A challenge for every Flat earth believer.

Hi everyone,
New to this forum, i've heard of the Flat earth thing quite a while ago, i'm not a FE believer nor i will be, i challenged myself to try to prove the spherical earth without satellite imagery pretending to be in an ancient era with least technological advances cause i do not consider satellite to be a kind of a conspiracy, i'm a student of meteorology btw which obviously imply working with satellite imagery in a daily basis
After investigating the flat earth model i discovered so many flaws one of which i never heard someone talking about (as far as i know), so i'm gonna challenge any strong flat earth believer to try and explain this simple phenomenon observable every sunset and sunrise.
In an unstable atmosphere(i.e strong vertical motion) clouds will form with a significant vertical development, in a stage we will find what we call TCU clouds(towering Cumulus) or Thunderclouds(Cumulonimbus) .
we have two observations
I) in a sunset with the presence of TCU clouds you can notice how the reflected light from the clouds gradually change from a whole shining cloud to a fully dark cloud beginning from it's base into it's summit with a perfect sink while the sun go below the horizon, this is impossible in a flat earth, i'll put a pic and a video demonstrating this observation.
II) In a sunset with the existence of both low level Cumulus and high level Cirrus you can notice both the change of the color of the clouds and the clouds still facing the sun from the lowest clouds into the highest clouds.

I'm not a native English speaker, pls excuse any grammatical error.

http://postimg.org/image/4uuyxzd2z/
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I) in a sunset with the presence of TCU clouds you can notice how the reflected light from the clouds gradually change from a whole shining cloud to a fully dark cloud beginning from it's base into it's summit with a perfect sink while the sun go below the horizon, this is impossible in a flat earth, i'll put a pic and a video demonstrating this observation.

No.  You are thinking completely backwards. 
What you observe is proof that the sun is turning around above the earth. 

Since you researched it all and you discovered so many flaws, how about you stop wasting everybody's time and post a scale drawing to prove your ridiculous assertion. 

Draw a sketch of a cloud with the shadow parts and the light parts.  Prove your assertion instead of asking sane people to do your insane homework. 

Quote from: The-Naked-Dragon on September 14, 2015, 04:32:04 PM

I) in a sunset with the presence of TCU clouds you can notice how the reflected light from the clouds gradually change from a whole shining cloud to a fully dark cloud beginning from it's base into it's summit with a perfect sink while the sun go below the horizon, this is impossible in a flat earth, i'll put a pic and a video demonstrating this observation.

No.  You are thinking completely backwards.

No. Actually, you are completely backwards. 

What you observe is proof that the sun is turning around above the earth.

No, that's not what he is observing at all. If that were the case the clouds would just get lighter and darker all at once, and also, uh, the Sun appears to go *down* at Sunset and *up* at Sunrise, it does not appear to gradually shrink smaller and smaller until it goes out of view.
 

Since you researched it all and you discovered so many flaws, how about you stop wasting everybody's time and post a scale drawing to prove your ridiculous assertion. 

Draw a sketch of a cloud with the shadow parts and the light parts.  Prove your assertion instead of asking sane people to do your insane homework.

Basically you can't disprove anything that he is claiming, so you resort to basically telling him to "f**k off!"

Funny, I thought that this was a *debate* forum...

It's a necessary fact that, if the world is flat, light will not behave as you're used to. We can see this by observing the horizon, or the sunset.

My personal (tenuous) hypothesis is that light is drawn towards refractive objects. The underpinning theory is a ramble, and relates to unifying the fundamental forces, but the idea is that they function as sort-of magnets (the same was charge particles do so forelectromagnetism, and objects with mass are, in terms of gravity). This force is actually what would be responsible (at least in part) for refraction.
In this case, taking the FE model of a Sun that is a spotlight, the ship going over the horizon is simply because the light is drawn down to the water of the sea, the midnight Sun because it is drawn to and around the ice wall: and clouds are themselves water so it would be very likely for, when the Sun has moved on, light to curve back up in attraction to the water of the clouds.

I may be wrong, certainly. This is a hypothesis (my model is not yet complete enough to be tested), but there are enough answers and hypothetical justifications that it feels a valid answer. Even if I am wrong, the fact remains there are many ways FE could answer such an issue: light would not behave exactly the same way you're used to.

It's a necessary fact that, if the world is flat, light will not behave as you're used to.

Which is why the Earth is not flat. Because light does behave like we are used to.

No.  You are thinking completely backwards. 
What you observe is proof that the sun is turning around above the earth. 

Which proof ?..., A spotlight moving around above the earth is what the FE says, i debunked this claim with a simple observation since the FE hypothesis -with its spotlight- go against what's observable.

Since you researched it all and you discovered so many flaws, how about you stop wasting everybody's time and post a scale drawing to prove your ridiculous assertion. 

Draw a sketch of a cloud with the shadow parts and the light parts.  Prove your assertion instead of asking sane people to do your insane homework. 

You probably misunderstood the whole concept.
A scale isn't really necessary to demonstrate this observation, all we need is a round curved surface.
And i guess this is a debate forum, drop some useful arguments or else leave.

It's a necessary fact that, if the world is flat, light will not behave as you're used to. We can see this by observing the horizon, or the sunset.

Take a ball and place some rods and light the ball while rotating it, repeat this experiment using a flat surface using a spotlight above the surface and witness how light behave. 

Which is why the Earth is not flat. Because light does behave like we are used to.

A statement clearly only true if the world is round: which should not be assumed.

Take a ball and place some rods and light the ball while rotating it, repeat this experiment using a flat surface using a spotlight above the surface and witness how light behave.

This would not accurately represent the scale or composition of the Earth, and so is useless as far as comparisons go. Would the fact I could not stand on the underside of said ball disprove gravity and so the RE model?

It's a necessary fact that, if the world is flat, light will not behave as you're used to.

You mean that if you are trying to shoehorn everyday observations into an already falsified hypothesis, then you need to make shit up?  You know the FES already call this made up phenomenon "Bendy light"?

My personal (tenuous) hypothesis is that light is drawn towards refractive objects.

Refractive objects?

The underpinning theory is a ramble, and relates to unifying the fundamental forces, but the idea is that they function as sort-of magnets (the same was charge particles do so forelectromagnetism, and objects with mass are, in terms of gravity). This force is actually what would be responsible (at least in part) for refraction.
In this case, taking the FE model of a Sun that is a spotlight, the ship going over the horizon is simply because the light is drawn down to the water of the sea, the midnight Sun because it is drawn to and around the ice wall: and clouds are themselves water so it would be very likely for, when the Sun has moved on, light to curve back up in attraction to the water of the clouds.

This should be very easy to prove.  Yet there is no evidence that light is "attracted to water" - that's just deeply silly. 

It is easily falsified by the fact if the observer gains height, then the sun, ship or whatever becomes visible again.  Plus sunsets, "sinking buildings" etc also occur over land.

I may be wrong, certainly.

Certainly.

You mean that if you are trying to shoehorn everyday observations into an already falsified hypothesis, then you need to make shit up?  You know the FES already call this made up phenomenon "Bendy light"?

Science is not shoehorning. The fact you are biased towards the RE model does not prevent examining alternatives. Is it shoehorning to say the world looks flat out your window because the RE model says it's too large to see curvature, or is that simply explaining observations in light of a model?
I have heard of bendy light. It has never been well-defined, so I don't believe my defined hypothesis can particularly compare. Is it bendy light you are calling falsified, or FE as a whole?
I'd be interested to hear why you think this. the only discussion I've seen where bendy light was claimed to be falsified was a small-scale experiment where any curvature would be negligible.

Refractive objects?

Objects with a high refractive index: water, ice, diamond. (The theory relates to the strong nuclear force: I hypothesize it is an attractive force, similar to the other fundamental forces, with the variable of size).

This should be very easy to prove.  Yet there is no evidence that light is "attracted to water" - that's just deeply silly. 

It's not attraction to water, it's an attraction to a refractive object. True, no reason for this is yet forthcoming, but neither is there a reason for mass to curve space: certain things are fundamental, and this is intended as such. The refraction observed may be a consequence of this. It would only be easy to test if the force was strong: mostly it would be negligible on the small scale. Looking to the horizon is hardly a small scale.
When my hypothesis is complete, I'll be more than happy to ask for and so conduct tests.

It is easily falsified by the fact if the observer gains height, then the sun, ship or whatever becomes visible again.  Plus sunsets, "sinking buildings" etc also occur over land.

Such results are messier over land: water is far smoother. It is very hard to gauge if any large stretch of land is flat enough for such observations to be any more than geographical features.
Ascension would of course make more of the ship visible: you would be seeing the light rays that reflect of the ship in more of an upwards direction. Far less of these would be pulled down to the water (for example).
Sunsets, and indeed much of the Sun's movement, are likely caused by the rays tending outwards, to the so-called ice wall.

Again, I am not claiming this as any more than a hypothesis, and a tenuous one at that. No experiments have been conducted: but it functions as a good hypothesis should. It could explain observations, if true.
I am not proposing a theory. That is far too premature an ask or a claim. A hypothesis, however, this works as.

Which proof ?..., A spotlight moving around above the earth is what the FE says, i debunked this claim with a simple observation since the FE hypothesis -with its spotlight- go against what's observable.

Your drawing of clouds and a flat earth misrepresents reality. 

Here is proof: 
Next time you see clouds in and around the sun,  Look up in the sky.  You will see triangulation of the sun's rays just like you drew them in kindergarten.  Nothing has changed except your brain has been used. 

Quote from: The-Naked-Dragon on September 15, 2015, 07:12:06 AM

Which proof ?..., A spotlight moving around above the earth is what the FE says, i debunked this claim with a simple observation since the FE hypothesis -with its spotlight- go against what's observable.

Your drawing of clouds and a flat earth misrepresents reality. 
 

I (intentionally) drew the FE model with sun rays coming perpendicular to the surface so they can correct me to make the flaw clearly noticeable, with a triangular incoming sunlight you would see the opposite of what's happening in reality, clouds will appear to get darker beginning from the top of the clouds, in reality we can see clouds getting darker beginning from the cloud base.
here's a vid, compare t=4:12 with t=5:16
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
now twist your mind and explain this in your FE model without coming with some crazy assumptions such as 'Oh!! it must be the light zigzaging or bouncing creating a sort of an illusion' or any similar kind of bullshit.

Here is proof: 
Next time you see clouds in and around the sun,  Look up in the sky.  You will see triangulation of the sun's rays just like you drew them in kindergarten.  Nothing has changed except your brain has been used. 

What kind of triangulation you are talking about? ... crepuscular rays i guess which is OFF TOPIC, i'm talking about the change of the portion of the cloud still receiving light directly from the sun during 'sunset'.

Every day, we see triangulation of the sun's rays through the clouds.  How do they explain that?  They say it is an illusion.  Let them explain their illusion.  It is not the job of honest folks to explain their illusions. 
It is not an illusion.

Here's a better explanation with no triangular sun rays but parallel instead (no illusions involved).
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm

You failed once again.

You failed once again.

Not from my perspective.  I see a success. 
The way I see things is that you revealed too much ---- once again. 

You are a terrible shill. 

Quote from: The-Naked-Dragon on September 15, 2015, 03:48:50 PM

You failed once again.

Not from my perspective.  I see a success. 
The way I see things is that you revealed too much ---- once again. 

You are a terrible shill. 

You gave me your explanation regarding sun rays or crepuscular ray from a FE perspective which is off topic and i provided a response even though i shouldn't, i see no proper explanation on what i'm talking about, how dare you call this a 'success' ?

how dare you call this a 'success' ?

Easy. 
Ask your handler.  I am not going to do your homework.