Where is the sun in this photo?

Quote

You guys crack me up, but then what do I expect? "Yes Silicon, Stellarium is not right in this instance and this is a big problem for our calculations" 

It never fails to amaze me how easily they soothe themselves and explain away all contrary evidence to their misplaced faith.

Who are you even quoting? You read the thread and that is what you came up with? We can't know what the exact position of the sun is because it's hidden behind a cloud. Why aren't you questioning why the OP would submit something so unclear and claim it is evidence against a GE?

I like Ski, maybe he read up to mine and "arealbadtrolls" shitposts, I wouldn't blame him tbh.

Quote from: Silicon on December 18, 2016, 03:42:17 PM

I can surely prove times, dates, however its meaningless if people here believe the sun can be at a 0 degrees altitude in the provided pictures.

Show us a clear picture of the suns elevation and a time stamp which goes against orthodox orbital mechanics and we will listen I promise.

To be fair we are willing to listen to facts and logic.

I can surely prove times, dates, however its meaningless if people here believe the sun can be at a 0 degrees altitude in the provided pictures.

And how do you plan on doing that? Especially considering it requires proving the phone was set correctly and the images haven't been tampered with.

Also, what is wrong with the sun being that low?

how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?

I guarantee 100% that you'll fail

OP. I believe you may have missed this.
I would also like to know where and how you would calculate the sun to be in  the photo, using the FE sun model. Otherwise, what are you really arguing for or against? If Stellarium isn't reliable, let's see your own personal FE calculations. You have been shown the RE version, now let's see yours shall we??

how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?

I guarantee 100% that you'll fail

Read the FAQ

Quote from: Johnorbital on December 18, 2016, 02:13:15 AM

how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?

I guarantee 100% that you'll fail

Read the FAQ

The FAQ does not address it.
No where does it say how the sun is magically below the horizon while above a FE.

The FE model predicts the sun should be significantly above the horizon at all times. Reality shows it isn't.

Nope. As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away.

Nope. As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away.

Care to explain that?
How does "colliding with low angle light" cause the sun to appear below the horizon?
The acceleration of Earth, even under the delusions of UA, is insignificant compared to the speed of light with a 5000 km distant sun, and would have no significant effect on the angle of light.

Regardless, in other threads, UA has shown to be pure garbage, completely unable to match reality due to the variations in g across the globe which under UA would tear Earth apart.

Care to explain that?

See my sig for links to things I've already explained.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 20, 2017, 12:43:10 PM

Care to explain that?

See my sig for links to things I've already explained.

You mean for links to you spouting crap, which has already been refuted?

which has already been refuted?

Now you're just speaking nonsense.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 20, 2017, 12:51:21 PM

which has already been refuted?

Now you're just speaking nonsense.

You are somewhat right, not everything has been refuted.

Some is just a bigoted tirade where you tell people what to do or questions, or otherwise not any actual claims and thus can't really be refuted.
Some also are links to posts which are missing or in hidden sections of the forum, or otherwise dead links. Some are links to external sites

Others are links to the Q&A and liars only section where they can't be refuted.
(By the way, why are you posting crap in Q&A rather than allowing others to post questions and then you provide the FE answers?, you seem to be treating it like a debate forum.)

Then there are some statements that have little to do with FE, some of which are strawman similar to but slightly different to actual facts which you pretend you refute.
For example 0.9 recurring = 1. Instead of doing that, you focus on 0.99999 (a finite number of 9s).

But as for claims regarding FE vs RE which are made in sections where people can debate, you have a total of 5 threads, none of which address the issue raised here.
The first is a compilation of you making pathetic strawmen out of RE.
Other thread exist which point out problems with the FE claims, and it was even refuted in that thread.
The next is your BS on oceans, which again, is refuted elsewhere. But for the actual OP, it merely states that water in water is neutrally buoyant, as you would expect.
However, water, not in water (e.g. if the oceans were to go above Earth/into the air for some reason) it would no longer be neutrally buoyant and thus fall down.
The next is a "trinity of proof", with all three refuted in that thread.
The next is skit and has no place in the debate section.
Then the final one is a discussion on shoe size where you ignore the fact that shoes are flexible and may be made to fit your feet instead of Earth. Even if they were to fit Earth, the curve over the size of a shoe would be undetectable.

So anything which comes close to an argument allegedly for FE has been refuted if it is in a place where it can be refuted.

More importantly, NONE OF IT ADDRESSES THE QUESTION!!!

Now can you address the question?

More importantly, NONE OF IT ADDRESSES THE QUESTION!!!

Now can you address the question?

I'm sorry, you've been on a tangent so long I didn't realize you had a question.

I'm sorry, you've been on a tangent so long I didn't realize you had a question.

I would hardly call a few posts "long". Also remember that you were the one who put us on this tangent. I assume that was your plan all along?

Now then, ADDRESS THE QUESTION!!

How does the sun appear below the horizon when it needs to be above Earth (assuming Earth is flat)?

Also remember that you were the one who put us on this tangent.

Anyone can read the thread and see this isn't true.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 20, 2017, 01:40:00 PM

Also remember that you were the one who put us on this tangent.

Anyone can read the thread and see this isn't true.

And here you are trying to do ti again.

ANSWER THE QUESTION:
How does the sun appear to be below the horizon when it needs to be above Earth (assuming Earth is flat)?

Quote from: narcberry on December 20, 2017, 01:40:55 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 20, 2017, 01:40:00 PM

Also remember that you were the one who put us on this tangent.

Anyone can read the thread and see this isn't true.

And here you are trying to do ti again.

You're going nowhere with this line of reasoning

ANSWER THE QUESTION:
How does the sun appear to be below the horizon when it needs to be above Earth (assuming Earth is flat)?

I already did

As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away.

I already did

Quote from: narcberry on December 20, 2017, 12:17:32 PM

As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away.

And I already pointed out that doesn't work.
UA is garbage and is disproven by the variations of g across the surface and the acceleration of Earth would not result in the sun appearing that low.
If you wish to claim it does you need to explain far more than that one line non-answer.

UA is garbage and is disproven by the variations of g across the surface

UA turbulence causes this measurement variation. Obviously you didn't consider that.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 20, 2017, 02:03:25 PM

UA is garbage and is disproven by the variations of g across the surface

UA turbulence causes this measurement variation. Obviously you didn't consider that.

Nope, doesn't work.
The variation remains fairly constant for each location, with this variation being more than enough to tear Earth apart.
Turbulence could hypothetically explain the variations, but they would still tear Earth apart.

Turbulence could hypothetically explain the variations, but they would still tear Earth apart.

Absurd

Another explanation if one holds UA is that mass does cause gravitation, but the earth is still accelerating upwards.

Why would you need UA if mass causes gravitation?  Just more mud in the water trying to shoehorn a failure of a notion.  That is the only reason to even consider UA.  Even many Flat Earthers have discarded UA due to how many inconsistencies it has. 


Also: why the hell did someone resurrect a dead thread?  But I guess it's ok since the site admin is also joining the conversation without mentioning it.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 20, 2017, 02:06:35 PM

Turbulence could hypothetically explain the variations, but they would still tear Earth apart.

Absurd

Yes, UA is absurd.

As the variations remain, i.e. some places consistently have a higher value of "g" than others, their speed and location would grow further and further apart.

One accelerates at a1, the other at a2, and lets assume the both start in the same position (0 as all position is relative) at the same velocity (0, as all velocity is relative).
da=a2-a1.
v=at, v1=a1*t, v2=at*t.
dv=v2-v1=a2*t-a1*t=(a2-a1)*t=da*t.
z=0.5*a*t^2, z1=0.5*a1*t^2, z2=0.5*a2*t^2.
dz=z2-z1=0.5*a2*t^2-0.5*a1*t^2=0.5*(a2-a1)*t^2=0.5*da*t^2.

So any difference in acceleration results in a change in position.
Even a tiny change of 0.001 m/s^2 results in a difference of 7000 km over the course of a day.
Over the course of a year that tiny difference results in a difference of roughly 1 billion km.
Yet differences are observed far greater than that, an order of magnitude greater in fact.

So UA replacing gravity tears Earth apart.

Regardless, this is yet again, going off on a tangent.
You sure do seem to be completely unable to stay on topic and address the issue raised.
Even if Earth was accelerating upwards, why would that make the sun appear to be below the horizon?

Quote from: Johnorbital on December 18, 2016, 02:13:15 AM

how about, instead of trying to disprove the globe version of the sun's location and actually try proving the flat earth's version of where it is supposed to be?

I guarantee 100% that you'll fail

Read the FAQ

Hey necrobury! Thanks for the tip!

Is there a problem here?

Nope. As the earth accelerates upwards, it collides with low angle light. This gives the illusion of a sun below the horizon when it's actually just very far away.

Garbage!
Your silly explanations are just more guesswork piled on top of unproven fairy-tales.

So your sun circles sedately around "up there", unaffected by your UA, yet light gets deflected by somewhere around 20°.

I must have missed this in my cursory readings of narcberry's fairy-tales or did it come from a more recent hallucinatory experience?

Is there a problem here?

Have a look at narcberry's fantasies and see what you think?