How are there timezones

RE'ers resort to meta-arguments twice in the same thread. I would say "Yet another FE victory," but as a personal rule I only proclaim victory once per thread. Otherwise we'd end up with hundreds of victories per thread and I wouldn't get an accurate victory count.

You are intentionally avoiding the argument by arguing about the argument. You're meta-arguing. Also I suggest you Google what meta-arguing is because you apparently don't understand what that is, either.

Obviously the Atmolayer obscures the Moon as well, as we don't see the Moon 24/7. Why do you believe that the Moon is creating special anti-refraction/reflection light?

Obviously the Atmolayer obscures the Moon as well, as we don't see the Moon 24/7. Why do you believe that the Moon is creating special anti-refraction/reflection light?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 24, 2012, 11:01:36 AM

Obviously the Atmolayer obscures the Moon as well, as we don't see the Moon 24/7. Why do you believe that the Moon is creating special anti-refraction/reflection light?

we don't see the moon 24/7, but that doesn't mean the atmolayer obstructs it.

If the atmolayer obstrcuts the sun when it is night why at this time does it not also obstruct the moon. and oncersly why does it not also obstrcuct the sun when it is obstructing the moon.

How many times can I rephrase this legitimate question before rushy runs out of avoidance tactics.

we don't see the moon 24/7, but that doesn't mean the atmolayer obstructs it.

If the atmolayer obstrcuts the sun when it is night why at this time does it not also obstruct the moon, and conversly why, in the day, does it not also obstruct the sun when it is obstructing the moon.

How many times can I rephrase this legitimate question before rushy runs out of avoidance tactics.

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 11:45:55 AM

we don't see the moon 24/7, but that doesn't mean the atmolayer obstructs it.

If the atmolayer obstrcuts the sun when it is night why at this time does it not also obstruct the moon, and conversly why, in the day, does it not also obstruct the sun when it is obstructing the moon.

How many times can I rephrase this legitimate question before rushy runs out of avoidance tactics.

The atmolayer does obstruct the Moon. Again, what leads you to believe that the Moon produces light immune to the atmolayer's effects?

If the atmolayer obstrcuts the sun when it is night, why, at this time, does it not also obstruct the moon, and conversly why, in the day, does it not also obstruct the sun when it is obstructing the moon.

How many times can I rephrase this legitimate question before rushy runs out of avoidance tactics.

Have you never seen the Moon and the Sun at the same time?

The atmolayer doesn't decide on a personal bias on which one it happens to feel like blocking.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 24, 2012, 01:21:23 PM

Have you never seen the Moon and the Sun at the same time?

Is this really a question?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 01:40:39 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 24, 2012, 01:21:23 PM

Have you never seen the Moon and the Sun at the same time?

Is this really a question?

Well, this explains a lot. You don't understand the English language.

I'm not sure if it was answered before but on the topic of the atmolayer how is it that we can see suns that are much further away than ours yet we can't see ours when it's nearly on top of us in the galactic scale.

Quote from: sonyca on August 24, 2012, 02:30:32 PM

I'm not sure if it was answered before but on the topic of the atmolayer how is it that we can see suns that are much further away than ours yet we can't see ours when it's nearly on top of us in the galactic scale.

1. Stars (other than the Sun, its classification as a "star" is debatable) are nothing more than small points of light approx. 3100 miles away.
2. Trigonometry. Take this right angle triangle for example:



Lets us suppose the sun is at point B. Line AC represents the disc of the Earth. An observer at C would see the Sun, while an observer at A would not. Why is this? The Sun's light has to penetrate a great deal more matter to get to point A than Point C. This is because the length of line AB is longer than line BC.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518
 

Quote from: squevil on August 24, 2012, 09:04:58 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518
 

The flat Earth image you showed is correct. It is also the reason when people use airplanes, they can see "two sunsets" after take off. The upper atmolayer is less dense, allowing a longer viewing of the Sun than could be obtained otherwise. I assume by the smiley you think this is evidence for a round Earth, when in fact is just further supports a flat Earth. Thank you for contributing.

Quote from: squevil on August 24, 2012, 09:04:58 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518
 

The flat Earth image you showed is correct. It is also the reason when people use airplanes, they can see "two sunsets" after take off. The upper atmolayer is less dense, allowing a longer viewing of the Sun than could be obtained otherwise. I assume by the smiley you think this is evidence for a round Earth, when in fact is just further supports a flat Earth. Thank you for contributing.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 24, 2012, 09:16:07 PM

Quote from: squevil on August 24, 2012, 09:04:58 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518
 

The flat Earth image you showed is correct. It is also the reason when people use airplanes, they can see "two sunsets" after take off. The upper atmolayer is less dense, allowing a longer viewing of the Sun than could be obtained otherwise. I assume by the smiley you think this is evidence for a round Earth, when in fact is just further supports a flat Earth. Thank you for contributing.

If the "atomlayer" is less dense at altitude, how does that explain the sun rising again before setting? It should never really rise or fall. If it becomes less dense it should just gadually reappear through the "atmolayer" somewhere on the horizon. The reverse should happen at night. I don't know how a thicker "atmolayer" can account for a setting sun. Can you demonstrate this?

Quote from: Battery72 on August 24, 2012, 09:28:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 24, 2012, 09:16:07 PM

Quote from: squevil on August 24, 2012, 09:04:58 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518
 

The flat Earth image you showed is correct. It is also the reason when people use airplanes, they can see "two sunsets" after take off. The upper atmolayer is less dense, allowing a longer viewing of the Sun than could be obtained otherwise. I assume by the smiley you think this is evidence for a round Earth, when in fact is just further supports a flat Earth. Thank you for contributing.

If the "atomlayer" is less dense at altitude, how does that explain the sun rising again before setting? It should never really rise or fall. If it becomes less dense it should just gadually reappear through the "atmolayer" somewhere on the horizon. The reverse should happen at night. I don't know how a thicker "atmolayer" can account for a setting sun. Can you demonstrate this?

It does gradually reappear. If you watch a sunrise or sunset, the light lingers before and after the Sun is in view. If you're asking why the Sun doesn't fade in like a slowly turned on light bulb, it sort of does. The Sun is simply too bright to really be noticed. I suggest you look at the Sun (wear eye protection, of course) during sunset or sunrise and compare it to the Sun at noon. The Sun will always be a great deal brighter at noon (or whatever point it is "highest" in the sky) then it is at any other point in time. You will also notice the Sun and Moon redshift when rising and whitening when highest in the sky. All of these notions are due to atmolayer density.

You...are...very...wrong. Trolling right? yes, you have to be. Are you blind? wait, do you have good vision? Do you use contacts?

Do you just start writing whatever comes to your head? Are you autistic? Or maybe down syndrome?

Don't stop writing though, I am getting a good laugh out of reading this. You keep me entertained.

Quote from: Battery72 on August 24, 2012, 09:28:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 24, 2012, 09:16:07 PM

Quote from: squevil on August 24, 2012, 09:04:58 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518
 

The flat Earth image you showed is correct. It is also the reason when people use airplanes, they can see "two sunsets" after take off. The upper atmolayer is less dense, allowing a longer viewing of the Sun than could be obtained otherwise. I assume by the smiley you think this is evidence for a round Earth, when in fact is just further supports a flat Earth. Thank you for contributing.

If the "atomlayer" is less dense at altitude, how does that explain the sun rising again before setting? It should never really rise or fall. If it becomes less dense it should just gadually reappear through the "atmolayer" somewhere on the horizon. The reverse should happen at night. I don't know how a thicker "atmolayer" can account for a setting sun. Can you demonstrate this?

It does gradually reappear. If you watch a sunrise or sunset, the light lingers before and after the Sun is in view. If you're asking why the Sun doesn't fade in like a slowly turned on light bulb, it sort of does. The Sun is simply too bright to really be noticed. I suggest you look at the Sun (wear eye protection, of course) during sunset or sunrise and compare it to the Sun at noon. The Sun will always be a great deal brighter at noon (or whatever point it is "highest" in the sky) then it is at any other point in time. You will also notice the Sun and Moon redshift when rising and whitening when highest in the sky. All of these notions are due to atmolayer density.

The stars and moon are around the same height as the sun, but much dimmer.  Yet we can still see them when they would be just as far away as the setting sun.

The second point you glossed over is the sun lighting up clouds before it's even visible.  If the atmolayer stopping the light of the sun is preventing us from seeing it, why is light from the sun visible on the bottoms of clouds?

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 11:45:55 AM

If the atmolayer obstrcuts the sun when it is night, why, at this time, does it not also obstruct the moon, and conversly why, in the day, does it not also obstruct the sun when it is obstructing the moon.

How many times can I rephrase this legitimate question before rushy runs out of avoidance tactics.

[edit: 3rd time]

2. Trigonometry. Take this right angle triangle for example:



Lets us suppose the sun is at point B. Line AC represents the disc of the Earth. An observer at C would see the Sun, while an observer at A would not. Why is this? The Sun's light has to penetrate a great deal more matter to get to point A than Point C. This is because the length of line AB is longer than line BC.

Of course he won't give a proper answer, because he can't do so without undermining things he's already said. This is extremely common among FE'ers and highlights that they simply say anything to autodisagree with whatever the RE'ers are saying at that moment in time. Another good example of this is the ISS thread where Ichi was tricked into saying that the ISS looks like a plane, then saying it had big solar panels sticking out of it. He has been too spineless to come back and defend himself in that thread, again a principle used often by experienced FE'ers such as Tom Bishop, who run away the moment they realise they have no base to their argument.

I've already given you the answer, burt, using trignometry in my previous post. If you really can't grasp basic trignometric distance then you don't meet the basic education requirements needed to debate on this site.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 24, 2012, 07:36:45 PM

2. Trigonometry. Take this right angle triangle for example:



Lets us suppose the sun is at point B. Line AC represents the disc of the Earth. An observer at C would see the Sun, while an observer at A would not. Why is this? The Sun's light has to penetrate a great deal more matter to get to point A than Point C. This is because the length of line AB is longer than line BC.

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 25, 2012, 08:36:01 AM

Of course he won't give a proper answer, because he can't do so without undermining things he's already said. This is extremely common among FE'ers and highlights that they simply say anything to autodisagree with whatever the RE'ers are saying at that moment in time. Another good example of this is the ISS thread where Ichi was tricked into saying that the ISS looks like a plane, then saying it had big solar panels sticking out of it. He has been too spineless to come back and defend himself in that thread, again a principle used often by experienced FE'ers such as Tom Bishop, who run away the moment they realise they have no base to their argument.

Do you do anything other than trying to start little RET circlejerks?