the surface up to a horizon. 

Which has been proven false in numerous ways.

Dip of the horizon



Vanishing Point

Quote

Flat Earth horizon still wouldn't look flat!

Compressing the photo makes it easier to see.

Quote

Or from a high enough altitude.

Interesting video with interesting pictures from the life of the Concorde Airline and the official photographer.


Photo from 1976 taken by Adrian Meredith

Quote

Concorde: A Photographic Tribute: A Photographic...
by Adrian Meredith

[/quote]

Where Bulma.  You think our vision is limited to three miles.  So clouds shouldn’t fill the horizon, but be little vertical slivers on the horizon until they venture closer into our cone of vision.  And after gaining enough altitude, like 20,000 feet, any gain in altitude should through the cone of visibility you preach would cause the amount of visible earth below us to visibly shrink with any increase in altitude. FE and your BS Bulma soundly debunked because it fails to accurately predict what is witnessed.

How.  The setting sun works no way how you need it to to justify FE.

Protip: "How?" with a question mark is a question. "How." without on is what stereotypical Native American ppl said in old films.

You sound like Stephen Hawking. "There is no need to invoke God"

Actually, it sorta does work in a way that involves justifying FE.

You see those clouds that the sun is moving through?
(btw, awful picture in terms of lighting)
So if the Earth is constantly moving, either the clouds are at perfect pace with Earth's rotation (which is to say, they appear not to move at all, making no difference from the Earth not moving at all).
Or the Earth is moving in a specific direction, and clouds in the sky would trail behind it, lagging behind in the opposite direction. But clouds move in literally every direction.

If the Earth is round, and rotates the same way every day, and orbits  every year, we should be able to accurately predict weather based on rotation, orbit, wobble, etc for weather 1000 years from now.
Instead, AccuWeather is trying to do a 90 day forecast, and the weather community  admits this is pointless.

The movement of clouds, the sun, and the moon is up to them. It is not dependent on the rotation or orbit of the Earth.

---

And then he pulls out stock pictures from flatearth.ws

Maybe if I answer these, he will finally stop using these tired things.

• Horizon is even with eye level not the actual elevation. As I've explained with balloon pictures and with the Dead Sea. This means there is a clear way to fake such a picture. Be at a slightly different elevation (lower) from the tube, then zoom in so the viewer can't notice the change. Voila! The horizon is level with your eyes, the tubes are not.
  
• "But as the Earth is a sphere..." We can actually stop right here. This is begging the question.
  Quote

  Begging the question is a logical fallacy where an argument's premises assume the truth of its conclusion, essentially restating the conclusion without providing independent support

  But even if it weren't, recall what I said about the horizon on the cruise ship and how water level rises to look as though it should be above the ship. The picture above shows real vanishing point and horizon. Meanwhile, that picture they display has lines drawn beyond normal vanishing point, which is always at the horizon. The second and fourth picture appear to have a superimposed building over a skyline at a lower level. Like the tubes earlier, the elevation doesn't match.
• Fisheye lens and superimposed object in "space"...
• Curved water using the spherize effect. We've  dealt with this one. The distortion is so profound you can't even tell what the object is.
• Superimposed object on fisheye lens picture. Shill telling us that now he's convinced.

Mostly fake pictures, alot of begging the question built-in assumptions. No, we don't know the Earth is a sphere, and in real pictures, the horizon always rises to eye (or camera) level. Making the assertion that the horizon is below eye level something that has to be done with photography tricks, usually either zoom or superimposed objects from a lower level.

Look at the ship picture here. Now what do you think would happen if instead of the real view of the ocean from the ship, you lowered a rowboat, took a shot of the ocean then put the view of the deck spliced with the ocean view from the rowboat? You have a lower line of horizon.

Protip: "How?"

Context.

Meanwhile, time moved on, and Eric Dubay is using a zoom camera to bring a set sun back into view (for a few more minutes).

How.  The setting sun works no way how you need it to to justify FE.



Where the curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun from view at sunset.

Where the sun doesn’t visibly change apparent size and shrink in apparent size all afternoon to invoke vanishing point for sunset.

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.

This means there is a clear way to fake such a picture.

Where you have no proof where there is still a measurable dip to the horizon

• Fisheye lens and superimposed object in "space"...

Cherry picking data would be only accepting stuff you like.

Which has been explained to you.

Photo from 1976 taken by Adrian Meredith

Concorde: A Photographic Tribute: A Photographic...
by Adrian Meredith

[/quote]


Notice in the picture of the Concorde where the earth is below the jet.  That is significant in terms of a fish eye lens.  The video explains this.

For the Concorde not to be distorted by a fish eye lens, the jet would have to be perfectly in the middle horizontal.  It’s not.  And the horizon under the jet at bottom of the frame would have the horizon distorted up.




Which is why the fisheye lens in you presented videos are BS.



So.  Yes.  There is curvature of the earth.

Yes.  High altitude when properly documented does confirm earth’s curvature.  If it proved otherwise, you would have flat earthers doing high altitude balloon flights meticulously documented in mass. 

So.  Why doesn’t the FE society charter flights, charter ships, and conduct high altitude balloon flights to create their own world map. That’s the real question.

Because the earth is a globe.

Where Bulma.  You think our vision is limited to three miles.  So clouds shouldn’t fill the horizon, but be little vertical slivers on the horizon until they venture closer into our cone of vision.  And after gaining enough altitude, like 20,000 feet, any gain in altitude should through the cone of visibility you preach would cause the amount of visible earth below us to visibly shrink with any increase in altitude. FE and your BS Bulma soundly debunked because it fails to accurately predict what is witnessed.