Does your mountain shadow happen all the time, every day, at all places? Probably not, or you would say "like you see every day." What is the assurance that your mountain shadow is not a rare event that only happens under certain circumstances, and that the straight lines in the diagrams are accurate, and not curved as with mirages?I would have thought these were different phenomena. shadows and mirages, while both involving light, are very different things.
I would have thought these were different phenomena. shadows and mirages, while both involving light, are very different things.Both involve light curving upwards.
You ask, "Does your mountain shadow happen all the time, every day, at all places?" It does not happen at "all places" but does occur predictably at places like Mt Rainier.Does your mountain shadow happen all the time, every day, at all places? Probably not, or you would say "like you see every day." What is the assurance that your mountain shadow is not a rare event that only happens under certain circumstances, and that the straight lines in the diagrams are accurate, and not curved as with mirages?I would have thought these were different phenomena. shadows and mirages, while both involving light, are very different things.
Even without a mountain, if you just have clouds you can see them lit from underneath at sunset. This happens year round and doesn't matter where you might be.This sort of thing:
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ploaatv5gkcuw6/Before%20Surise%20Jujy%2019%2C%202917%2006.30.54%20EAST.JPG?dl=1) Clouds lit on the underside before sunrise | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qiiwluzt007w5ah/P.40%2020170503%2006.15%20Clouds%20at%20Sunrise.jpg?dl=1) Sun's rays shining up on clouds before sunrise | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kwpenbbprwdj83m/Toogoolawah%20at%20Sunset.JPG?dl=1) Clouds lit from underneath near Toogoolawah at Sunset |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ploaatv5gkcuw6/Before%20Surise%20Jujy%2019%2C%202917%2006.30.54%20EAST.JPG?dl=1)
Clouds lit on the underside before sunrise
About the flying boat, is this real? Can some one explain the physics behind this? I couldn't find it.It is similar to how mirages work (as it is a type of mirage). There is a layer of air which refracts the light downwards making the object appear much higher.
It is similar to how mirages work (as it is a type of mirage). There is a layer of air which refracts the light downwards making the object appear much higher.Since you have agreed air can downwards objects so it is an agreement you have agreed air can downward onject causes you feel the ship disappear in the horizon.
Since you have agreed air can downwards objectsDo you understand what HIGHER means?
Since you have agreed air can downwards objectsDo you understand what HIGHER means?
Higher means upwards, not downwards.
Refraction makes objects appear higher, not lower.
The simple fact that light shining upwards from the sun is a very common occurrence shows the promoted FE models are wrong.
It is similar to how mirages work (as it is a type of mirage). There is a layer of air which refracts the light downwards making the object appear much higher.
Case closed. Do not fight with yourself because I can not break up the fight between you and yourself.Yes, case closed. You are either have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand English or you are a pathetic troll.
Case closed. Do not fight with yourself because I can not break up the fight between you and yourself.Yes, case closed. You are either have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand English or you are a pathetic troll.
Bending light downwards makes things appear higher.
So that doesn't explain why ships disappear below the horizon.
In order to have clouds be illuminated from below while the sun is above them, or otherwise have the sun illuminate objects from below (which is what the OP was about) you need to have the light bend upwards.
Do you understand the difference?
I already know the diffefrenceThen why were you lying about it and lying about me?
Light bends to the upsideOnly under rare circumstances and with extreme distortion. As such, it cannot explain why the sun is casting light upwards on a daily basis.
I already know the diffefrenceThen why were you lying about it and lying about me?
Light being bent downwards by the atmosphere does not make objects appear lower, and thus it cannot explain why objects are obscured by the horizon.Light bends to the upsideOnly under rare circumstances and with extreme distortion. As such, it cannot explain why the sun is casting light upwards on a daily basis.
I told you I did not told itAnd you repeating that lie wont help you.
air can downward onject causes you feel the ship disappear in the horizon.The air causes the light to bend downwards making objects appear higher.
In short, it explains why we see sun as rising or setting.What does?
In short, it explains why we see sun as rising or setting.What does?
You are yet to provide any explanation.
And stop lying.
You are not a scientist. You do not respect science.
You repeatedly spit in its face and reject it as a lie.
Light bend causes you see the sun rising or setting. What do you need more explanation.I need an explaination for why refraction of light by the atmosphere, on a daily basis causes the light to bend upwards rather than downwards.
Light bend causes you see the sun rising or setting. What do you need more explanation.I need an explaination for why refraction of light by the atmosphere, on a daily basis causes the light to bend upwards rather than downwards.
Light bending downwards makes the sun appear higher, not lower. That means that it makes it harder for the sun to set.
Sun child seems not around. ::)Thanks for answering. I can see that.
But how does the sunrise and sunset work when the sun really is always above me?
refraction index of light in dense air.
(https://i.ibb.co/wNQbdRQ/3.png)
Air near the earth acts like a light water, because of being heavy than above air. So that, follow the following image. Right here:
(https://i.ibb.co/6g5bn2z/3.png)
Okay. My door is open ignorants want to be learn something from scientists always.If you want to educate people, make sure you are correct.
<BS deleted>
I don't see images except uploaded to THIS website.I don't give a damn.
Have you any other questions those you forgot to ask your teachers in kindergarden?I didn't forget to ask teachers.
I don't see images except uploaded to THIS website.I don't give adamn.care.
Here we have diagram that shows where we see things with and without refraction.
Upper half shows the case where the substances above and below the surface S are equally transparent.
They have same refraction index.
As you can see the ray 1 continues along the path A, ray 2 along path B and ray 3 along path C.
Ray 2 hits observer's eye E and observer sees object O at the same location V.
Lower half shows the case where lower substance has higher refraction index and at the surface S light refracts downward.
Ray 1 continues along NEW path A, ray 2 along NEW path B and ray 3 along NEW path C.
This time ray 2 doesn't hit observer's eye E.
Now observer's eye has been hit by the ray 1 from the NEW path A, and observer sees the object O at the NEW location V.
That way we demonstarted how bending light downward makes observer see objects higher.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/dxh6h5.png)
Sorry. our gov has forbidded the tinypic in our office. this website (http://resimyukle.xyz) I want to remind is one of few upload websites is still working. May you upload it here?Again, you don't need the image to understand it.
Sorry. our gov has forbidded the tinypic in our office. this website (http://resimyukle.xyz) I want to remind is one of few upload websites is still working. May you upload it here?
I like it.
Thanks.
Please do not forget to add the dome affection.Only if you can show the dome is real.
Please do not forget to add the dome affection.Only if you can show the dome is real.
Even then all you manage to do is get it to come back into the same direction. That isn't going to cause a cloud (or any object) to be illuminated from below while the sun is above.
Nor is it going to make the sun set.
So you still have the same problems.
Nice try. But you made a mentality mistake. The explanation is already made depends on flat earth dome model. What was your expection about it, does it has to include space, instead of flat earth dome?If it needed to include the dome why did you post a picture trying to explain it that was completely wrong and had no dome?
There's no way that your "Dome Hypothesis" can explain this sort of thing that needs upward slanting sun's rays!Please do not forget to add the dome affection.Only if you can show the dome is real.
Even then all you manage to do is get it to come back into the same direction. That isn't going to cause a cloud (or any object) to be illuminated from below while the sun is above.
Nor is it going to make the sun set.
So you still have the same problems.
Nice try. But you made a mentality mistake. The explanation is already made depends on flat earth dome model. What was your expection about it, does it has to include space, instead of flat earth dome?
| (https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bPbSTB.jpg) | (https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WQPdHV.jpg) |
https://wiki.tfes.org/Clouds_Lit_From_BelowThis is clouds by lit by diffuse light from the underneath:
Electromagnetic AccelerationIf you have no evidence your Electromagnetic Acceleration hypothesis is a nothing but a baseless hypothesis.
According to thetheoryhypothesis of the Electromagnetic Accelerator, light is bending upwards over very long distances and can illuminate the underside of clouds during sunrise or sunset.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Clouds_Lit_From_BelowAre you capable of providing arguments or just spamming links?
Really? It's your picture. Prove that the sun's light isn't bouncing off of anything or that the rays are caused from curvature rather than any other cause. You came here and posted that picture. There are multiple explanations for what may be occuring, and you have nothing except some hand waiving assumption.I think we all know what is happening here, these continual attempts to get a single person here to come up with proof you will not accept is pointless. Clearly this shows the sun shining below the clouds on a round earth.
Ah, so there is no actual evidence that this is caused by a ball earth then.Yes, the location of the sun relative to the earth shows this.
Really? It's your picture.No it isn't.
Prove that the sun's light isn't bouncing off of anythingIf the sun was above we should see signs of it being illuminated from above. Just like the picture on your wiki has the close regions of the cloud clearly illuminated from above.
that the rays are caused from curvatureI'm not saying the rays are caused by curvature.
There are multiple explanations for what may be occuring, and you have nothing except some hand waiving assumption.Not really.
Ah, so there is no actual evidence that this is caused by a ball earth then.No, this is part of strong evidence of a round Earth. The other key part is that the sun always remains above some point on Earth.
Really? It's your picture. Prove that the sun's light isn't bouncing off of anything or that the rays are caused from curvature rather than any other cause. You came here and posted that picture. There are multiple explanations for what may be occuring, and you have nothing except some hand waiving assumption.To which photo are you referring? Has no one told you about the [quote] . . . . [/quote] that clarifies this issue?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Clouds_Lit_From_BelowAre you capable of providing arguments or just spamming links?
We aren't discussing a reflection off the ocean or the like. The image provided in the OP doesn't match that at all.
Notice how the clouds in your link are clearly illuminated from above, while in the OP there is absolutely no sign of illumination from above?
But in my photo the sun's rays are shining upwards from behind a cloud almost on the horizon.As I noted there. If the illumination was not from the sun at a very low altitude then where do YOU suggest the light came from?
If the sun were higher in the sky it would be readily be visible:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/891VU2.jpg)
P.67 2018 Mar 20 - Equinox Sunrise 05:58:18
And if you are going you suggest your Electromagnetic Acceleration I suggest that you provide evidence that:In case YOU hadn't heard photons are electrically neutral and are unaffected by electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields.
Such bending of light by electric or magnetic fields is even possible is the atmosphere and the near vacuum above.
With the regularly observed upward slanting shadow from Mt Rainier, the idea of the sun's rays being reflected seems highly unlikely unless you can identify sufficiently large bodies of water in exactly the required position.
Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.No, it relies upon simple logic.
Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.
Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.No, it relies upon simple logic.
Your refutation relies upon pure magic.
Again, the only "alternative" to the sun actually being below is to have the light magically bend upwards, which destroys a large portion of FE "arguments", as this bending light would cause similar issues as the curvature of Earth, so the high prophet Row Boat wouldn't have seen the flag.
Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.
Sunsets of Mt Everest. The shadows from lower mountains creep up to obscure higher mountains. The sun is not reflecting up off of the sea, or anything, for example. It can’t, there are mountains in the way. No matter how far away the sun gets it can’t cast a shadow upward to the top of the highest mountain in the world unless it is moving ‘downward’. In other words, setting behind a horizon.
A 3000 mile high FE sun can't cast a shadow upward on the mountains no matter how far away it gets; it never breaks the horizontal plane of the lower peak to do so:
(https://i.imgur.com/ynA357t.jpg?1)
Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.Didn't you read?
And YOU dare talk of "some hand waiving assumption" after coming up with a hypothesis like your Electromagnetic Acceleration!Then read Stash's post: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain « Reply #45 on: Today at 10:02:03 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81502.msg2179182#msg2179182)And if you are going you suggest your Electromagnetic Acceleration I suggest that you provide evidence that:In case YOU hadn't heard photons are electrically neutral and are unaffected by electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields.
Such bending of light by electric or magnetic fields is even possible is the atmosphere and the near vacuum above.
The only effect is the rotation of the plane of polarisation due to magnetic fields in some solids.
You might read Q & A: Light and Magnets... and Gravity Q: How far can a magnetic field bend light? (https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2009&t=light-and-magnets...-and-gravity)
So unless you have some solid evidence of this effect then Electromagnetic Acceleration is simply a baseless assertion! More hand-waving.
You accuse us of "having nothing except some hand waiving assumptions" yet propose pure hypotheses like Universal Acceleration and Electromagnetic Acceleration. Talk about being hypocritical!
And the model in your Wiki seems to be:Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.
Sunsets of Mt Everest. The shadows from lower mountains creep up to obscure higher mountains. The sun is not reflecting up off of the sea, or anything, for example. It can’t, there are mountains in the way. No matter how far away the sun gets it can’t cast a shadow upward to the top of the highest mountain in the world unless it is moving ‘downward’. In other words, setting behind a horizon.
A 3000 mile high FE sun can't cast a shadow upward on the mountains no matter how far away it gets; it never breaks the horizontal plane of the lower peak to do so:
(https://i.imgur.com/ynA357t.jpg?1)
Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.
You have to address the models available.
SunStash's diagram pictures that rather well!
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to an elliptic area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise on a Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/9/9a/RenderedFE.jpg)
Rendered picture of the Sun in relation to the Earth
A 3000 mile high FE sun can't cast a shadow upward on the mountains no matter how far away it gets; it never breaks the horizontal plane of the lower peak to do so:
(https://i.imgur.com/ynA357t.jpg?1)
Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.
Your argument is literally akin to me claiming that pouring a cup of water on golfball disproves RET gravity.
You have to address the models available.
What are you rambling about? You just posted pictures of what RET claims are illusions! The sun is below the horizon in those pictures in RET.What do you mean "illusions"? No one that I've seen, other than you, claims that sunrise is an illusion.
What are you rambling about? You just posted pictures of what RET claims are illusions! The sun is below the horizon in those pictures in RET.What do you mean "illusions"? No one that I've seen, other than you, claims that sunrise is an illusion.
Now watch the two videos linked to the sunrise photographs!
Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.
Your argument is literally akin to me claiming that pouring a cup of water on golfball disproves RET gravity.
You have to address the models available.
I don't see that as the case. Instead of a 3000 mile high sun which I thought was pretty common in FET should I cite SBR's 700 mile high sun instead?
Do you mean this as how the sun works from your wiki:
"Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective."
How am I saying anything that is not akin to an FE sun? No matter this nonsense of a "laws of perspective" the sun still can't descend below the plane of the top of the lower mountain to cast a shadow up on to the top of the highest mountain in the world in FET.
So why don't you point out where I have incorrectly addressed the FE sun 'model' instead of dodging the issue entirely.
This one!I don't see that as the case. Instead of a 3000 mile high sun which I thought was pretty common in FET should I cite SBR's 700 mile high sun instead?
Do you mean this as how the sun works from your wiki:
"Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective."
How am I saying anything that is not akin to an FE sun? No matter this nonsense of a "laws of perspective" the sun still can't descend below the plane of the top of the lower mountain to cast a shadow up on to the top of the highest mountain in the world in FET.
So why don't you point out where I have incorrectly addressed the FE sun 'model' instead of dodging the issue entirely.
Please point out which FE model depicts a sun that recedes forever without setting into the horizon.
SunUnless you drag in quite impossible refraction or totally unsupportable hypotheses like your Electromagnetic Accelerator.
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to an elliptic area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise on a Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/9/9a/RenderedFE.jpg)
Rendered picture of the Sun in relation to the Earth
Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.
Your argument is literally akin to me claiming that pouring a cup of water on golfball disproves RET gravity.
You have to address the models available.
I don't see that as the case. Instead of a 3000 mile high sun which I thought was pretty common in FET should I cite SBR's 700 mile high sun instead?
Do you mean this as how the sun works from your wiki:
"Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective."
How am I saying anything that is not akin to an FE sun? No matter this nonsense of a "laws of perspective" the sun still can't descend below the plane of the top of the lower mountain to cast a shadow up on to the top of the highest mountain in the world in FET.
So why don't you point out where I have incorrectly addressed the FE sun 'model' instead of dodging the issue entirely.
Please point out which FE model depicts a sun that recedes forever without setting into the horizon.
None of those models say that the sun recedes forever without setting.
According to that explanation the sun gets to the sea level horizon, parallel to the base of the mountain, a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.
Your rebuttal to this is to bring up what ancient people thought about how perspective works at long distances.
Likewise, your rebuttal to EAT is to bring up what ancient people though about how light travels at long distances. An ancient theory. Totally uncompelling.
Under any FET the sun is at the sea level horizon, at 90 degrees, and the photons are pointing up at the mountain top.You need to provide a diagram showing the location of the sun being seen from multiple locations at the same time on earth at the correct angle as measured.
If you ask how, because of xyz, your xyz is undemonstrated ancient hypothesis. You are using undemonstrated ancient hypothesis to make conclusions about the world and tell us how things "should" be -- an inherent fallacy.
None of those models say that the sun recedes forever without setting. A long line of lamp posts also "sets" into the horizon.No it doesn't.
Q & A: Light and Magnets... and Gravity Q: How far can a magnetic field bend light? (https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2009&t=light-and-magnets...-and-gravity)Also what is the source on any electric or magnetic field that might have cause this purely imaginary Electromagnetic Acceleration?
A:
Hi Jon --
Nice try. Unfortunately, the path light takes is not affected by the presence of a magnetic field. Light itself is composed of an oscillating electric and magnetic field, and one very important property of electric and magnetic fields is what we call "linearity." That is, if you have two sources of electric and/or magnetic fields, you can predict what the combined field is just by adding the two source fields together. The two fields don’t change each other at all. So if you add the field of a light ray to any other field we can imagine, the light ray will continue as before and the extra field will just stay the same, adding to it in places where the extra field is strong, but having no effect beyond the reach of the extra field. So there is no way that a magnetic field can bend light.
>>Perspective cannot put your sun anywhere near the horizon, let alone hidden by it!So no answers! I ask again!
>> Also what is the source on any electric or magnetic field that might have cause this purely imaginary Electromagnetic Acceleration?
You invent your purely hypothetical Electromagnetic Accelerator!If you aren't prepared to support your hypotheses it seems little point continuing.
But I have to repeat that electric and magnetic fields do not bend light in other than in artificially constructed microstructures!
Also what is the source on any electric or magnetic field that might have cause this purely imaginary Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Since there's no evidence that light follows other that a straight path except when refracted by predictable amounts by the medium I suggest that you need to provide evidence to that contrary.
Do you have any evidence for how light or perspective behaves at distances over, say, 20 miles?
Link me to the studies please.
Science Experiments - Laser Ranging Retroreflector (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/)That sort of experiment cannot be aimed purely by trial and error.
The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from. A similar device was also included on the Soviet Union's Lunakhod 2 spacecraft. These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large telescopes on Earth. The reflected laser beam is also observed with the telescope, providing a measurement of the round-trip distance between Earth and the Moon. This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon. Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.
Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused for large distances. Nevertheless, there is enough dispersion of the beam that it is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20 kilometers in diameter when it returns to Earth. Because of this very weak signal, observations are made for several hours at a time. By averaging the signal for this period, the distance to the Moon can be measured to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters (the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometers).
The official RET model discards Euclidean Space and Euclid's assumptions. I don't see that you have ANYTHING to stand on for your opinions.That is quite irrelevant so please present evidence for all your baseless assumptions.
Where did we say that it simulates RET?Are you capable of actually responding to what is said, or only pathetic strawmen?
Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.Interesting how you still fail to address what has been said.
>>Perspective cannot put your sun anywhere near the horizon, let alone hidden by it!
>> Also what is the source on any electric or magnetic field that might have cause this purely imaginary Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Do you have any evidence for how light or perspective behaves at distances over, say, 20 miles?
Link me to the studies please.
The official RET model discards Euclidean Space and Euclid's assumptions. I don't see that you have ANYTHING to stand on for your opinions.
I don't see any evidence for that version of perspective or light in that animation. Once again, you fail to provide evidence for your assumptioms and give only that -- assumptions.
We see all bodies appear to intersect the horizon a finite distance away. Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away, and yet you think that you have knowledge for how things should behave over thousands of miles? Quite irrational and undemonstrated. Please prove your assumptions and hypothesis.
It is quite reasonable that bodies would intersect with the horizon when they recede because that is what is observed.No it isn't as you haven't shown that they are receding.
It is quite unreasonable to imagine infinite paths of perspective lines which approach each other forever.Only if you think of them as some physical object rather than a phenomenon of vision.
Science has zero evidence for these infinite perspective lines. A compete hypothesis. Finite perspective lines are, however, observed.The finite examples, showing that objects remain equidistant when perpendicular is evidence of Euclidean geometry.
never been demonstrated and goes against observation?No, RE has been demonstrated in many ways. And perspective, which is what we are dealing with here, isn't really a thing. It is just stating that light travels in straight lines.
>>What you need to figure out is how do you get an FE 3000 mile high sun to disappear below the horizon for 12 hours every day
There are already several descriptions on that matter.
What you need to figure out is how you can demonstrate your base assumptions for how perspective and light should behave. We literally see finite perspective, and yet you propose infinite perspective which never merges against all observations. No one has seen these "infinite perspective lines" or anything to verify the concept that things will infitely approach each other. Quite absurd and quite against the reality of our quantized universe.
We now know that there are discreet units of space, time, energy, that perfect circles actually do not exist, and that the geometry and continuous universe model of the ancients is quite bunk in that regard. Why should it be the "most reasonable" version of things if it has never been demonstrated and goes against observation?
>>What you need to figure out is how do you get an FE 3000 mile high sun to disappear below the horizon for 12 hours every dayAs requested please provide a diagram showing how the sun appears for all points on earth at a particular time that agrees with what we measure.
There are already several descriptions on that matter.
What you need to figure out is how you can demonstrate your base assumptions for how perspective and light should behave. We literally see finite perspective, and yet you propose infinite perspective which never merges against all observations. No one has seen these "infinite perspective lines" or anything to verify the concept that things will infitely approach each other. Quite absurd and quite against the reality of our quantized universe.
We now know that there are discrete units of space, time, and energy. Perfect circles do not exist. The geometry and continuous universe model of the ancients is quite bunk in that regard. Why should it be the "most reasonable" version of things if it has never been demonstrated and goes against observation?
Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.
We see all bodies appear to intersect the horizon a finite distance away.What do you even mean by that? The horizon is at right angles to our line of sight so an object extending to the horizon must intersect it.
Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away,You might claim that "Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away" but I've yet to see anyone with any of knowledge of railroad tracks or geometry claim that.
and yet you think that you have knowledge for how things should behave over thousands of miles? Quite irrational and undemonstrated.I'll consider that after you have proven that "Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away".
We see finite perspective and you offer only half-baked ideas about infinite perspective lines which never merge! Please prove your ancient assumptions and hypothesis. The Ancient Greeks never demonstrated any of that.
Zetetic Astronomy, at sacred-texts.com, CHAPTER XIV. pp 202,203 (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)So objects separated by 3000 miles would not appear to meet until they were 9,000,000 miles away - so far that they can never meet within the confines of the earth.
The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . .
The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet.
Everything intersects with the horizon. Railroad tracks can receed and intersect with the horizon, and the metal tracks can intersect with each other. Quite literally to all properties of vision. The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.So you are still using perspective to explain your ideas. Science measures things and where is your diagram and map?
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Horne/publication/252970663/figure/fig75/AS:766886287536129@1559851347064/Two-merging-Airy-disks.ppm)
It all occurs a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as proposed by ancient geometry. You are literally invoking ancient fantasy and conjecture to support your arguments and ideas about perspective infinities.
Your argument that the tracks of railroads don't "really" merge together is a very poor argument. They merge to vision and perspective. No one is claiming that the sun really crashes into the earth, and so that argument is inadequate.
If you read Earth Not a Globe and the tfes.org wiki the sun we see is a projection on the atmolayer. Basically a cloud in the sky. The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective.
Everything intersects with the horizon.Nope.
Railroad tracks can receed and intersect with the horizon, and the metal tracks can intersect with each other.Nope.
The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.For human eyes.
The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective.Yes, it proposes that, but it is yet to substantiate it in any way.
Everything intersects with the horizon.Everything does not intersect with the horizon. I do not intersect with the horizon. So please reword your claim in a way that makes sense!
Railroad tracks can receed and intersect with the horizon,
and the metal tracks can intersect with each other. Quite literally to all properties of vision.
intersectThe metal tracks do appear to meet with each other.
verb
- divide (something) by passing or lying across it.
"the area is intersected only by minor roads"
synonyms: bisect, divide, halve, cut in two, cut in half, cut across, cut through;- (of two or more things) pass or lie across each other.
synonyms: cross, criss-cross;
The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.The "airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree" for a typical human eye but not necessarily for other optical devices!
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Horne/publication/252970663/figure/fig75/AS:766886287536129@1559851347064/Two-merging-Airy-disks.ppm)
It all occurs a finite distance away,
Limits of Resolution: The Rayleigh Criterion (https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/limits-of-resolution-the-rayleigh-criterion/)It has nothing to do with when they actually meet because they do not meet anywhere as is easily shown by getting a telescope with a larger aperture than the human eye!
The Rayleigh criterion for the diffraction limit to resolution states that two images are just resolvable when the center of the diffraction pattern of one is directly over the first minimum of the diffraction pattern of the other. See [link](b). The first minimum is at an angle of θR = 1.22λ/D, so that two point objects are just resolvable if they are separated by the angleθR = 1.22λ/Dwhere λ is the wavelength of light (or other electromagnetic radiation) and D is the diameter of the aperture, lens, mirror, etc., with which the two objects are observed. In this expression, θR has units of radians.
and not an infinite distance away as proposed by ancient geometry. You are literally invoking ancient fantasy and conjecture to support your arguments and ideas about perspective infinities.I'm invoking no "ancient fantasy". Look at Euclid's fifth postulate again:
Your argument that the tracks of railroads don't "really" merge together is a very poor argument.If it "is a very poor argument" why did you claim that
Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away.
They merge to vision and perspective. No one is claiming that the sun really crashes into the earth, and so that argument is inadequate.Well why did you claim that "Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away?
If you read Earth Not a Globe and the tfes.org wiki the sun we see is a projection on the atmolayer. Basically a cloud in the sky. The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective.I have thank you, and there is no possibolity of aby "projection on the atmolayer. Basically a cloud in the sky"! There is nothing to cause a projection and nothing to project an image onto!
Everything intersects with the horizon. Railroad tracks can receed and intersect with the horizon, and the metal tracks can intersect with each other. Quite literally to all properties of vision. The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.
It all occurs a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as proposed by ancient geometry. You are literally invoking ancient fantasy and conjecture to support your arguments and ideas about perspective infinities.
Your argument that the tracks of railroads don't "really" merge together is a very poor argument. They merge to vision and perspective. No one is claiming that the sun really crashes into the earth, and so that argument is inadequate.
If you read Earth Not a Globe and the tfes.org wiki the sun we see is a projection on the atmolayer. Basically a cloud in the sky. The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective.
They say Sun is 5000 km high and 51 km in diameter (32 miles).
If you are in Mineapolis at solar noon for Equinox, Sun will have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTg(25.5 / 7071) = 0.41 degrees.
In reality we see angular diameter of 0.53 degrees, which means Sun ahs to be 2 * tg(0.275) * 7071 = 65 km = 40 miles.
(7071 km is distance along the line of sight because the ground distance from Mineapolis to Equator is 5000 km and Sun is 5000 km above it.)
To reach vanishing point Sun has to look as small as 0.0167 degrees (1 arc minute).
Remember, the 0.0167 degrees (1/60 of a degree) is not only vertically but also horizontally.
With 65 km in diameter it has to be (65/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 223 450 km away.
There is not enough room under the dome. The whole diameter of the flat disc is 40 000 km.
It is 5.5 times smaller.
Even if it was just 51 km in diameter, it would have to be (51/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 175 325 km away.
Still can't fit.
40 000 km is still 4.3 times smaller.
Even at that distance Sun would keep floating at ArcTg(5000 / 175 325) = 1.6 degrees above the horizon.
And still 5000 - 6 = 4994 kilometers higher than the highest clouds. :)
Another option would be if light simply stops at 10 000 km from Sun and we don't see it any more.
Then how that light hits tops of high mountains and tall buildings further away behind us?
The third option would be for Sun to hide behind something for sunset and sunrise, but that's what FE is trying to avoid.
They say Sun is 5000 km high and 51 km in diameter (32 miles).
If you are in Mineapolis at solar noon for Equinox, Sun will have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTg(25.5 / 7071) = 0.41 degrees.
In reality we see angular diameter of 0.53 degrees, which means Sun ahs to be 2 * tg(0.275) * 7071 = 65 km = 40 miles.
(7071 km is distance along the line of sight because the ground distance from Mineapolis to Equator is 5000 km and Sun is 5000 km above it.)
To reach vanishing point Sun has to look as small as 0.0167 degrees (1 arc minute).
Remember, the 0.0167 degrees (1/60 of a degree) is not only vertically but also horizontally.
With 65 km in diameter it has to be (65/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 223 450 km away.
There is not enough room under the dome. The whole diameter of the flat disc is 40 000 km.
It is 5.5 times smaller.
Even if it was just 51 km in diameter, it would have to be (51/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 175 325 km away.
Still can't fit.
40 000 km is still 4.3 times smaller.
Even at that distance Sun would keep floating at ArcTg(5000 / 175 325) = 1.6 degrees above the horizon.
And still 5000 - 6 = 4994 kilometers higher than the highest clouds. :)
Another option would be if light simply stops at 10 000 km from Sun and we don't see it any more.
Then how that light hits tops of high mountains and tall buildings further away behind us?
The third option would be for Sun to hide behind something for sunset and sunrise, but that's what FE is trying to avoid.
you ignore the fact that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said.
They say Sun is 5000 km high and 51 km in diameter (32 miles).
If you are in Mineapolis at solar noon for Equinox, Sun will have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTg(25.5 / 7071) = 0.41 degrees.
In reality we see angular diameter of 0.53 degrees, which means Sun ahs to be 2 * tg(0.275) * 7071 = 65 km = 40 miles.
(7071 km is distance along the line of sight because the ground distance from Mineapolis to Equator is 5000 km and Sun is 5000 km above it.)
To reach vanishing point Sun has to look as small as 0.0167 degrees (1 arc minute).
Remember, the 0.0167 degrees (1/60 of a degree) is not only vertically but also horizontally.
With 65 km in diameter it has to be (65/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 223 450 km away.
There is not enough room under the dome. The whole diameter of the flat disc is 40 000 km.
It is 5.5 times smaller.
Even if it was just 51 km in diameter, it would have to be (51/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 175 325 km away.
Still can't fit.
40 000 km is still 4.3 times smaller.
Even at that distance Sun would keep floating at ArcTg(5000 / 175 325) = 1.6 degrees above the horizon.
And still 5000 - 6 = 4994 kilometers higher than the highest clouds. :)
Another option would be if light simply stops at 10 000 km from Sun and we don't see it any more.
Then how that light hits tops of high mountains and tall buildings further away behind us?
The third option would be for Sun to hide behind something for sunset and sunrise, but that's what FE is trying to avoid.
you ignore the fact that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said.
considering any factor by wise is unwise
booooooya!
you're fully discredited.
no one makes a map by using flight times.
you are fully discredited.
say something intelligent and we can continue discussions.
you ignore the fact that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said.Again, provide the full details, otherwise it isn't helping your case.
I've already drawed how it works.No you haven't.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/PKOKyM.png)No, your diagram shows the sunlight still shining DOWN and not upwards as needed to explain the "Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain".
They say Sun is 5000 km high and 51 km in diameter (32 miles).
If you are in Mineapolis at solar noon for Equinox, Sun will have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTg(25.5 / 7071) = 0.41 degrees.
In reality we see angular diameter of 0.53 degrees, which means Sun ahs to be 2 * tg(0.275) * 7071 = 65 km = 40 miles.
(7071 km is distance along the line of sight because the ground distance from Mineapolis to Equator is 5000 km and Sun is 5000 km above it.)
To reach vanishing point Sun has to look as small as 0.0167 degrees (1 arc minute).
Remember, the 0.0167 degrees (1/60 of a degree) is not only vertically but also horizontally.
With 65 km in diameter it has to be (65/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 223 450 km away.
There is not enough room under the dome. The whole diameter of the flat disc is 40 000 km.
It is 5.5 times smaller.
Even if it was just 51 km in diameter, it would have to be (51/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 175 325 km away.
Still can't fit.
40 000 km is still 4.3 times smaller.
Even at that distance Sun would keep floating at ArcTg(5000 / 175 325) = 1.6 degrees above the horizon.
And still 5000 - 6 = 4994 kilometers higher than the highest clouds. :)
Another option would be if light simply stops at 10 000 km from Sun and we don't see it any more.
Then how that light hits tops of high mountains and tall buildings further away behind us?
The third option would be for Sun to hide behind something for sunset and sunrise, but that's what FE is trying to avoid.
you ignore the fact that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said.
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(If you want to do it for bot protection you need to obfuscate the text.
I'm a big cry baby
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(If you want to do it for bot protection you need to obfuscate the text.
I'm a big cry baby
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
Computers are very good at reading well formatted text with well known fonts.
All I need to do is upload your image to google drive then tell it to open in google docs, and I get all the text.
Now again, stop just imaging I say what you want me to.
I don't care about the garbage image you have posted.
That image does not help your case.
I'm not denying that you have posted a completely irrelevant image.
I accept that you have spammed such an image.
Repeatedly spamming it as if it magically solves your problem is just further showing you have no answer.
Again, what direction is the light in your image?
DOWNWARDS!
Do you understand that?
The direction of the light in your image is going downwards towards Earth.
This means if it hits a mountain, the mountain will cast an image which goes downwards towards Earth.
Notice how this is not going upwards, towards a cloud?
What you need to show is light going upwards from below the mountain, towards the top of the mountain such that it can then cast a shadow on a cloud above the mountain.
Refraction doesn't magically make the light go upwards, no matter how hard you try and how much you practice your spells.
As you are just spamming the same image which doesn't address the issue at all, I haven't been lying.
You repeatedly claiming to have been able to address the issues means you have been lying (as you haven't addressed the issue).
So I will ask again, can you provide an explanation (preferably with an image) which shows how the light goes upwards.
Note the image needs to show the light going upwards, hitting a mountain, and casting a shadow on a cloud above the mountain.
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(If you want to do it for bot protection you need to obfuscate the text.
I'm a big cry baby
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
Computers are very good at reading well formatted text with well known fonts.
All I need to do is upload your image to google drive then tell it to open in google docs, and I get all the text.
Now again, stop just imaging I say what you want me to.
I don't care about the garbage image you have posted.
That image does not help your case.
I'm not denying that you have posted a completely irrelevant image.
I accept that you have spammed such an image.
Repeatedly spamming it as if it magically solves your problem is just further showing you have no answer.
Again, what direction is the light in your image?
DOWNWARDS!
Do you understand that?
The direction of the light in your image is going downwards towards Earth.
This means if it hits a mountain, the mountain will cast an image which goes downwards towards Earth.
Notice how this is not going upwards, towards a cloud?
What you need to show is light going upwards from below the mountain, towards the top of the mountain such that it can then cast a shadow on a cloud above the mountain.
Refraction doesn't magically make the light go upwards, no matter how hard you try and how much you practice your spells.
As you are just spamming the same image which doesn't address the issue at all, I haven't been lying.
You repeatedly claiming to have been able to address the issues means you have been lying (as you haven't addressed the issue).
So I will ask again, can you provide an explanation (preferably with an image) which shows how the light goes upwards.
Note the image needs to show the light going upwards, hitting a mountain, and casting a shadow on a cloud above the mountain.
In the one hand, you are targeting me with two or three accounts.
On the other hand, whenever I knock out you then your fans admins are deleting my posts to hide your being knock out.
It is obviously admins are deleting me to provocate and stop me. This is their main target. Because you are crying them. Since you are their boss they have to be obey your orders to stop me.
Are you thinking it is required to reply all your baseless statements are not worth than a shit but more worth than our admins?
Aside from all of the above. You wrote to Macarios, "You ignore the fact ...I'm glad to see you have awared I have wrote to Macarios, but not to you.
Aside from all of the above. You wrote to Macarios, "You ignore the fact ...I'm glad to see you have awared I have wrote to Macarios, but not to you.
This is public forum and threads are not private correspondence between you and me.
Surely, and I have a right to critise it, haven't I?
He or everyone else has right to join the conversation.
About the "Spherical Water Wall", here is diagram, show us where is the Sun and how sunlight gets to the horizon.
Add Sun here and add the missing part of the sunbeam from Sun to horizon.
Drawing
I do not remember I said its being forbid, and you?You didn't say that directly, instead you dismissed what someone said because they weren't who you wanted to respond to.
I've ignored himNo you didn't.
A diagram's showing something is your own thoughts. There is not a value in the name of being an evidence.No, this is of great value.
the way you draw is not the same as my subject.Then draw it like you want it drawn.
this also has to do with the fact that angular size is a reverse trigonometric function.No it isn't.
Please calculate the appearent size of an object has 100 km high and 6000 kms distance to the observe point first.Are you saying the sun is only 100 km high? Otherwise I fail to see how this is relevant.
that is, where the sun sets, the place where the dome seems like touches the ground and the horizon meet in the same place.
You cannot see 6,000 kmeters horizontally with the naked eye, an object at that distance merges on the horizon. This also has to do with the fact that angular size is
a reverse trigonometric function. The dome is not closed in the form of a semicircle. So the angular size quickly shrinks to you according to observe point at the horizon
at 6000 km with a difference you can't notice. I hope you can understand that. I hope you can get this.
There isn't a gap between dome and atmoflat.
The highness of the dome is 100 kms.
Please calculate the appearent size of an object has 100 km high and 6000 kms distance to the observe point first.
If you draw it considering centered observe point and dome's apperance depends on its angular size to observe point then this turns a realistic drawing can be talked about.
If Dome exists it covers the whole Earth.Correct. Limit of dome may be more or at least equal to earth limit.
Looking from Africa you see Sun sets somewhere in Brazil?Nope. You see sun sets somewhere at skyline. it just means you can't see it anymore.
Why people don't see end of the Dome there?because dome is further. Again, you see the skyline, not the Brasil when you see the sun setting. Suns image unites to skyline when it setting.
In reality your horizon is much closer.What you mean with reality, which reality, reality to whom?
Stand at a beach by the sea:It simply explains why can not you see the sun after setting. disappears behind the sea wave. you can see more if there was not waves. As a note so it is not 6000 miles but 6000kms, if I remember it true. We Europeans except Englishes and a few use metric system.
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.
I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.There is nothing at there claim horizon's being 6000 kms. I said "you can not see anything 600kms HORIZONTALY". This is horizontal, not "horizon'tal". It means flat, level,...
If we apply standard refraction then:
If you are 2 m above the sea, horizon is 5.45 km away.
If you are 1 km above the sea, horizon is 96 km away.
If you are 10 km above the sea, horizon is at 304 km.
If you are 100 km above the sea, horizon is at 966 km.
And you say that Dome is directly at 100 km.
Do you see now what is the problem?
<off topic>Since you've missunderstood what I meant so you have did some explanations but I am passing this part.
Right now, at this very moment, I think that it is important to imagine two people looking at the Sun simultaneously from two places very far away from each other.this should be calculated by experiments. The outer shape of the dome is also important here. We have an estimate about it but our estimates may be a bit different. also because of light refraction and angular size you can not see the sun exactly where it is located. however, the shape of the dome can be calculated by trial and error. Since the so called scientists have nothing with real science I don't guess this will be done in a soon next.
Where is the dome for some guy in Istanbul, and where will guy from Madrid see that same dome?
Guy in Madrid will have Sun still 32.8 degrees away from sunset.
Time difference is 2 hours and 10 minutes and the distance is 2740 km.
And in reality Sun travels at the constant speed of 15 degrees per hour.
If Dome exists it covers the whole Earth.Correct. Limit of dome may be more or at least equal to earth limit.Looking from Africa you see Sun sets somewhere in Brazil?Nope. You see sun sets somewhere at skyline. it just means you can't see it anymore.Why people don't see end of the Dome there?because dome is further. Again, you see the skyline, not the Brasil when you see the sun setting. Suns image unites to skyline when it setting.In reality your horizon is much closer.What you mean with reality, which reality, reality to whom?Stand at a beach by the sea:It simply explains why can not you see the sun after setting. disappears behind the sea wave. you can see more if there was not waves. As a note so it is not 6000 miles but 6000kms, if I remember it true. We Europeans except Englishes and a few use metric system.
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.There is nothing at there claim horizon's being 6000 kms. I said "you can not see anything 600kms HORIZONTALY". This is horizontal, not "horizon'tal". It means flat, level,...
If we apply standard refraction then:
If you are 2 m above the sea, horizon is 5.45 km away.
If you are 1 km above the sea, horizon is 96 km away.
If you are 10 km above the sea, horizon is at 304 km.
If you are 100 km above the sea, horizon is at 966 km.
And you say that Dome is directly at 100 km.
Do you see now what is the problem?<off topic>Since you've missunderstood what I meant so you have did some explanations but I am passing this part.Right now, at this very moment, I think that it is important to imagine two people looking at the Sun simultaneously from two places very far away from each other.this should be calculated by experiments. The outer shape of the dome is also important here. We have an estimate about it but our estimates may be a bit different. also because of light refraction and angular size you can not see the sun exactly where it is located. however, the shape of the dome can be calculated by trial and error. Since the so called scientists have nothing with real science I don't guess this will be done in a soon next.
Where is the dome for some guy in Istanbul, and where will guy from Madrid see that same dome?
Guy in Madrid will have Sun still 32.8 degrees away from sunset.
Time difference is 2 hours and 10 minutes and the distance is 2740 km.
And in reality Sun travels at the constant speed of 15 degrees per hour.
:'(Changing the author of a quote to misattribute what is said is vastly different from ignoring someone because the person you wanted to respond didn't.
:'( :'( :'(
I can't read and reply your post
:'( :'( :'(
If Dome exists it covers the whole Earth.Correct. Limit of dome may be more or at least equal to earth limit.Looking from Africa you see Sun sets somewhere in Brazil?Nope. You see sun sets somewhere at skyline. it just means you can't see it anymore.Why people don't see end of the Dome there?because dome is further. Again, you see the skyline, not the Brasil when you see the sun setting. Suns image unites to skyline when it setting.In reality your horizon is much closer.What you mean with reality, which reality, reality to whom?Stand at a beach by the sea:It simply explains why can not you see the sun after setting. disappears behind the sea wave. you can see more if there was not waves. As a note so it is not 6000 miles but 6000kms, if I remember it true. We Europeans except Englishes and a few use metric system.
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.There is nothing at there claim horizon's being 6000 kms. I said "you can not see anything 600kms HORIZONTALY". This is horizontal, not "horizon'tal". It means flat, level,...
If we apply standard refraction then:
If you are 2 m above the sea, horizon is 5.45 km away.
If you are 1 km above the sea, horizon is 96 km away.
If you are 10 km above the sea, horizon is at 304 km.
If you are 100 km above the sea, horizon is at 966 km.
And you say that Dome is directly at 100 km.
Do you see now what is the problem?<off topic>Since you've missunderstood what I meant so you have did some explanations but I am passing this part.Right now, at this very moment, I think that it is important to imagine two people looking at the Sun simultaneously from two places very far away from each other.this should be calculated by experiments. The outer shape of the dome is also important here. We have an estimate about it but our estimates may be a bit different. also because of light refraction and angular size you can not see the sun exactly where it is located. however, the shape of the dome can be calculated by trial and error. Since the so called scientists have nothing with real science I don't guess this will be done in a soon next.
Where is the dome for some guy in Istanbul, and where will guy from Madrid see that same dome?
Guy in Madrid will have Sun still 32.8 degrees away from sunset.
Time difference is 2 hours and 10 minutes and the distance is 2740 km.
And in reality Sun travels at the constant speed of 15 degrees per hour.
Read your post again, slowly.
Then read your previous post, also slowly.
Compare.
You are contradicting yourself.
You don't even remember what you wrote two posts ago.
:'(:'(:'(Stop lying.
If Dome exists it covers the whole Earth.Correct. Limit of dome may be more or at least equal to earth limit.Looking from Africa you see Sun sets somewhere in Brazil?Nope. You see sun sets somewhere at skyline. it just means you can't see it anymore.Why people don't see end of the Dome there?because dome is further. Again, you see the skyline, not the Brasil when you see the sun setting. Suns image unites to skyline when it setting.In reality your horizon is much closer.What you mean with reality, which reality, reality to whom?Stand at a beach by the sea:It simply explains why can not you see the sun after setting. disappears behind the sea wave. you can see more if there was not waves. As a note so it is not 6000 miles but 6000kms, if I remember it true. We Europeans except Englishes and a few use metric system.
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.There is nothing at there claim horizon's being 6000 kms. I said "you can not see anything 600kms HORIZONTALY". This is horizontal, not "horizon'tal". It means flat, level,...
If we apply standard refraction then:
If you are 2 m above the sea, horizon is 5.45 km away.
If you are 1 km above the sea, horizon is 96 km away.
If you are 10 km above the sea, horizon is at 304 km.
If you are 100 km above the sea, horizon is at 966 km.
And you say that Dome is directly at 100 km.
Do you see now what is the problem?<off topic>Since you've missunderstood what I meant so you have did some explanations but I am passing this part.Right now, at this very moment, I think that it is important to imagine two people looking at the Sun simultaneously from two places very far away from each other.this should be calculated by experiments. The outer shape of the dome is also important here. We have an estimate about it but our estimates may be a bit different. also because of light refraction and angular size you can not see the sun exactly where it is located. however, the shape of the dome can be calculated by trial and error. Since the so called scientists have nothing with real science I don't guess this will be done in a soon next.
Where is the dome for some guy in Istanbul, and where will guy from Madrid see that same dome?
Guy in Madrid will have Sun still 32.8 degrees away from sunset.
Time difference is 2 hours and 10 minutes and the distance is 2740 km.
And in reality Sun travels at the constant speed of 15 degrees per hour.
Read your post again, slowly.
Then read your previous post, also slowly.
Compare.
You are contradicting yourself.
You don't even remember what you wrote two posts ago.
How can he remeber?Replying all the statements and spamming are different things. if I'm giving an answer to the all questions that may be an answer to it, it's not called spam, but it's hard working.
Hes spamming on every possible active thread.
Like 10000 posts.
How can he remeber?Replying all the statements and spamming are different things. if I'm giving an answer to the all questions that may be an answer to it, it's not called spam, but it's hard working.
Hes spamming on every possible active thread.
Like 10000 posts.
How can he remeber?Replying all the statements and spamming are different things. if I'm giving an answer to the all questions that may be an answer to it, it's not called spam, but it's hard working.
Hes spamming on every possible active thread.
Like 10000 posts.
Hard work to cover your ears and close your eyss and say to yourself "its flat its flat its flat its fake its fake uts fake" over and over?
Replying all the statements and spamming are different things.Yes that is right.
Can you do this?
If not, stop claiming it is possible.