The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Souleon on May 15, 2019, 10:07:42 AM

Title: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Souleon on May 15, 2019, 10:07:42 AM
Hi,

Is this fake or not?
https://imgur.com/pBlV3tL
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 15, 2019, 11:13:25 AM
The question of whether it's fake or not is of secondary importance.

Let's assume the photos are undoctored. The question is whether it's the only explanation possible.

You've shown two photos, along with a diagram. Is this the situation that happens in all cases or is it a rare anomaly?

(https://cdn.britannica.com/s:700x450/24/2724-004-401141F5.jpg)

(https://cdn.britannica.com/s:700x450/25/2725-004-C1F0A9C2.jpg)

(https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/courses/atsc113/sailing/met_concepts/10-met-local-conditions/10f-optical-phenomena/img-10f/10-inferior-mirage.jpg)

(https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/130/590x/top-pic3-676472.jpg)

These are images and explanations. The question is not whether they're fake, but under what circumstances they occur.

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?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Idiot on May 15, 2019, 01:00:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on May 15, 2019, 02:39:34 PM
These are likely real.
It is a quite common occurrence. Depending on where you live you can do the same with a much simpler setup of a vertical wall with a horizontal bar sticking out.
At sunrise and sunset you can see the shadow going upwards and it will be a daily occurrence. This shows it isn't just an issue with mirages or the like.

I would have thought these were different phenomena. shadows and mirages, while both involving light, are very different things.
Both involve light curving upwards.
The idea is that the light curves upwards just like in a mirage. This light then continues upwards where some is obstructed by the mountain, causing the shadow.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on May 15, 2019, 03:16:10 PM
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.
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.

Photos like that video require a suitable mountain and a cloud layer. Other cases, where the shadow is cast onto a mountain occur regularly.
This video shows some examples of shadows shining upwards onto mountains, starting at about 3:25:

lat Earth Can't Science 8 Show Me the Rotation by Bob the Science Guy


I noticed that your signature is "Mark Sargent is bae" so another video by Bob the Science Guy might be of interest:

Eric Dubay Attacks Flat Earth- Mark Sargent by Bob the Science Guy



Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: frenat on May 15, 2019, 04:28:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on May 15, 2019, 04:49:36 PM
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
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Souleon on May 16, 2019, 06:47:58 AM
(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

True, this is more often visible.

@Curiouser and Curiouser
Mirages are caused by large temperature differences in the air caused by e.g. a hot street or sand in the desert. But Between the ground and the clouds there are no such strong temperature gradients.

Also, in a mirage air turbulence causes this "flickering", you probably have seen by yourself.
But the clouds lit from below don't show this flickering.

About the flying boat, is this real? Can some one explain the physics behind this? I couldn't find it.
Thanks  :)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on May 16, 2019, 02:08:22 PM
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.
There is a layer below that which distorts the view making the sea look like the sky.
It usually isn't that perfect.

If you are happy with the car one, just picture that blurry part between the cars and the clear road as on the sea and too blurry to make out as part of the sea.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 09, 2019, 06:02:10 AM
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.

case closed, the earth is flat. not get shut up.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 09, 2019, 02:42:12 PM
Since you have agreed air can downwards objects
Do 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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 01:11:55 AM
Since you have agreed air can downwards objects
Do 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.

Get do stop do deny yourself, whether if causes to deny me.

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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 10, 2019, 02:58:54 AM
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?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 03:52:57 AM
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 diffefrence I have just put forwarded I did not say its being downside and you've claimed you said downside. I show you what you say. Anyways. I know where is light bended. Light bends to the upside when crashed a more heavy environment. So that, light bends to the upside shows the sun and other objects seems in downside ie sinking. As how I forcing to write English it is hard to me, you have to live same hardeness to get them. Conditions are equal, stop tocry and prove your childish baseless claims.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 10, 2019, 04:31:57 AM
I already know the diffefrence
Then 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 upside
Only under rare circumstances and with extreme distortion. As such, it cannot explain why the sun is casting light upwards on a daily basis.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 05:09:35 AM
I already know the diffefrence
Then 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 upside
Only 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 it especially prove or disprove anything. I have just told how your being a liar. It was downside and you have used the term of upside. Surely, they were different cases and you're combined them. Combining opposite arguments makes it harder to explain in your side, like this example. So I have suggest you be less liar on issues. It can be more understandable then. Because constantly triyng to produce more lies are making you ridiculus because of intersections of lies.

In short, it explains why we see sun as rising or setting. You may tell it randomly or rarely but theorically it is exsit and I can use it till it is possible at least theorically. I am a scientist, I respect the science, oppositely you aren't.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 10, 2019, 02:07:43 PM
I told you I did not told it
And you repeating that lie wont help you.
Again, to remind 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.
As such that doesn't explain why objects disappear as they go over the horizon.

You are only proving yourself to be a liar.

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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 11, 2019, 02:07:48 AM
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.

Your insults can not change the fact that I am the only one here respect the science. You are just insulting but can not prove anything against me, but continue to claim that shamessly. Your shamessly insults can not prove anything magically.

Light bend causes you see the sun rising or setting. What do you need more explanation. Do you deny the light bend? Do you have a problem of understanding?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 11, 2019, 02:43:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 11, 2019, 03:22:25 AM
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.

Okay. My door is open ignorants want to be learn something from scientists always.

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)

If you need further knowledge we can talk about it.

(https://i.ibb.co/n7f8GN1/1.png)

So much so that I don't see those images but I sent them by estimate.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 11, 2019, 03:26:15 AM
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.
Here is the correct diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/5JOoOQO.png)
The red line is the path of the light and thus also the direction the object appears to be.
However the orange line is the direct line to the object.
This means the light being bent downwards makes the object appear higher.

Your diagram has people seeing it when no light goes there.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 11, 2019, 03:39:54 AM
<BS deleted>

I don't see images except uploaded to THIS (http://resimyukle.xyz) website. I did post it because you wanted to see, not as a main argument. Have you any other questions those you forgot to ask your teachers in kindergarden?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 11, 2019, 03:52:39 AM
I don't see images except uploaded to THIS website.
I don't give a damn.
I have no intention of using some random site just because you want me to.
If you can't see the image it is your problem.
My argument stands without the picture. If the light is bent downwards, this means it will be coming towards you from a higher angle and thus the object will appear higher, not lower.
As such, this cannot explain why objects to disappear below the horizon (including why the sun sets), nor can it explain why clouds (and other objects) are illuminated from below.

Have you any other questions those you forgot to ask your teachers in kindergarden?
I didn't forget to ask teachers.
I just have the same questions you have failed to address.
How does the sun illuminate the bottom of clouds when it is above it?
How does the sun cast a shadow upwards, but below the sun?

The air bending light downwards is not going to help you here.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Macarios on June 11, 2019, 08:12:07 AM
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)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 12, 2019, 12:59:26 AM
I don't see images except uploaded to THIS website.
I don't give a damn. care.

Do not swear me. Whenever I reply your swears then moderator boydsterinoz is baning me.

You don't care problems I lived because of your friends so I don't care your thoughts. >It is a problem with here?

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?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 12, 2019, 02:01:36 AM
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.
The light is bent downwards, so the object appears higher.
This means refraction of light downwards due to the air cannot explain why objects are obscured by the horizon. Instead it would make it harder for objects to be obscured by the horizon.
This also means that refraction of light downwards by the air cannot explain why objects below the sun are illuminated from below.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Macarios on June 12, 2019, 04:38:49 AM
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 will need to learn how to use that site. Let's see if this works:

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/LyKd7d.png)


EDIT: I can see the image, I hope you can see it too.
This site is easier than TinyPic, no need to enter tags or prove you're not a robot.
(https://resimyukle.xyz/ (https://resimyukle.xyz/))
Just click inside the right rectangle, select the image, copy second link (Direct link).
I like it.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 14, 2019, 12:55:22 AM
I like it.
Thanks.

You like it more now.  :)

Please do not forget to add the dome affection.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/QW6MLA.png)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 14, 2019, 02:13:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 14, 2019, 01:36:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 14, 2019, 02:53:28 PM
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?
You are just making up excuses to pretend you aren't wrong.

But as I said, dome or no dome, IT STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN IT!
Notice how even with your dome the light is going downwards?
You need to explain how the light ends up going upwards, towards the bottom of a cloud.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 14, 2019, 06:51:49 PM
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?
There's no way that your "Dome Hypothesis" can explain this sort of thing that needs upward slanting sun's rays!

Upward slanting sun's rays shining up under the cloud layer:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/fKbWSe.jpg)
Sun's rays shining up on clouds before sunrise

And upward slanting shadows on the underside of clouds with the sun lower than the peak of Mount Rainier:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bPbSTB.jpg)      (https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WQPdHV.jpg)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 12:05:54 AM
https://wiki.tfes.org/Clouds_Lit_From_Below
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 15, 2019, 01:58:18 AM
https://wiki.tfes.org/Clouds_Lit_From_Below
This is clouds by lit by diffuse light from the underneath:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/c/c5/Clouds_Lit_From_Below.jpg/1200px-Clouds_Lit_From_Below.jpg)
and not well defined direct rays as in:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/fKbWSe.jpg)
Sun's rays shining up on clouds before sunrise

But in my photo the sun's rays are shining upwards from behind a cloud almost on the horizon.
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:
Quote
Electromagnetic Acceleration
According to the theory hypothesis of the Electromagnetic Accelerator, light is bending upwards over very long distances and can illuminate the underside of clouds during sunrise or sunset.
If you have no evidence your Electromagnetic Acceleration hypothesis is a nothing but a baseless hypothesis.

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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 15, 2019, 03:41:25 AM
https://wiki.tfes.org/Clouds_Lit_From_Below
Are 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?

Also, it isn't according to the Universities Space Research Association, it is according to Dave Lynch.

It also cant account for the easily observed upwards cast shadows from the sun near sunset, including when you can still see the sun.

As for your magic bendy light, there is absolutely no justification for thinking light bends like that, especially considering the massive anisotropy it requires. Such bendy light also destroys a large collection of FE arguments, including the Bedford Level failure which is often touted.
So I think I'll stick with the rational FE explanation rather than magic bendy light.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 04:54:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: inquisitive on June 15, 2019, 06:06:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Macarios on June 15, 2019, 11:20:30 AM
Look how thin that cloud layer is.
And yet, you can't see direct sunlight coming through, while you can see some much weaker reflection coming from below?
Where is the Sun from above?
LOL
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 01:11:20 PM
Ah, so there is no actual evidence that this is caused by a ball earth then.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: sokarul on June 15, 2019, 01:33:26 PM
You have horse blinders on.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: inquisitive on June 15, 2019, 02:33:06 PM
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.

(Tom, any news of the details of your plan to produce a map of the earth?)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 15, 2019, 02:45:53 PM
Really? It's your picture.
No it isn't.

Prove that the sun's light isn't bouncing off of anything
If 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 is not the case with the picture of the OP.

And again, it can be done far more directly by measuring at sunset or sunrise, especially at high altitude which then allows one to note that the suns shadow is cast upwards as you can directly see it and the shadow it is casting.

that the rays are caused from curvature
I'm not saying the rays are caused by curvature.
I am merely saying the OP and other such instances show the sun goes below your position on Earth.


There are multiple explanations for what may be occuring, and you have nothing except some hand waiving assumption.
Not really.
There is one simple, rational explanation, and then there are your attempts to appeal to pure magic, i.e. hand waiving assumptions to try and prop up a failed model.

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.
It works just fine with the ancient FE model which only had one time zone which the sun literally went below.

No one has been able to provide any rational alternative, just attempts which clearly don't work, and pure magic.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 15, 2019, 03:16:51 PM
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?

The previous post to your was by JackBlack and contained only your photo!
https://wiki.tfes.org/Clouds_Lit_From_Below
Are 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?

Maybe this is the photo:
But in my photo the sun's rays are shining upwards from behind a cloud almost on the horizon.
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
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?

And YOU dare talk of "some hand waiving assumption" after coming up with a hypothesis like your Electromagnetic Acceleration!
And if you are going you suggest your Electromagnetic Acceleration I suggest that you provide evidence that:
Such bending of light by electric or magnetic fields is even possible is the atmosphere and the near vacuum above.
In case YOU hadn't heard photons are electrically neutral and are unaffected by electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields.
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.

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.

Please identify these "sufficiently large bodies of water in exactly the required position" to cause the "regularly observed upward slanting shadow from Mt Rainier".

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!
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 03:50:35 PM
Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 15, 2019, 05:01:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Stash on June 15, 2019, 05:02:03 PM
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)







Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: sokarul on June 15, 2019, 05:05:24 PM
The fe sun would appear to move slower at sunset, while in reality the sun appears to move faster at sunset.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 05:30:36 PM
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.

Where did we say that it simulates RET?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 05:32:46 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 15, 2019, 06:08:30 PM
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!
And if you are going you suggest your Electromagnetic Acceleration I suggest that you provide evidence that:
Such bending of light by electric or magnetic fields is even possible is the atmosphere and the near vacuum above.
In case YOU hadn't heard photons are electrically neutral and are unaffected by electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields.
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!
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 you hand-waving with projections and impossible Electromagnetic Acceleration seems such an unnecessary complexity.
All those guesses cannot match the simple explanation of the sun's being hidden by the earth and then majestically rising into full view!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1)
Sunrise - Black Sea HD 265,498 views by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s)
Or
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/3072agy9hfyi1eb/Sunrise%20Sunsets%20Timelapse%20with%20by%20ZH%20Media%20-%20crop.jpg?dl=1)
HD Video 1080p 4K - Timelapse with Sunrise Sunsets by ZH Media (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=STAVSfpayJQ)

Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 06:12:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 15, 2019, 06:23:03 PM
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.
And the model in your Wiki seems to be:
Quote from: TFES.org Wiki
Sun
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
Stash's diagram pictures that rather well!
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)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Stash on June 15, 2019, 06:25:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 15, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
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!
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 06:37:26 PM
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!

RET says that the sun is below the horizon in the pictures you posted.

(http://www.weather.gov.hk/education/images/fig_00493_1e.png)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 06:40:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 15, 2019, 06:47:35 PM
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.
This one!
Quote from: TFES.org Wiki
Sun
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
Unless you drag in quite impossible refraction or totally unsupportable hypotheses like your Electromagnetic Accelerator.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Stash on June 15, 2019, 06:50:08 PM
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.

Where did I ever say it recedes forever? I said no matter how far away it gets.

From your wiki:

"In a long row of lamps, the second, supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series, will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.

I said no matter how far away the sun gets (recedes) it cannot cast a shadow from the lower peak up to the top of higher peak on a flat earth. Don't start with the disingenuous distraction that I'm not addressing the FET model just because you can't explain the Everest evidence. You asked for a demonstration and got 3. Now address it directly and stop dodging.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 06:56:04 PM
None of those models say that the sun recedes forever without setting. A long line of lamp posts also "sets" into the horizon.

Your rebuttal is a theory about perspective and infinitely receding perspective lines which was created in ancient times. Your rebuttal is an ancient theory.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Stash on June 15, 2019, 07:01:49 PM
None of those models say that the sun recedes forever without setting.

What are you even talking about? No one ever said anything about a sun receding forever. Do I have to explain to you how FET explains sunsets (sunrises)?

Here's a refresher: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun

Now, how does the above refresher explain the shadow from the lower mountain rising up to the top of the highest mountain when the FE sun is receding (setting)?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 07:14:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Stash on June 15, 2019, 07:25:41 PM
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.

I have no idea what you're prattling on about. Back to the subject:

How does FET account for a shadow from the lower mountain rising up to the top of the highest mountain when the FE sun is setting?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 07:39:51 PM
Under any FET the sun is at the sea level horizon, at 90 degrees, and the photons are pointing up at the mountain top.

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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: inquisitive on June 15, 2019, 08:07:49 PM
Under any FET the sun is at the sea level horizon, at 90 degrees, and the photons are pointing up at the mountain top.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Themightykabool on June 15, 2019, 08:09:34 PM
Sun-horiz converge because of distance.
Not converge in reality.
Nice try.
Logic fail.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 15, 2019, 08:31:53 PM
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.
The top of the lamp posts appear to get closer to the ground but never under the ground,
So let's look at the scale of things.

Tall lamp posts might be 50 feet high and by 5 miles away the light is only 0.1° above the ground. They have near enough merged with it.

But your sun and moon are supposedly 32 miles in diameter an 3000 miles above the earth.
On the Flat Earth, the sun would typically be a bit under 10,000 miles away at sunrise or sunset so it would be roughly 17° above the horizon.

Perspective cannot put your sun anywhere near the horizon, let alone hidden by it!

Your lamp post analogy/perspective falls totally flat. So you invent your purely hypothetical Electromagnetic Accelerator!

But I have to repeat that electric and magnetic fields do not bend light in other than in artificially constructed microstructures!
Quote
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)
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.
Also what is the source on any electric or magnetic field that might have cause this purely imaginary Electromagnetic Acceleration?

So either come up with evidence or discard it. I do wonder how all your hypotheses fit into Zetetic Science.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 08:53:07 PM
>>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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 15, 2019, 11:19:46 PM
>>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?
So no answers! I ask again!
You invent your purely hypothetical Electromagnetic Accelerator!
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?
If you aren't prepared to support your hypotheses it seems little point continuing.

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Do you have any evidence for how light or perspective behaves at distances over, say, 20 miles?
Link me to the studies please.
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.

But laser beams can be aimed at where the moon is predicted to be and to return to the receiving telescope.
Quote
Science Experiments - Laser Ranging Retroreflector (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/)
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).
That sort of experiment cannot be aimed purely by trial and error.

Then plenty of your Flat Earth Friends on YouTube assume just that in their attempts to disprove "curvature".
Here's Mark Sargent claiming that infrared photos eliminate refraction (they don't but so what?): Flat Earth 100 mile infrared test by JTolan, markksargent (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=mOGs2yfEqp0)

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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.

But "Euclidean Space and Euclid's" Geometry has not been discarded. It is now just part of higher level geometries.
What do you mean by "Euclid's assumptions"? Obvious things like parallel lines never crossing (in Euclidean Space)?

And "Euclidean Space" has  only been "discarded" in GR as far as an almost unmeasuraby small deviation from Euclidean space as part of the very slightly curved spacetime or GR.
But the only effect of that of the earth would be increase its diameter a few centimetres - in our region it is quite negligible.

Newtonian Laws in Euclidean space are quite adequate for almost all calculations that most people do.

None of that has changed the shape of size of the Globe. The earth's being a Globe goes way back many centuries before Copernicus.
And none of the scientists or astronomers for a couple of millennia have supported any other shape.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 15, 2019, 11:46:01 PM
Where did we say that it simulates RET?
Are you capable of actually responding to what is said, or only pathetic strawmen?

Where did I say it simulates RET?
I said it would cause similar issues to the curvature of Earth.

Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.
Interesting how you still fail to address what has been said.

Again, so far the only alternative you have provided to the sun going below the mountain is pure magic.

Do you have anything to substantiate your claims of pure magic?
Again, this is especially important as this magic refutes other FE arguments.

Unless you do, the sun actually going below the height of the mountain remains the most rational option, which when combined with the fact of different time zones and the sun always being above some point on Earth is quite strong evidence that Earth is round.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 11:52:20 PM
The argument for how the nature of light and perspective works is based on "the most rational argument"? Funny. That's not science. If you are backing the axioms of Euclidean Space and Euclidean Geometry then I expect you to have science to back up those arguments.

It is quite reasonable that bodies would intersect with the horizon when they recede because that is what is observed. It is quite unreasonable to imagine infinite paths of perspective lines which approach each other forever. One of these scenarios occurs in nature and is backed by direct observation and the other occurs only in the mind and imagination. The argument of which is the "most rational" is a matter of opinion.

Science has zero evidence for these infinite perspective lines. A compete hypothesis. Finite perspective lines are, however, observed. Railroad tracks will appear to touch, and the airy disks which define our optical resolution will literally merge at a small enough angle. There is no such thing as infinite resolution, infinite perspective lines, or a continuous universe as proposed by those euclidean axioms.

If you are to champion those axioms, you need to demonstrate them. Yet all you have for us is what you personally consider "reasonable," with the implicit message that you have no real evidence whatsoever.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Stash on June 15, 2019, 11:53:48 PM
>>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.

Actually, the evidence production is required by you. We already demonstrated how the sunset can shine upward and cast the shadows mentioned as it dips lower and then below the horizon. You have not. There’s no mechanism to get your sun down to the horizon let alone below it.

(https://i.imgur.com/leVAoy4.gif)

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 for everyone on the planet using some undefined bendy light and some sort of trompe l’oeil technique where the sun doesn't shrink down to a pinpoint at the “vanishing point”. And explain how to do so in a down to the minute predictable manner for every day. Like clockwork. And then reverse all that and have the sun rise again behind you as its magically been missing for half a day.

When you get sunsets and sunrises sussed out, let us know. In the mean time, it’s safe to say that the explanation for the phenomenon discussed in this thread is unknown to FE. And that’s ok. Just means there’s more work to be done with the theory and the wiki.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 11:59:30 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Stash on June 16, 2019, 12:05:37 AM
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.

RE has an explanation for the phenomenon of sunsets and sunrises and the shadows discussed here. FE does not. Sorry, as you have yet to provide one.

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 for everyone on the planet using some undefined bendy light and some sort of trompe l’oeil technique where the sun doesn't shrink down to a pinpoint at the “vanishing point”. And explain how to do so in a down to the minute predictable manner for every day. Like clockwork. And then reverse all that and have the sun rise again behind you as its magically been missing for half a day.

When you have an explanation, let us know.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2019, 12:11:18 AM
>>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 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?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 16, 2019, 12:17:36 AM
And again, you completely fail to address what has actually been said, instead resorting to pathetic strawmen.

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.
That is based upon your baseless assumption that Earth is flat and the object remains at the same altitude.

If you discard that assumption and instead just use reason (or even zeteticism) you will conclude that object drops in altitude to cause it to go below the horizon.

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.
In reality the lines remain equidistant.

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.
At least near Earth.
Sure, at much larger scales, such as those of the universe, we are currently unsure if the curvature is 0, positive or negative. But we know its magnitude must be small.


Now, do you have any sane justification for using magic instead of the far more reasonable option?

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.
Other than the minor effect of gravitational lensing (which is separate from perspective as it is an effect on apparent angular position and size apart from distance), just what observations does this go against?
Your reasoning appears to be entirely circular, first asserting that Earth is flat, to then claim that perspective isn't obeyed for objects like the sun as they clearly go below the horizon, whereas in the FE mythos it remains well above Earth, to then dismiss the argument against a FE.
Reason doesn't work like that.
You can't just assume your conclusion and dismiss problems with it because you assert your conclusion is true.

The only form of "perspective" we have ever observed is that know quite well where light travels in a straight line.

If you wish to assert an alternative version the burden is on you to show that.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Stash on June 16, 2019, 12:22:01 AM
>>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.

No, not really. Undefined bendy light and 'laws of perspective' don't actually explain it nor work. As it stands, the phenomenon is unknown to FE.

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?

Nope, not proposing anything of the sort. You're throwing the whole kitchen sink at something as simple as a sunset which can be explained in RE without being distracted by all of this infinite versus finite perspective nonsense. FE has to start throwing around a 'quantized universe' just to explain the sun going down below the horizon everyday. Keep distracting and not addressing. It suits your non-explanation and non-argument well. Let us know when you have something substantive.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: inquisitive on June 16, 2019, 12:22:10 AM
>>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 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?
As 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.

The word perspective is used in the art world and is not relevant to any discussion here, however much you choose to use it.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Macarios on June 16, 2019, 12:30:27 AM
Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.

No FE model says that Sun is keeping the altitude of 3000 miles?
What do they say?

Also:
Why so many different FE models?
Why they say so many different things?

Could it be because for every subset of real life data one has to make different FE model? :)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Themightykabool on June 16, 2019, 02:02:34 AM
TomB quote:

It is quite reasonable that bodies would intersect with the horizon when they recede because that is what is observed.



It is quite UNreasonable they DONT interect because that would mean the sun tocuhsd down on the earth.
Meaning when the UK sees the sun set, newfoundland should be seeing the sun dropping on their heads?

Is that what youre saying is observed?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 16, 2019, 04:17:15 AM
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.
So you might need to explain yourself better. Maybe draw a diagram.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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 if you claim that, then you must believe that trains must be derailed and crash when these "Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away"

Quote from: Tom Bishop
and yet you think that you have knowledge for how things should behave over thousands of miles? Quite irrational and undemonstrated.

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.
I'll consider that after you have proven that "Railroad tracks intersect a finite distance away".

All I claim is that parallel lines never physically meet but do appear to meet a finite distance away. Rowbotham expresses it fairly well in:
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Zetetic Astronomy, at sacred-texts.com, CHAPTER XIV. pp 202,203 (https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)
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.
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.

Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2019, 07:57:37 AM
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.

(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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: inquisitive on June 16, 2019, 09:12:26 AM
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.

(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.
So you are still using perspective to explain your ideas.  Science measures things and where is your diagram and map?

If the sun is a projection how do you explain the direct heat?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Themightykabool on June 16, 2019, 09:35:23 AM
Aaaha
So tomB busts his own theory.
Thanks for coming out.

Lers check it out.
The shadow rises because the light is coming upwards from the horizon due to perspectuve convergence of sun-horizon.

The sun doesnt literally drop down to the horizon.

Therefore....how again does a light ray magically go down then back up?


And (if it hasnt been asked already) what is the cause of the shadow - if not the buldge of the earth?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 16, 2019, 03:20:40 PM
Everything intersects with the horizon.
Nope.
Plenty of things go behind it.
And that isn't perspective doing it.
It is literally the object being behind the horizon.

Again, you are using completely circular reasoning to justify your nonsense.

Railroad tracks can receed and intersect with the horizon, and the metal tracks can intersect with each other.
Nope.
While they can intersect with the horizon (as they can be part of it), they don't intersect with each other.

The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.
For human eyes.
This clearly doesn't apply to the sun as the sun, even when at the horizon, is much larger than that.
We aren't dealing with the limits of human visual resolution here.

You are also completely misrepresenting how vision works.
It isn't that these objects intersect, it is that you are unable to resolve them.
And note that with railway tracks (and with the hypothetical FE sun) you loose the ability to resolve the object long before it merges (i.e. the rails with each other and the sun with the horizon).

Also note that with the sun being a light source you would be limited by your ability to perceive that light (which unless you appeal to magic you would easily be able to do even in the middle of the night unless something was obstructing it), rather than your ability to resolve the image, with the sun appearing as a point at the limit of resolution.


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.
It also doesn't explain the upwards light.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 16, 2019, 03:34:17 PM
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.
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!
And no! railroad tracks can recede and appear to meet with the horizon - note the "appear to" and the "meet" NOT "intersect"!
No! the metal tracks NEVER intersect with each other. Intersect means to cross not just meet. Look it up in a dictionary!
Quote
intersect
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 metal tracks do appear to meet with each other.

You seem to have great difficulty separating reality (where railway tracks stay the same distance apart) from visual appearance (where railway tracks appear to meet).

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree.
(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,
The "airy disks merge at about one sixtyth of a degree" for a typical human eye but not necessarily for other optical devices!

And yes, I'm quite aware of the Rayleigh criterion but that only shows when two objects appear to merge visually.
Quote from: OpenStaxCollege
Limits of Resolution: The Rayleigh Criterion (https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/limits-of-resolution-the-rayleigh-criterion/)
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 angle
θR = 1.22λ/D
where 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.
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!

Do you honestly believe that a telescope moves the actual distance away that "the metal tracks can intersect with each other"? Come off it!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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:
"That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side of which are the angles less than the two right angles."
Surely anyone would interpret "if produced indefinitely" as "if produced to infinity" which means that they never physically meet.

There is nothing in that saying that parallel lines do not appear to meet at some finite point.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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!

Sure, "The Flat Earth perspective theory proposes that much of its descent can be caused by perspective".
But "perspective theory" can only cause the sun or moon to appear to descend to 15° to 20° os so above the horizon and would also reduce the angular size of the sun or moon to something like 1/3 of their sizes when overhead.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Stash on June 17, 2019, 08:16:16 PM
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.

Everything doesn't intersect the horizon all of the time:

(https://i.imgur.com/yfpxErg.jpg?1)

 'Laws of perspective' demand that objects get smaller as they recede. The sun we observe does not. Then you have to invoke some 'magnification' business to explain why the sun doesn't get smaller. Talk about illusion, what sort of voodoo is that? In any case your perspectively setting FE sun would be shrinking to a pinpoint. It doesn't. No amount of magic 'magnification' is going to maintain the precise size of the sun from noon to sunset. There's no magic magnification going on here:

(https://i.imgur.com/unsf6Wm.gif)

You keep going on about railroad tracks but what we're talking about here is the sun. The FE sun, 32 miles wide and at an altitude of 3000 miles. Not some railroad tracks at an altitude of 1 foot. My sun at sunset is above somewhere else on the planet about 6500 miles west of me. How far away would this perspectively setting sun have to be for it to converge with the horizon? Would 6500 miles be enough to to perspectively lower the sun 3000 miles down to the horizon? And then at that point, push it below the horizon and keep it there for 12 hours, out of sight? It's a confusing notion and seemingly requires a tremendous amount of illusion.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Macarios on June 18, 2019, 02:23:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 18, 2019, 02:56:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Themightykabool on June 18, 2019, 02:58:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 18, 2019, 03:02:00 AM
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.

This is not about map. It is about whether a water block breaks the sun rays or not. Appearently, it does. And majority of flat earth models have a water (or ice) dome around it. Hence it has to be get considered. Your baseless BH's, insults and "booyaa"s can not change the reality.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Themightykabool on June 18, 2019, 03:03:41 AM
you are fully discredited.
say something intelligent and we can continue discussions.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 18, 2019, 03:04:25 AM
you are fully discredited.
say something intelligent and we can continue discussions.

Baseless talkings and baseless disrespecting out of topic again. Reported because of low content.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Themightykabool on June 18, 2019, 03:05:33 AM
newton was wrong on a few things.
but he was right on other things.
be right on something and we can continue discussions.
so far you're batting 0:1,000,000
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 18, 2019, 04:10:56 AM
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.
Even your diagram shows the light going downwards, not upwards, so it still can't cast light upwards and cause a mountain to cast a shadow upwards on the cloud unless it is below it.
If you wish to disagree, provide the details of your dome, showing clearly how the sun casts light upwards to the mountain (and even to objects quite close to Earth).
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 18, 2019, 04:17:28 AM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/CbBWM6.png)

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/QW6MLA.png)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 18, 2019, 04:39:28 AM
I've already drawed how it works.
No you haven't.
You have shown how your dome can make downwards going light still go down.
What you need to show is how this downwards going light magically turns around and goes upwards.
You need to show how the sun casts light upwards on an object that is below it.

Posting the same image elsewhere wont help you as it doesn't show what you need to show.
You may as well just be posting a picture of a cat, that would be just as good an argument (i.e. not good at all).
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 18, 2019, 05:04:13 AM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/PKOKyM.png)

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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: rabinoz on June 18, 2019, 05:53:49 AM
(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".
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/yLdHMU.jpg)
The left-hand side shows how it happens on the Globe but the right-hand side shows why you Flat-Earth explanation cannot cause those upward slanting shadows!

And dome excuse does not help much at all.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Themightykabool on June 18, 2019, 05:59:28 AM
Oh i thought we were talking about shadows ON the mohntain
Haha
either way
Fe logic fails.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Macarios on June 18, 2019, 07:29:29 AM
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.

Many models put Sun inside the dome.
If you pull Sun out of the Dome you still can't make it be 175 325 km away, and bottom cloud illumination chances are even worse.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 18, 2019, 01:55:17 PM
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
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.
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 18, 2019, 02:40:18 PM
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
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.
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?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Stash on June 18, 2019, 06:42:07 PM
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
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.
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 that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said."

What's that factor? And how does that factor specifically bend the light up under a cloud or cast a shadow from a lower mountain onto the top of a higher mountain. What's the calculation you speak of that would explain this phenomena?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 24, 2019, 05:37:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Macarios on June 24, 2019, 11:24:02 AM
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.
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.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/WBVV2P.png)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 24, 2019, 12:47:08 PM
This is public forum and threads are not private correspondence between you and me.

I do not remember I said its being forbid, and you?


He or everyone else has right to join the conversation.

Surely, and I have a right to critise it, haven't I?

Reply my statements first before continue to reply remained statements. And as a note, I've ignored him, you see his name in my ignore list. I have a right to ignore him too, haven't I?He is not provide information but make knowledge pollution. Do you respect my thoughts or not?

About the "Spherical Water Wall", here is diagram, show us where is the Sun and how sunlight gets to the horizon.

A diagram's showing something is your own thoughts. There is not a value in the name of being an evidence.

Add Sun here and add the missing part of the sunbeam from Sun to horizon.

Is there any proof of this or are you talking depends on your free ignorance?

Drawing

the way you draw is not the same as my subject.

however, when you look at the sky, it is higher above you perspectival but adjacent to the ground in the horizon. 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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Themightykabool on June 24, 2019, 01:19:48 PM
Sucha detailed critique of his drawong.
Why not dispell all confusion and produce your own drawing.
Or photo.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 24, 2019, 02:46:07 PM
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 him
No you didn't.
If you ignored him, you wouldn't have responded.

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.
You are claiming your magic dome magically results in the light from the sun being bent upwards to hit the bottom of clouds, with mountains casting shadows upwards on a mountain.
You are yet to establish just how this magic works but instead just repeatedly appeal to your magic dome.

Macarios has been kind enough to provide a drawing of your dome where all you need to do is add in the sun and some lines showing where the light goes. Yet you still refuse to make a picture showing how the light hits the clouds from below.
the way you draw is not the same as my subject.
Then draw it like you want it drawn.
Give us a picture, showing the dome, the sun, the mountain and the cloud, and clearly show how the light rays from the sun are travelling upwards such that the mountain casts a shadow on the clouds.

this also has to do with the fact that angular size is a reverse trigonometric function.
No it isn't.
We have wonderful tools like telescopes and binoculars which greatly enhance angular resolution, but which fail to move the horizon.

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.
This also has massive implications for the size of the sun.
If the sun is only 100 km high then when it is directly above you it is 100 km away, while at sunset it would be roughly 6000 km away. That is a factor of 60. Due to the small angles involved we can approximate angular size using the small x approximation and end up with the sun at sunset being ~one 60th of the size of it at mid day when directly above. But this is never observed.

Also, to directly answer your question, that is still 1 degree above the horizon. (more accurately it is ~0.95 degrees or 57' 17". This is much greater than the limit of even human resolution.
So no sunset at 6000 km. In order to bring a 100 km object to within the horizon within the limit of human resolution (~ 1 arc minute) you would need to move it to a distance of roughly 343 775 km away.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Macarios on June 24, 2019, 03:20:35 PM
that is, where the sun sets, the place where the dome seems like touches the ground and the horizon meet in the same place.

If Dome exists it covers the whole Earth.
Looking from Africa you see Sun sets somewhere in Brazil?
Why people don't see end of the Dome there?

In reality your horizon is much closer.
Stand at a beach by the sea:
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.

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.


I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.

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?

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.

Object 6000 km away and 100 km high is (in direct line) is 6001 km away from the eye.
SQRT(60002 + 1002) = 6000.8
The triangle has very sharp angle and the difference between the hipotenuse and the leg is small.
ArcTan(100/6000) = 0.95 degrees.

Apparent size of an object at that distance depends on physical size of the object.

For example: object with diameter of 30 km will have apparent size (angular diameter) of
2 * ArcTan[(30/2) / 6000.8] = 0.286 degrees = 17.16 arc minutes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 01:52:36 AM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/4z8a94.png)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 02:06:39 AM
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:
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.
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.

I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.

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?
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,...

<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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Macarios on June 26, 2019, 02:28:38 AM
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:
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.
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.

I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.

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?
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,...

<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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 26, 2019, 03:36:17 AM
:'(
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.
Do you understand that?

Pointing out that you are relying upon magic and are completely unable to justify your claims is not misrepresenting what you are saying.
Unless you can draw a diagram showing how the light is shining upwards at a mountain to cast a shadow upwards, I will continue to call it magic.

RE explains this quite well. In the coordinate system centred on the mountain, the sun is below the mountain, it has a lower elevation.
But FE is yet to provide an explanation.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 04:01:52 AM
:'( :'( :'(
I can't read and reply your post
 :'(  :'(  :'(

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/MKKT5G.png)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 04:03:05 AM
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:
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.
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.

I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.

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?
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,...

<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.

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.
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.

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.

No, you are. Your can not understand what I tell or understand them different does not magically them different. Read them once again.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 26, 2019, 04:26:15 AM
Again, STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I AM SAYING!
If you don't like your crappy picture getting replaced by crying, then stop being a cry baby and actually post what you want to say.

:'(:'(:'(
Stop lying.
You are yet to show any evidence.
So far the closest you have come is providing a picture of simple refraction which still has light going down.
Notice that it is still going down, not up.

So can you provide an explanation as to how the sun light magically starts to go upwards when it is above the object?
Until you do so I will continue to call it magic.

It has been explained to repeatedly what is being asked of you. Feigning ignorance wont help you.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Themightykabool on June 26, 2019, 05:26:03 AM
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:
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.
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.

I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.

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?
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,...

<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.

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.
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.

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?
Hes spamming on every possible active thread.
Like 10000 posts.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 05:47:20 AM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/2cGfJf.png)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 05:49:18 AM
How can he remeber?
Hes spamming on every possible active thread.
Like 10000 posts.
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.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: Themightykabool on June 26, 2019, 05:55:37 AM
How can he remeber?
Hes spamming on every possible active thread.
Like 10000 posts.
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.

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?
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 06:03:23 AM
How can he remeber?
Hes spamming on every possible active thread.
Like 10000 posts.
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.

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?

I guess it is not exactly what I say but my addressees do. If you're aware, this is not related to this topic, and you're the one who's spamming it now. I just answered you. But you are the spammer at the moment. I guess that since I am defeating your bosses so they have gave you a task as slow down the wise.  ;)
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: JackBlack on June 26, 2019, 02:32:03 PM
Replying all the statements and spamming are different things.
Yes that is right.
What you are doing is spamming as you aren't bothering to address what is being said.
Instead you just keep doing the same childish BS of blatantly lying about what people have said and responding to the pathetic strawmen you have set up.

For example, if in this thread you replied by posting a picture clearly showing how the light from the sun ends up going upwards towards a mountain, you would be replying.
If you admitted that there is no way for it to do that, you would be replying.
Instead you just continue with childish spam, in no way addressing what is being said.

Again it has been explained to you many times what you need to provide. You need to show a diagram, with the sun, your magic dome a mountain and clouds above the mountain.
You need to show this dome and sun above the clouds, casting light upwards at the mountain and clouds such that the mountain casts a shadow on the clouds above it.

Can you do this?
If not, stop claiming it is possible.
Title: Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
Post by: wise on July 02, 2019, 03:39:44 AM
Can you do this?
If not, stop claiming it is possible.

Now. Since you have claimed I have to do something to claiming its possible; so why did not you prove GPS woring inner ocean without you did not it? Shame on you mister, you are hypocritical as everybody can see.