Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball?

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 01:17:59 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 11:42:21 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 10:52:29 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 10:29:12 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 10:05:09 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 09:56:51 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 09:55:29 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 09:52:35 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 09:51:01 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 09:49:45 AM

Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.

I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.

Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?
 Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.

I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.

What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?

There are shadows in the mountains

So twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?

I don't believe they could combine to form that image

They all can but as already explained, the atmosphere already allows for the sun and full moon to be seen at same time. It's always either at sun rise or sun set.  You will never see a full moon at noon.

Try this video.

Haven't seen anything yet that resolves the following question:  How can a full moon be above the horizon at an angle of 20 + degrees when the sun is also above the horizon after sunrise or before sunset?

Why ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers?

You seem to think you found some sort of 'gotcha', while there are in fact perfectly valid and testable answers to you questions. Stop behaving like a fool and listen.

haha, I've been listening to all kinds of nonsense. If you have any legitimate verifiable proofs the earth is a spinning pear shaped oblate spheroid, please share them.

Quote from: Omega on September 01, 2016, 01:21:04 PM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 01:17:59 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 11:42:21 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 10:52:29 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 10:29:12 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 10:05:09 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 09:56:51 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 09:55:29 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 09:52:35 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 09:51:01 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 09:49:45 AM

Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.

I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.

Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?
 Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.

I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.

What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?

There are shadows in the mountains

So twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?

I don't believe they could combine to form that image

They all can but as already explained, the atmosphere already allows for the sun and full moon to be seen at same time. It's always either at sun rise or sun set.  You will never see a full moon at noon.

Try this video.

Haven't seen anything yet that resolves the following question:  How can a full moon be above the horizon at an angle of 20 + degrees when the sun is also above the horizon after sunrise or before sunset?

Why ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers?

You seem to think you found some sort of 'gotcha', while there are in fact perfectly valid and testable answers to you questions. Stop behaving like a fool and listen.

haha, I've been listening to all kinds of nonsense. If you have any legitimate verifiable proofs the earth is a spinning pear shaped oblate spheroid, please share them.

Not pear shaped. Spheroid. Ever so slightly flattened at the top and bottom.

As for evidence the Earth is round:

Watch a ship disappear behind the horizon.
Watch the sunset.
See how the stars seem to rotate around Polaris
See how the stars are different above and below the equator
See how the moon is 'flipped' when watched above or below the equator

Oh yeah, and of course the millions of pictures.

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 02:08:42 PM

Quote from: Omega on September 01, 2016, 01:21:04 PM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 01:17:59 PM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 11:42:21 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 10:52:29 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 10:29:12 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 10:05:09 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 09:56:51 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 09:55:29 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 09:52:35 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 09:51:01 AM

Quote from: sokarul on September 01, 2016, 09:49:45 AM

Silicon, you said the picture in question was taken at 12pm.

I said apparently since that's what the image data shows.

Let me guess if you click properties that's when it says it was created?
 Learn how operating systems and software works and report back.

I do not dispute the time could be wrong, but that does not detract from the full moon being at that height during the daytime.

What causes you to believe the sun is up in that picture?

There are shadows in the mountains

So twilight, dusk, and camera settings don't exist?

I don't believe they could combine to form that image

They all can but as already explained, the atmosphere already allows for the sun and full moon to be seen at same time. It's always either at sun rise or sun set.  You will never see a full moon at noon.

Try this video.

Haven't seen anything yet that resolves the following question:  How can a full moon be above the horizon at an angle of 20 + degrees when the sun is also above the horizon after sunrise or before sunset?

Why ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers?

You seem to think you found some sort of 'gotcha', while there are in fact perfectly valid and testable answers to you questions. Stop behaving like a fool and listen.

haha, I've been listening to all kinds of nonsense. If you have any legitimate verifiable proofs the earth is a spinning pear shaped oblate spheroid, please share them.

Not pear shaped. Spheroid. Ever so slightly flattened at the top and bottom.

As for evidence the Earth is round:

Watch a ship disappear behind the horizon.
Watch the sunset.
See how the stars seem to rotate around Polaris
See how the stars are different above and below the equator
See how the moon is 'flipped' when watched above or below the equator

Oh yeah, and of course the millions of pictures.

"Watch a ship disappear behind the horizon."   Doesn't happen as has been demonstrated in countless threads here, and in this one as well.
"Watch the sunset."  Earlier in this thread I posted a video showing how the sun's diameter changes
"See how the stars seem to rotate around Polaris" - This is really worse for the globe model
"See how the moon is 'flipped' when watched above or below the equator"  This is a problem for the globe as well, plus its assumed the moon is a floating rock in space
"Oh yeah, and of course the millions of pictures."  All openly manipulated "composites"

Anything else?

1. Please show us a ship dissapearing behind a horizon, then being brought back into focus when viewed through a telescope.
2. Show us a video of a sunset with an actual solar filter.
3. Why is that worst for globe model?
4. It is not a problem for globe earth at all. And what is the moon then? Because it is definately a sphere.
5. how about the millions of pictures that aren't composites what about them?

1. Please show us a ship dissapearing behind a horizon, then being brought back into focus when viewed through a telescope.
2. Show us a video of a sunset with an actual solar filter.
3. Why is that worst for globe model?
4. It is not a problem for globe earth at all. And what is the moon then? Because it is definately a sphere.
5. how about the millions of pictures that aren't composites what about them?

It is a truly unbreakable debating technique. Simply deny anything you dont like. You can't lose! Of course, your entire life is probably a loss, but you sure cant lose a debate when you make or break any and all rules.

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 01, 2016, 03:10:14 PM

1. Please show us a ship dissapearing behind a horizon, then being brought back into focus when viewed through a telescope.
2. Show us a video of a sunset with an actual solar filter.
3. Why is that worst for globe model?
4. It is not a problem for globe earth at all. And what is the moon then? Because it is definately a sphere.
5. how about the millions of pictures that aren't composites what about them?

It is a truly unbreakable debating technique. Simply deny anything you dont like. You can't lose! Of course, your entire life is probably a loss, but you sure cant lose a debate when you make or break any and all rules.

Well, I've provided evidence and its just denied, or shrugged off like whatever. So, same back to the collective you.

1. Go back and read my post in this thread concerning the fence riding double speak on this issue.
2. Do you mind giving a hint on what that would be exactly?
3. The earth is revolving, then revolving around the sun, which is revolving around the galaxy, which is revolving around a supper-massive black hole.  The speed and distances at which this is all supposedly happening is just appalling. However polaris is stuck aligned at the north pole for centuries.  Just no.
4.  Don't think so, maybe by the time this thread is done I will have a theory to share with proof. I know you like proof.
5. Think you could be just a tiny bit more specific?

I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.

YES PAL but only sexually,my balls drive me crazy when i see a birds ass,i go nuts,takecare

3. The earth is revolving, then revolving around the sun, which is revolving around the galaxy, which is revolving around a supper-massive black hole.  The speed and distances at which this is all supposedly happening is just appalling. However polaris is stuck aligned at the north pole for centuries.  Just no.

all the stars we see with the naked eye are not only within our galaxy but within a relatively small part of our galaxy that is moving with us so the movement of the galaxy itself is irrelevant.  The distances involved are still far enough that the movement around the sun is not noticeable.

Quote from: SpJunk on September 01, 2016, 05:56:12 AM

He is deperate.
He would like to force everyone to believe what Flatties say,
and disregard wat people see around in reality.

He would love to forbid people going to Moon again,
just to prevent any further proof that they were already there.

With so many ongoing projects by space agencies all around the world
space colonization is just a matter of time.

We could let flatties dream while they can, (if they wouldn't drag more naive, vulnerable kids into it).

It won't last long.

Sounds like someone trying to not look like a loser.  Keep it up, and maybe you will convince someone.

Who to convince and why?

You see, when I wrote this and left for work, at my way there I remembered one thing:

Flat Earthers were also naive and vulnerable kids. We can't abandon them.

If there was incoming disaster and space ships were ready to take us away from death,
I would tie you and took you with me despite your disbelief and resistance to go.
I wouldn't let you die.

Right now I'm having a traces of second thoughts... 

What is your excuse for this full moon during the day? 

First, let's try to estimate how high above the horizon the moon is in this image. From the image meta-data:

Camera: Sony DSLR-A100
Focal Length: 135mm
Date: 2014-08-11 12:00:53 (Based on the shadows, this was clearly not taken at noon or midnight. Probably a timezone issue.)

Google search reveals that the DSLR-A100 has a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.8mm. This allows us to calculate the maximum angular size of the image:

2*arctan((23.6/2)/135) = 10 degrees

10 degrees is the maximum angular width of the photo in the vertical direction. We can now get a rough approximation of the elevation of the moon. I measured 1227 pixels between the moon and the horizon:

10 degrees * (1227 px / 3872 px) = 3.2 degrees

This is a far cry from your estimated 20 degrees. Now, let's calculate the maximum width of the moon assuming the sun is on the horizon:

(1+cos(3.2 degrees))/2 = 0.9992

That's a 0.08% decrease in width. This corresponds to 0.2 pixels in the above image. So no, this image does not constitute evidence against the earth being round. Also, once again, you can clearly see the bottom left edge of the moon is more blurry than the other edges.

@Silicon: In the future, you should probably go through this same process to see if your images actually constitute valid evidence, rather than just guessing.

@Omega: There is no evidence that Silicon altered the image of the moon. Stop accusing him of such. He merely tried to pass off his overlay as more fitting than it actually was.

"Watch a ship disappear behind the horizon."   Doesn't happen as has been demonstrated in countless threads here, and in this one as well.

You are not recommending people to go out and see in reality.
Why?
Because you hope you can demonstrate anything you want in pixels.
But even in pixels it will be exposed sooner or later.
You felt that on your own skin.

Looks like you have never been at sea yourself.
And looks like you hope your victims weren't either.

"Watch the sunset."  Earlier in this thread I posted a video showing how the sun's diameter changes

Unfortunately for you, everyone can use welding mask and calliper and disprove your video, by measuring THE REAL SUN.

"See how the stars seem to rotate around Polaris" - This is really worse for the globe model

Then why completely different stars and constellations rotate in opposite direction around South Celestial Pole?

"See how the moon is 'flipped' when watched above or below the equator"  This is a problem for the globe as well, plus its assumed the moon is a floating rock in space

If the Moon is disc, then while from one part of the world is seen as circle,
from every other part of the world would be seen as ellipse.
So, the Moon isn't disc.
It is sphere.

If the Moon is near, then from different parts of the world people would see different faces
of the Moon, not same face rotated in a different way.

Conclusion:

Observer is rotated at different latitudes, not the Moon itself.
Two verticals 690 miles apart are tilted one from another by 10 degrees.

Moon is roughly 380 000 kilometers away and has diameter roughly 3 400 kilometers.

"Oh yeah, and of course the millions of pictures."  All openly manipulated "composites"

They were not published to simply prove something.
They were published to be useful.
Composite image of part of Earth's surface will be more precise in every fragment
if that fragment was recorded perpendicularly itself.
You can't take picture of so many parts perpendicularly all together on curved surface.

Anything else?

Yes.

During sunrise and sunset, horizon casts shadow on mountain sides and tall buildings.
During sunset that shadow crawls up.
During sunrise that shadow crawls down.

Is it possible for horizon to cast shadow if the Sun is "still 3000 miles above the ground" ?

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 06:27:02 AM

What is your excuse for this full moon during the day? 

First, let's try to estimate how high above the horizon the moon is in this image. From the image meta-data:

Camera: Sony DSLR-A100
Focal Length: 135mm
Date: 2014-08-11 12:00:53 (Based on the shadows, this was clearly not taken at noon or midnight. Probably a timezone issue.)

Google search reveals that the DSLR-A100 has a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.8mm. This allows us to calculate the maximum angular size of the image:

2*arctan((23.6/2)/135) = 10 degrees

10 degrees is the maximum angular width of the photo in the vertical direction. We can now get a rough approximation of the elevation of the moon. I measured 1227 pixels between the moon and the horizon:

10 degrees * (1227 px / 3872 px) = 3.2 degrees

This is a far cry from your estimated 20 degrees. Now, let's calculate the maximum width of the moon assuming the sun is on the horizon:

(1+cos(3.2 degrees))/2 = 0.9992

That's a 0.08% decrease in width. This corresponds to 0.2 pixels in the above image. So no, this image does not constitute evidence against the earth being round. Also, once again, you can clearly see the bottom left edge of the moon is more blurry than the other edges.

@Silicon: In the future, you should probably go through this same process to see if your images actually constitute valid evidence, rather than just guessing.

@Omega: There is no evidence that Silicon altered the image of the moon. Stop accusing him of such. He merely tried to pass off his overlay as more fitting than it actually was.

You are wrong.

If the Moon has angular diameter of 0.5 degrees,
and below Moon we can fit four more until horizon,
then we have 4 X 0.5 + 0.25 = 2.25.

Your 3.2 is too much. Camera metadata didn't take in account that image could be cropped.

Quote

First, let's try to estimate how high above the horizon the moon is in this image. From the image meta-data:

Camera: Sony DSLR-A100
Focal Length: 135mm
Date: 2014-08-11 12:00:53 (Based on the shadows, this was clearly not taken at noon or midnight. Probably a timezone issue.)

Google search reveals that the DSLR-A100 has a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.8mm. This allows us to calculate the maximum angular size of the image:

2*arctan((23.6/2)/135) = 10 degrees

10 degrees is the maximum angular width of the photo in the vertical direction. We can now get a rough approximation of the elevation of the moon. I measured 1227 pixels between the moon and the horizon:

10 degrees * (1227 px / 3872 px) = 3.2 degrees

You are wrong.

If the Moon has angular diameter of 0.5 degrees,
and below Moon we can fit four more until horizon,
then we have 4 X 0.5 + 0.25 = 2.25.

Your 3.2 is too much.

First of all, I'm an idiot. That's a way easier way to estimate the elevation of the moon. Good job.

Second of all, I was actually measuring from the edge of the water salt flats, which comes out to 5 moon widths = 2.5 degrees. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Third of all, I did say it was a rough approximation. For most photos, the angular width between two objects in the photo is not directly proportional to the pixels between them. It's just a projection, after all. Your method suffers from the same flaw, so I'm not sure whose method is more accurate. That being said, I am inclined to trust your method more, since mine relies on the focal length and sensor size being correct as reported by the metadata and google.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. 3.2 degrees or 2.25 degrees is way too small to detect in this type of photo.

Edit: That isn't water is it? Looks like salt flats. Oops.

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 06:27:02 AM

What is your excuse for this full moon during the day? 

First, let's try to estimate how high above the horizon the moon is in this image. From the image meta-data:

Camera: Sony DSLR-A100
Focal Length: 135mm
Date: 2014-08-11 12:00:53 (Based on the shadows, this was clearly not taken at noon or midnight. Probably a timezone issue.)

Google search reveals that the DSLR-A100 has a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.8mm. This allows us to calculate the maximum angular size of the image:

2*arctan((23.6/2)/135) = 10 degrees

10 degrees is the maximum angular width of the photo in the vertical direction. We can now get a rough approximation of the elevation of the moon. I measured 1227 pixels between the moon and the horizon:

10 degrees * (1227 px / 3872 px) = 3.2 degrees

This is a far cry from your estimated 20 degrees. Now, let's calculate the maximum width of the moon assuming the sun is on the horizon:

(1+cos(3.2 degrees))/2 = 0.9992

That's a 0.08% decrease in width. This corresponds to 0.2 pixels in the above image. So no, this image does not constitute evidence against the earth being round. Also, once again, you can clearly see the bottom left edge of the moon is more blurry than the other edges.

@Silicon: In the future, you should probably go through this same process to see if your images actually constitute valid evidence, rather than just guessing.

@Omega: There is no evidence that Silicon altered the image of the moon. Stop accusing him of such. He merely tried to pass off his overlay as more fitting than it actually was.

Look, I appreciate the effort and you gave some great ideas to generate proofs,  I will do this next time.  You were also honest about that image which is good.  You sir are a top 1 percenter.

But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html

Edit: Whoops wrong one

But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html

That probably assumes you are zoomed out. The field of view will change depending on the focal length. The metadata reports 135mm focal length, which means there is some significant zoom happening. Also, see Spjunk's post at an alternative method of estimating the angular distance which doesn't rely on focal length. He got an even smaller angle than me.

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 08:12:07 PM

But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html

That probably assumes you are zoomed out. The field of view will change depending on the focal length. The metadata reports 135mm focal length, which means there is some significant zoom happening. Also, see Spjunk's post at an alternative method of estimating the angular distance which doesn't rely on focal length. He got an even smaller angle than me.

Also also, they are probably calculating the diagonal field of view, not the vertical field of view. The site reports minimum focal length of 18mm for standard lens.

sqrt(23.6² + 15.8²) = 28.4 mm (diagonal sensor size)

2*arctan((28.4mm/2)/18mm) = 76.5 degrees field of view

Math checks out. Sorry bud. 76 degrees is the zoomed out FOV. The FOV in the image you posted was only 10 degrees in the vertical direction.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 01, 2016, 08:20:28 PM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 08:12:07 PM

But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html

That probably assumes you are zoomed out. The field of view will change depending on the focal length. The metadata reports 135mm focal length, which means there is some significant zoom happening. Also, see Spjunk's post at an alternative method of estimating the angular distance which doesn't rely on focal length. He got an even smaller angle than me.

Also also, they are probably calculating the diagonal field of view, not the vertical field of view. The site reports minimum focal length of 18mm for standard lens.

sqrt(23.6² + 15.8²) = 28.4 mm (diagonal sensor size)

2*arctan((28.4mm/2)/18mm) = 76.5 degrees field of view

Math checks out. Sorry bud. 76 degrees is the zoomed out FOV. The FOV in the image you posted was only 10 degrees in the vertical direction.

Right, thats why I edited the post saying whoops, looking for the correct one and its 18 degrees for that zoom.  Anyway, I will check the rest of your proof, and get back to you.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 01, 2016, 08:30:19 PM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 01, 2016, 08:20:28 PM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 08:12:07 PM

But just fyi most spec sheets give a angle of view for the camera and this one happens to be 76 degrees.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/438940-REG/Sony_DSLRA100K_Alpha_DSLR_A100_Digital_Camera.html

That probably assumes you are zoomed out. The field of view will change depending on the focal length. The metadata reports 135mm focal length, which means there is some significant zoom happening. Also, see Spjunk's post at an alternative method of estimating the angular distance which doesn't rely on focal length. He got an even smaller angle than me.

Also also, they are probably calculating the diagonal field of view, not the vertical field of view. The site reports minimum focal length of 18mm for standard lens.

sqrt(23.6² + 15.8²) = 28.4 mm (diagonal sensor size)

2*arctan((28.4mm/2)/18mm) = 76.5 degrees field of view

Math checks out. Sorry bud. 76 degrees is the zoomed out FOV. The FOV in the image you posted was only 10 degrees in the vertical direction.

Right, thats why I edited the post saying whoops, looking for the correct one and its 18 degrees for that zoom.  Anyway, I will check the rest of your proof, and get back to you.

Good job, the moon is most likely 3.2 degrees above the horizon in this picture.

You claim it is about 20 degrees over the horizon. It isn't.


5 more moons will fit between the real position and the horizon. Taking small errors to account plus the fact the Moon is only ~32' in diameter, that gives no more than 4 degrees above the horizon. The visibility of such Moon at such angle is perfectly consistent with the globe.

Quote from: zork on August 30, 2016, 01:33:57 AM

Quote from: zork on August 27, 2016, 02:28:19 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 27, 2016, 02:22:21 PM

Quote from: zork on August 27, 2016, 01:42:09 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 27, 2016, 01:23:55 PM

Quote from: zork on August 27, 2016, 01:20:24 PM

@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him.  Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?

Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset

Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg

I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything

I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.

Nothing yet? Very simple thing but absolutely no ideas how it may work in FE model.

The sun is close, somewhere around 3k miles away from the earth and rotates around in a circle of the motionless earth beneath your feet.  As the sun moves away from you it recedes into the distance (sunset)  and appears to converge with the horizon at the apex of your perspective, different phenomena  occur such as the sun's colors, size, and effects of light due to many factors in the increased density of air, humidity, gases, etc  close to the earths surface. Very simple.

Did you notice how you didn't actually explain the colors, size etc?  You just said due to many factors.  Also the sun doesn't get smaller and converge with the horizon, which is what it would do in your model, it stays the same size and shape, if it were physically moving away it would not do this.  Then it moves under the horizon, still staying the same size and shape.  It's light, now blocked by the horizon still reaches the tops of mountains and underside of clouds, until it eventually moves beyond even that.  These things would not be possible with your model it think.  And this is easily demonstrated.  You can do it yourself with a ball and flashlight.  Show me exactly how that would work in your model.

Quote from: sokarul on August 30, 2016, 08:27:11 AM

Their position moves. It's a well known property of waves. Sound waves can do it too.

And it cannot apply to the sun since there is only one sun.

The sun is not 92.96 million miles away

Interesting.  Notice how it doesn't get smaller as it moves towards the horizon, like you would expect it to.  Notice how it drops below the horizon, with line of the horizon clearly visible as it goes beyond it?  It wouldn't do that I'd the earth was flat.  Thanks, your video clearly shows what would happen at sunset on a round earth.

Quote from: Silicon on August 30, 2016, 07:41:21 AM

Quote from: zork on August 30, 2016, 01:33:57 AM

Quote from: zork on August 27, 2016, 02:28:19 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 27, 2016, 02:22:21 PM

Quote from: zork on August 27, 2016, 01:42:09 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 27, 2016, 01:23:55 PM

Quote from: zork on August 27, 2016, 01:20:24 PM

@silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him.  Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?

Is this the one where clouds are lit from underneath at sunset

Underneath and when not underneath then big cumulus clouds so that lower part is clearly in shadow and upper part is illuminated by sunlight. Something like that http://weatherpix.photoshelter.com/image/I00006R4L.JUlOQg

I really don't know where to start with this, light and our perception, in a situation as you have shown in this picture with no frame of reference, is so convoluted how does this prove anything

I don't quite want to prove anything. Its just that in round earth model it is explained very simply but no one has ever given any simple explanation in flat earth model. It just happens and no one ever thinks about it. But I really would like to see how it works on flat earth model and if I even can somehow observe it with things in hand. Like lamp and table and some clouds made of cotton. I am quite frustrated with my inablity to imagine this thing.

Nothing yet? Very simple thing but absolutely no ideas how it may work in FE model.

The sun is close, somewhere around 3k miles away from the earth and rotates around in a circle of the motionless earth beneath your feet.  As the sun moves away from you it recedes into the distance (sunset)  and appears to converge with the horizon at the apex of your perspective, different phenomena  occur such as the sun's colors, size, and effects of light due to many factors in the increased density of air, humidity, gases, etc  close to the earths surface. Very simple.

Did you notice how you didn't actually explain the colors, size etc?  You just said due to many factors.  Also the sun doesn't get smaller and converge with the horizon, which is what it would do in your model, it stays the same size and shape, if it were physically moving away it would not do this.  Then it moves under the horizon, still staying the same size and shape.  It's light, now blocked by the horizon still reaches the tops of mountains and underside of clouds, until it eventually moves beyond even that.  These things would not be possible with your model it think.  And this is easily demonstrated.  You can do it yourself with a ball and flashlight.  Show me exactly how that would work in your model.

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates. This has been shown dozens of times here.  On youtube there are many of videos showing very simply how this operates using ball and flashlight type objects. 

Do you have any proof we live on a ball?  Didn't think so. Move along now

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates.

So, "perspective is lagging", and eats sun from below, slowly, layer by layer?
Meanwhile Sun keeps width unchanged?
"Lensing" keeps the size of Sun constant all day, but doesn't keep the size of gap below the Sun?
Why, if the Sun and the gap are together, at the very same place?

How refraction operates is clear:
Sun sinks behind horizon.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sweden

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Africa

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">USA

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2016, 06:27:02 AM

You claim it is about 20 degrees over the horizon. It isn't.

5 more moons will fit between the real position and the horizon. Taking small errors to account plus the fact the Moon is only ~32' in diameter, that gives no more than 4 degrees above the horizon. The visibility of such Moon at such angle is perfectly consistent with the globe.

Thats nice.  I have a question. If I could prove Stellarium was wrong (beyond any reasonable doubt) in a similar situation, would it matter? Do you believe Stellarium is a perfect representation of the globe model? If it were wrong by say 5 degrees of suns position below.near.above the horizon at a specific time would it matter?  How much would it matter? What would that mean?

Quote

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates.

So, "perspective is lagging", and eats sun from below, slowly, layer by layer?
Meanwhile Sun keeps width unchanged?
"Lensing" keeps the size of Sun constant all day, but doesn't keep the size of gap below the Sun?
Why, if the Sun and the gap are together, at the very same place?

How refraction operates is clear:
Sun sinks behind horizon.

Use a proper solar filter next time

Quote from: SpJunk on September 02, 2016, 05:51:58 PM

Quote

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates.

So, "perspective is lagging", and eats sun from below, slowly, layer by layer?
Meanwhile Sun keeps width unchanged?
"Lensing" keeps the size of Sun constant all day, but doesn't keep the size of gap below the Sun?
Why, if the Sun and the gap are together, at the very same place?

How refraction operates is clear:
Sun sinks behind horizon.

Use a proper solar filter next time

Don't have to. Anyone can see the Sun IN REAL LIFE through cheap welding mask.

Quote from: SpJunk on September 02, 2016, 05:51:58 PM

Quote

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates.

So, "perspective is lagging", and eats sun from below, slowly, layer by layer?
Meanwhile Sun keeps width unchanged?
"Lensing" keeps the size of Sun constant all day, but doesn't keep the size of gap below the Sun?
Why, if the Sun and the gap are together, at the very same place?

How refraction operates is clear:
Sun sinks behind horizon.

Use a proper solar filter next time

Bring a sound argument next time.

Quote from: Silicon on September 02, 2016, 06:09:23 PM

Quote from: SpJunk on September 02, 2016, 05:51:58 PM

Quote

Air density, refraction, elevation, reflection - All of these things have to do with light and its effects on your view of how the sun operates.

So, "perspective is lagging", and eats sun from below, slowly, layer by layer?
Meanwhile Sun keeps width unchanged?
"Lensing" keeps the size of Sun constant all day, but doesn't keep the size of gap below the Sun?
Why, if the Sun and the gap are together, at the very same place?

How refraction operates is clear:
Sun sinks behind horizon.

Use a proper solar filter next time

Bring a sound argument next time.

I'll use that line on your RE buddy next time.

Ok, terrific.

Quote from: sokarul on September 02, 2016, 06:14:37 PM

Bring a sound argument next time.

I'll use that line on your RE buddy next time.

Ofcourse.
Why not?

It is perfectly valid sentence,
when you know what argument is invalid and why.

Just make sure you do.