so if the earth is flat...

then if you look at a sunset through a telescope, after the sun has disappeared from the horizon, you should still see the sun, right?
has anyone tried that?

The atmosphere would still obscure the Sun. The same way you can not see stars through a telescope while the Sun is still overhead.

Sorry, I still don't understand.
I've read about the experiment with 6 mile flat river and the boat. In this experiment, the scientist waited until the boat cannot be seen and then he looked through the telescope and saw the boat. Why wouldn't it work just the same with the sun? or with the moon?

Thank you!

It would work just fine at a distance of 6 miles. You wouldn't even need the telescope.

The atmosphere would still obscure the Sun. The same way you can not see stars through a telescope while the Sun is still overhead.

Please explain this in more detail in the context of a sunset.

Quote from: Serulian on September 19, 2015, 09:32:34 AM

The atmosphere would still obscure the Sun. The same way you can not see stars through a telescope while the Sun is still overhead.

Please explain this in more detail in the context of a sunset.

I also would like an explanation. I don't know how it works. All I know is that we can't see the stars at day because of the sun light and not because of the atmosphere.



Also, if it works for 6 miles, why wouldn't it work for 60 miles or 600? I mean, you can see other stuff that are that far away so why not the big bright sun? or the moon?


Thanks again!

I also would like an explanation. I don't know how it works. All I know is that we can't see the stars at day because of the sun light and not because of the atmosphere.

You do know that water vapor obscures the sun.  Take a look outside on the next cloudy day.  The explanation is not more complicated than that. 

Quote from: Lian on September 20, 2015, 12:56:12 AM

I also would like an explanation. I don't know how it works. All I know is that we can't see the stars at day because of the sun light and not because of the atmosphere.

You do know that water vapor obscures the sun.  Take a look outside on the next cloudy day.  The explanation is not more complicated than that.

Please explain how water vapour provides a sudden cut-off with a massive drop of light level exceeding that provided by even the thickest cloud. I don't understand this "explanation", yet you say it's not any more complicated. Clarification, please.

Hey, im new here and in fact this is my first post. To my understanding, in knowledge ive gained. The sun shines on a specific point because its close to the earth, also because the creator sayeth so. in the good book, im not religous, but i believe i was created, funnily enough i said i would only believe in a creator if it was a scientest with a pitri dish; i now refer to as a platform. Also i think it is science that will prove light bends. 

Also i think it is science that will prove light bends. 

Light does bend. It can be bent by a massive gravitational field. (Though, it's not so much that the light is bending, as space itself is curved.) Light just doesn't bend in the way that Flat Earthers think that it does.

http://www.cfhtlens.org/public/what-gravitational-lensing

Note to honorable and clever folks: 
The shill/liar modus operandi is to badger honest folks incessantly with demands for explanations no matter what is posted or said --- creating the illusion that the honest folks are ignorant. 

Please explain how water vapour provides a sudden cut-off with a massive drop of light level exceeding that provided by even the thickest cloud.

Why??  Are you blind??   
I do not need to explain that.  Any honest/sane man can see that water vapor and or clouds blocks the sun's rays. 

The atmosphere would still obscure the Sun. The same way you can not see stars through a telescope while the Sun is still overhead.

Well, well, well, it seems your ignorance has reared its ugly head yet again.

Of course you can still see stars through a telescope during the day, as the following link explains -

http://skysurfer.eu/daystars.php

Another case of a flat earther not doing the required research.

No objects that cross over the horizon reappears when you look at them through telescope or binoculars.
Yes, I have tested this.

The Sun is God's light. Night is when he veils it, so that he may test us. Night has been known for many thousands of years as a time of darkness and of ill. It would be a poor test if you could regain God's light with merely a telescope. Heaven (the Sun) is no longer visible because you are expected to manage the test of darkness.

The Sun is God's light. Night is when he veils it, so that he may test us. Night has been known for many thousands of years as a time of darkness and of ill. It would be a poor test if you could regain God's light with merely a telescope. Heaven (the Sun) is no longer visible because you are expected to manage the test of darkness.

How do you explain moonlight and starlight  if night time is a time of darkness ?
Do you mean total darkness ? How do you explain how the moon shines ?
Are you basing your belief in a flat earth solely on the quotation from Isaiah 40:22 ?
If so I would suggest you consult some Biblical Scholar for the explanation.
http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html

Night is not always a time of darkness and ill . I have stood many "Mid Watches" (Midnight until 8:00 AM) and have usually found them to be  necessary, productive and even fascinating in the Navy and in civil service air traffic control.The world does not stand still at night in whatever time zone you happen to be in. It is always day and night at  some time somewhere on the earth every 24 hours.

Quote from: Testify on September 23, 2015, 08:59:17 AM

The Sun is God's light. Night is when he veils it, so that he may test us. Night has been known for many thousands of years as a time of darkness and of ill. It would be a poor test if you could regain God's light with merely a telescope. Heaven (the Sun) is no longer visible because you are expected to manage the test of darkness.

How do you explain moonlight and starlight  if night time is a time of darkness ?
Do you mean total darkness ? How do you explain how the moon shines ?
Are you basing your belief in a flat earth solely on the quotation from Isaiah 40:22 ?
If so I would suggest you consult some Biblical Scholar for the explanation.
http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html

Night is not always a time of darkness and ill . I have stood many "Mid Watches" (Midnight until 8:00 AM) and have usually found them to be  necessary, productive and even fascinating in the Navy and in civil service air traffic control.The world does not stand still at night in whatever time zone you happen to be in. It is always day and night at  some time somewhere on the earth every 24 hours.

Just because people claim to serve God does not mean they do. Anyone can call themselves a Christian, but not everyone is.

The stars are demons, who seek to fool humans into disbelieving God's word. The night is not a time of literal darkness, but of spiritual: God's light, the Sun, is turned away from us. Demons become visible, and night has been considered throughout history to be the more dangerous time.
The moon shines because it is Christ's light. It came into being two thousand years ago to guide men to where Christ was born, as the only object whose new existence would be notable and which moves enough to be followed.

There are other verses. For example:

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

To see all the kingdoms of the world from one point means that the world is flat.

Note to honorable and clever folks: 
The shill/liar modus operandi is to badger honest folks incessantly with demands for explanations no matter what is posted or said --- creating the illusion that the honest folks are ignorant. 

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on September 20, 2015, 05:28:28 PM

Please explain how water vapour provides a sudden cut-off with a massive drop of light level exceeding that provided by even the thickest cloud.

Why??  Are you blind??   
I do not need to explain that.  Any honest/sane man can see that water vapor and or clouds blocks the sun's rays.

The part you do need to explain and which you do not address is highlighted in red.
Pathetic attempt at dodging, three out of ten. For future reference, try and counter everything raised by the opposing poster, not just ignore part of the sentence and hope it will go away. Nobody disputes water vapour blocks the sun's rays. That would be debate, not permitted in this forum. But without a statement addressing the red text, your claim is unfounded.

If the sun (ignoring for now the sudden disappearance of virtually all light and the appearance that the sun sets below the horizon) is obscured due to atmospheric interferences (and ignoring for now what those interferences are or what causes them to disappear during the day and reappear at night), why would those same interferences not block out the moon or the stars?

Because they are not located in the same point in space as the Sun.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

Because they are not located in the same point in space as the Sun.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

How is this relevant? Nothing is located at the same point in space as anything else 

The atmosphere would still obscure the Sun. The same way you can not see stars through a telescope while the Sun is still overhead.

You can bring back the stars in the day with a long exposure.  In the day they are just as bright as they are at night, but they are washed out by the sky.  Sunsets work nothing like that.

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 29, 2015, 10:54:36 PM

Because they are not located in the same point in space as the Sun.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

How is this relevant? Nothing is located at the same point in space as anything else 

Wow, you are very smart.  I call my little nephew "Captain Obvious" when he states things that everyone else already knows.  Do you have a question or answer about the flat Earth, or are you just trouble-making again?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on September 30, 2015, 10:15:07 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 29, 2015, 10:54:36 PM

Because they are not located in the same point in space as the Sun.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

How is this relevant? Nothing is located at the same point in space as anything else 

Wow, you are very smart. I call my little nephew "Captain Obvious" when he states things that everyone else already knows.  Do you have a question or answer about the flat Earth, or are you just trouble-making again?

You really should read the rest of the thread before making smart arse comments. Engineer claimed the explanation for water vapour blocking out the sun to a greater extent than the thickest cloud was that "they" are not located at the same point in space as the sun. (Presumably he means the clouds).
I can't understand how this explains sunsets, and indeed to me it appears to be of no relevance, hence me asking "How is this relevant?" in the post above. This is indeed an FE question because I am asking how Engineer's post explains a flat earth phenomenon. I do not disagree with it - because that would be debate. I simply request further clarification.
But of course nobody who is familiar with your style of "moderation" would expect you to notice that a post contained a FE question or answer before accusing it of not doing so.

Here's another flat earth question for you: how is your statement I've highlighted in purple not trouble making?

You can bring back the stars in the day with a long exposure.

Present evidence.

Engineer claimed the explanation for water vapour blocking out the sun to a greater extent than the thickest cloud was that "they" are not located at the same point in space as the sun. (Presumably he means the clouds).

I made no such claim.  I merely stated a fact.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on September 30, 2015, 03:57:30 PM

Engineer claimed the explanation for water vapour blocking out the sun to a greater extent than the thickest cloud was that "they" are not located at the same point in space as the sun. (Presumably he means the clouds). EDIT - I know on reading it again think he means the stars.

I made no such claim.  I merely stated a fact.

Oh yeah?

If the sun (ignoring for now the sudden disappearance of virtually all light and the appearance that the sun sets below the horizon) is obscured due to atmospheric interferences (and ignoring for now what those interferences are or what causes them to disappear during the day and reappear at night), why would those same interferences not block out the moon or the stars?

Because they are not located in the same point in space as the Sun.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

There, you have made a claim. Someone asked a question and you answered it, starting with the word "because". That is making a claim. Saying "x happens" is stating a fact. Saying "x happens because of y" when the cause of y is under question, is making a claim.

Quote from: Serulian on September 19, 2015, 09:32:34 AM

The atmosphere would still obscure the Sun. The same way you can not see stars through a telescope while the Sun is still overhead.

You can bring back the stars in the day with a long exposure.  In the day they are just as bright as they are at night, but they are washed out by the sky.  Sunsets work nothing like that.

Don't you mean you can bring back the stars in the night with a long
exposure ? If you made a long exposure in the day the film would just be washed out due to overexposure.

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 30, 2015, 04:43:40 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on September 30, 2015, 03:57:30 PM

Engineer claimed the explanation for water vapour blocking out the sun to a greater extent than the thickest cloud was that "they" are not located at the same point in space as the sun. (Presumably he means the clouds). EDIT - I know on reading it again think he means the stars.

I made no such claim.  I merely stated a fact.

Oh yeah?

Quote from: Buffy The Snickers Slayer on September 29, 2015, 08:19:46 PM

If the sun (ignoring for now the sudden disappearance of virtually all light and the appearance that the sun sets below the horizon) is obscured due to atmospheric interferences (and ignoring for now what those interferences are or what causes them to disappear during the day and reappear at night), why would those same interferences not block out the moon or the stars?

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 29, 2015, 10:54:36 PM

Because they are not located in the same point in space as the Sun.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

There, you have made a claim. Someone asked a question and you answered it, starting with the word "because". That is making a claim. Saying "x happens" is stating a fact. Saying "x happens because of y" when the cause of y is under question, is making a claim.

I stated a fact to answer a hypothetical.  It's too bad you fail at reading comprehension, too.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on October 01, 2015, 02:10:28 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 30, 2015, 04:43:40 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on September 30, 2015, 03:57:30 PM

Engineer claimed the explanation for water vapour blocking out the sun to a greater extent than the thickest cloud was that "they" are not located at the same point in space as the sun. (Presumably he means the clouds). EDIT - I know on reading it again think he means the stars.

I made no such claim.  I merely stated a fact.

Oh yeah?

Quote from: Buffy The Snickers Slayer on September 29, 2015, 08:19:46 PM

If the sun (ignoring for now the sudden disappearance of virtually all light and the appearance that the sun sets below the horizon) is obscured due to atmospheric interferences (and ignoring for now what those interferences are or what causes them to disappear during the day and reappear at night), why would those same interferences not block out the moon or the stars?

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 29, 2015, 10:54:36 PM

Because they are not located in the same point in space as the Sun.  Seems pretty obvious to me.

There, you have made a claim. Someone asked a question and you answered it, starting with the word "because". That is making a claim. Saying "x happens" is stating a fact. Saying "x happens because of y" when the cause of y is under question, is making a claim.

I stated a fact to answer a hypothetical.  It's too bad you fail at reading comprehension, too.

Are you going to explain how your "fact" allows the light of the sun to be completely blocked out but not the light of the stars, as we all want to know (because "they're not at the same point in space" doesn't really explain it), or are you just going to carry on behaving like Parsifal?

Again, careful reading is your friend.

I was not attempting to explain any tenant of the FE.  I was merely stating a fact: They are not at the same point in space.  I thought this was obvious. I didn't realize I needed to bring this down to a kindergarten grade level for you.