Video Proof

Are there any honest people out there that are willing to accept that there is no real proof for a rotating global Earth?

I've asked for proof and all I get are lies or acceptance of a mainstream model based on tales and ready made script.

At the risk if getting banned again...

You are a stupid, ignorant  child.

Quote from: neutrino on June 29, 2017, 07:27:10 AM

But scepty, too many facts are on a spinning globe side. No brainwashing needed.

There are no facts of a spinning globe. None.

I see you, sceptimatic as a prisoner in Plato’s cave ( allegory of the cave)  and you do not wish to be drug out of the cave, you are fighting tooth and nail, to stay in the cave.
The light we bring into the cave you see as lies.
The question is how can we bring you out of the cave, So that you can see the globe as the true reality?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2017, 07:58:21 AM

Quote from: neutrino on June 29, 2017, 07:27:10 AM

But scepty, too many facts are on a spinning globe side. No brainwashing needed.

There are no facts of a spinning globe. None.

I see you, sceptimatic as a prisoner in Plato’s cave ( allegory of the cave)  and you do not wish to be drug out of the cave, you are fighting tooth and nail, to stay in the cave.
The light we bring into the cave you see as lies.
The question is how can we bring you out of the cave, So that you can see the globe as the true reality?

A man convinced against his will,
is of the same opinion still!

- Benjamin Franklin

I'm entitled to accuse people of being dishonest, just as you people are of me.
Proving it isn't so easy and I can't prove any of you are really dishonest. You may be just extremely gullible and naive and not in any acceptance that you are parroting lies.

Yes, it isn't easy for you to prove it as there are no signs of our dishonesty. However we can easily prove you are dishonest by showing that proofs have been provided which you are simply ignoring.

At least you were honest in saying you cannot prove your spinning globe. If others were like you, then they might just start looking at the massive flaws in it that are catered for with magical mysteries.

See, this is more proof of your dishonesty. He never said he couldn't prove it. He said he couldn't show you proof. There is a difference.

I'll never see them because they do not exist. They only exist in the heads of people who are brainwashed or still brainwashed to this very day, regardless of age.

Except they do exist. Some have been provided here, which you just ignore.
You only don't see them because you don't want to. Rather than accept reality you wish to live in your delusional fantasy world. Is it because you cant cope with being so insignificant in this vast universe?

Isn't that what you people believe is happening with boats and ships?
Don't they supposedly fall/sail over the bump of your sea.

I think it's quite funny that people believe ships and boats just drop over the top of water BUMPS.

None of ships, buildings, mountains, the sun, the moon nor the stars "just drop over the top of water BUMPS".

They gradually get hidden by the curve of the earth, as in

Valencia tanks x20 zoom Something is hiding half those tanks!

Diamond Princess about 16 miles away (hazy) Something is hiding half that ship!

Sunset Karumba Aug 8, 2006 at 06:25 pm Something is hiding half that sun!

I know, you'll claim that they are all fake-fotos, but frankly Sceppy, I couldn't can less what you think.
Come and see the real world occasionally, though I imagine it might scare the lining daylights out of you!

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2017, 08:37:09 AM

Isn't that what you people believe is happening with boats and ships?
Don't they supposedly fall/sail over the bump of your sea.

I think it's quite funny that people believe ships and boats just drop over the top of water BUMPS.

None of ships, buildings, mountains, the sun, the moon nor the stars "just drop over the top of water BUMPS".

They gradually get hidden by the curve of the earth, as in

Valencia tanks x20 zoom Something is hiding half those tanks!

Diamond Princess about 16 miles away (hazy) Something is hiding half that ship!

Sunset Karumba Aug 8, 2006 at 06:25 am Something is hiding half that sun!

Toronto as seen across Lake Ontario from Olcott Beach, NY; evening 12th July EST.
Something is hiding half of Toronto!
Photo taken 2 to 3 m above water level by Ad Meskens

I know, you'll claim that they are all fake-fotos, but frankly Sceppy, I couldn't can less what you think.
Come and see the real world occasionally, though I imagine it might scare the lining daylights out of you!

And as I live in that area (Ontario Canada) I can assure that the picture of Toronto is correct.
Everyone who does not believe that I invite to come to Ontario and take a look for yourself.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 29, 2017, 04:08:52 PM

Toronto as seen across Lake Ontario from Olcott Beach, NY; evening 12th July EST.
Something is hiding half of Toronto!
Photo taken 2 to 3 m above water level by Ad Meskens

I know, you'll claim that they are all fake-fotos, but frankly Sceppy, I couldn't can less what you think.
Come and see the real world occasionally, though I imagine it might scare the lining daylights out of you!

And as I live in that area (Ontario Canada) I can assure that the picture of Toronto is correct.
Everyone who does not believe that I invite to come to Ontario and take a look for yourself.

To me the shading on water even makes it look curved.

Quote from: JackBlack on June 12, 2017, 01:06:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 12, 2017, 12:07:47 AM

Show me one piece of maths that backs up a globe.

When I say "show me" I mean physically show me how maths backs up a spinning globe. It has to be able to be verified to work by all who try.
Unless this can be done, then do not use maths to back up your attempts to dissuade people from seeking alternate answers to the indoctrinated one.

Just in case someone decides to throw up some equation and leave it without showing how it's physically proving anything.....don't bother wasting your time.
I've asked for physical mathematical proof. Show me it or forever hold your typing fingers.

Various distances:
On a globe, with a radius of R you can determine the distance east-west based upon your latitude and the longitude difference.
This is because a direct path east-west it a circle, with a radius (r) based upon your latitude by the simple formula r=R*cos(lat) [note: positive means north, negative means south], where at the equator, this circle has a radius of R, and at the pole it is a point.
You can then determine the distance (l) east to west using 1 of 2 formulas.
First, if you are using lon (the difference in longitude between the 2 points) in radians you can simply have:
l=r*lon.
If instead you are using it in degrees you need:
l=r*lon*pi/180

This is measurable (and has been measured) and matches that for a globe.
On a FE model, (at least the north centred one, other ones have similar issues) you instead have r being the radius between the centre of Earth (the north pole) and your point.
For the FE model this is given by r=(90-lat)*1000/90.

You can also determine difference in longitude to some degree based upon time difference with the sun.
The sun completes one cycle every 24 hours and thus moves at a rate of roughly 0.25 degrees per minute.
In the FE model it circles around the NP and thus will appear due north or due south at the time it is on the same longitude as you.
Thus by measuring this time (and more specifically the time difference) at 2 points you can determine the longitude difference.

But this method for the FE doesn't match reality, with places south of the equator being significantly off.

Another one is the apparent position of the sun.
At the equator, at the equinox, it appears to rise due east, go directly overhead and set due west.
It appears to follow a path described by a circle centred on the observer (or close to it), in a plane perpendicular to the ground and aligned east-west.
This continues throughout the day with different locations on the equator observing the same thing until it gets back into view at the first location.
This means the equator is a circle with the sun (on the equinox) appearing to move in a circle in the same plane as the equator, which is perpendicular to the ground and aligned east-west. This requires the equator to be round.

You can measure the apparent motion of the sun.
If Earth is round with a very distant sun, the sun should appear to move at a fairly constant rate of approximately 0.25 degrees per minute (based upon Earth's rotation and orbit). This matches reality.

If Earth is flat, with the sun circling overhead (at a fairly constant speed), the sun's angular velocity will depend upon how close it is due to perspective.
When it is near, it will move at one speed. When it is far, it will move at another.
You can approximate this speed by looking at the derivative of tan.
For a sun which is at height h above some place a distance d from you, the angle a to the sun will be given by:
tan(a)=h/d.
After it moves a little bit (dd after some time, and thus appearing at an angle a+da) this will become tan(a+da)=h/(d+dd).
By expanding this you get:

tan(a+da)=(tan(a)+tan(da))/(1-tan(a)*tan(da))=h/(d+dd)
tan(a)+tan(da)=(h/d)*(1-tan(a)*tan(da))
tan(a)+tan(da)=(h/d)-(h/d)*tan(a)*tan(da)
tan(da)+(h/(d+dd))*tan(a)*tan(da)=(h/(d+dd))-tan(a)
tan(da)*(1+(h/(d+dd))*tan(a))=(h/(d+dd))-tan(a)
tan(da)=((h/(d+dd))-tan(a))/(1+(h/(d+dd))*tan(a))
tan(da)=((h/(d+dd))-h/d)/(1+(h/(d+dd))*(h/d))
tan(da)=((h*d-h*(d+dd))/(d*(d+dd)))/(h/d+h*h/(d*(d+dd)))
tan(da)=((h*d-h*d-h*dd))/(d*(d+dd)))/((h*(d+dd)+h*h)/(d*(d+dd)))
tan(da)=-h*dd/(h*d+h*dd+h*h)
tan(da)=-dd/(d+dd+h)

Thus da=atan(-dd/(d+dd+h))

Or you can do it the easier way, using the derivative of atan.
d(atan)/dx=1/(1+x^2)

And using the chan rule, that means if we have a=atan(h/d)
Then da/dd=1/(1+(h/d)²)*(-h/d²)
=-h/(d²+h²)

So as d changes, so will the apparent speed of the sun.

You can do similar math to just find out where it is or what angle it should be at.
For example, if the sun is at an angle of elevation of 1 degree, then tan(1degree)=h/d.
By subbing in the often used FE h of 5000 km, this gives d=286449.808154 km.

You can also do this with other things, like Polaris, which appears directly above the north pole.
At 45 degrees north (5000 km from the north pole) it is at an angle of 45 degrees, giving a height of 5000 km.
That means at the equator, with a distance of 10 000 km from the north pole it should be at an angle of 26.6 degrees. Isntead it is observed at an angle of 0.
For the globe case, it can be difficult to calculate the angle with latitude and longitude.
However, if an object is directly overhead a location that is along a great circle from you, where the arc between you and it is subtending an angle of theta, then it will appear at an angle of 90-theta.
This does match reality, for example, with Polaris at 90 degrees north, the angle between the north pole and you can be easily calculated based upon your latitude as 90-lat.
That means the angle to polaris should be 90-(90-lat)=lat.
And that does match reality.
It can also be used on the equator at the equinox for the sun and again, it matches reality.

Would you like even more, like Foucault's pendulum?

Forget the gobbledygook and let's go for a walk.

I'm at your home and invite you to show me your globe as we can physically stand upon it.
Bring your tools and convince me, physically.

I'll leave that with you.
Don't waste your time coming back with nonsense figures with no back up.

Take me on the trek and show me the way to the globe enlightenment or never use math's again to try and back up your claims on a forum.

It's just about the right time, to see the sun eliminate the underside of the planes landing at the airport. It is short and difficult to get on video, the sun has to be in right place and then you have to have plane traffic.

Quote from: Boots on June 29, 2017, 05:04:29 AM

Well I still have no idea why you dismiss the ship over the horizon example. Go to the ocean and watch tall ships with binoculars for a day.

I have done and I've never saw them fall over any bump in any water.

Ok prove it.
Right now it's our word against yours..... except we have countless instances of video proof from independent sources and corroboration.

So why don't you blow us all out of the water and shut us up with video proof of your claim? We're waiting.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2017, 05:44:31 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 29, 2017, 05:04:29 AM

Well I still have no idea why you dismiss the ship over the horizon example. Go to the ocean and watch tall ships with binoculars for a day.

I have done and I've never saw them fall over any bump in any water.

Ok prove it.
Right now it's our word against yours..... except we have countless instances of video proof from independent sources and corroboration.

So why don't you blow us all out of the water and shut us up with video proof of your claim? We're waiting.

The thing is, he can show a video of a boat becoming too small to see in the distance. If he has a zoom lense he can zoom in and out "restoring" the view of the boat. It wouldn't be honest, if honesty is something we're concerned about, but it is possible no?

The thing is, he can show a video of a boat becoming too small to see in the distance. If he has a zoom lense he can zoom in and out "restoring" the view of the boat. It wouldn't be honest, if honesty is something we're concerned about, but it is possible no?

Perhaps we should clarify then, what I want for his claim is to see a boat at the horizon, going away from the viewer (so beyond the horizon) disappearing by simply shrinking.

I'll never see them because they do not exist. They only exist in the heads of people who are brainwashed or still brainwashed to this very day, regardless of age.

How does flat earth explain http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2017, 08:38:23 AM

I'll never see them because they do not exist. They only exist in the heads of people who are brainwashed or still brainwashed to this very day, regardless of age.

How does flat earth explain http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html

What you should be pondering is why the shadow is only in one direction from a supposed 850,000 mile diameter sun ball as you people were brainwashed into believing.

What you should be pondering is why the shadow is only in one direction from a supposed 850,000 mile diameter sun ball as you people were brainwashed into believing.

How about because it is 150 000 000 km away?

Also, due to the large distance to the mountain it is hard to tell if the shadow is converging as it should. I would prefer a view from the mountain.

We aren't the brainwashed ones here.

Quote from: petej0 on June 30, 2017, 03:58:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2017, 08:38:23 AM

I'll never see them because they do not exist. They only exist in the heads of people who are brainwashed or still brainwashed to this very day, regardless of age.

How does flat earth explain http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html

What you should be pondering is why the shadow is only in one direction from a supposed 850,000 mile diameter sun ball as you people were brainwashed into believing.

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?
I can see the shadow appearing to diverge from Mt Rainier due simply to perspective.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 01:37:19 AM

What you should be pondering is why the shadow is only in one direction from a supposed 850,000 mile diameter sun ball as you people were brainwashed into believing.

How about because it is 150 000 000 km away?

Also, due to the large distance to the mountain it is hard to tell if the shadow is converging as it should. I would prefer a view from the mountain.

We aren't the brainwashed ones here.

You are seeing a STRIP of shadow in one direction.
Your sun is supposed to be 850,000 miles in diameter.
It should be enveloping this so called little globe and therefore should also be cast AROUND many areas of this mountain and casting the shadow in a much wider angle east and west as we see it.

I don't care what you say. If your sun was as big as told, it would not cast a shadow like that.
That shadow is a reflected spotlight type that creates the shadow, due to the dome.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 01:37:19 AM

Quote from: petej0 on June 30, 2017, 03:58:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2017, 08:38:23 AM

I'll never see them because they do not exist. They only exist in the heads of people who are brainwashed or still brainwashed to this very day, regardless of age.

How does flat earth explain http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html

What you should be pondering is why the shadow is only in one direction from a supposed 850,000 mile diameter sun ball as you people were brainwashed into believing.

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?
I can see the shadow appearing to diverge from Mt Rainier due simply to perspective.

You know exactly what I'm talking about but as usual it will be frenzied denial.
It should be blatantly obvious for the genuine people to understand.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 02:31:45 AM

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?
I can see the shadow appearing to diverge from Mt Rainier due simply to perspective.

You know exactly what I'm talking about but as usual it will be frenzied denial.
It should be blatantly obvious for the genuine people to understand.

No, I do not know what you were talking about!
I genuinely asked you a question as to
If even you do not know you mean. don't blame me!

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 02:56:28 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 02:31:45 AM

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?
I can see the shadow appearing to diverge from Mt Rainier due simply to perspective.

You know exactly what I'm talking about but as usual it will be frenzied denial.
It should be blatantly obvious for the genuine people to understand.

No, I do not know what you were talking about!
I genuinely asked you a question as to

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?

If even you do not know you mean. don't blame me!

Nobody's blaming you, calm down.
You weren't the one that thought up the nonsense ball of fire in a vacuum.

All I'm saying is, if a sun was that big, it would not cast a shadow over a mountain like we get shown. It would cast a shadow like a semi circle around that mountain instead of a strip shadow like we are shown.
So obviously it proves the Earth is not a globe and also proves that the sun is not a big ball of fire in a vacuum.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 06:14:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 02:56:28 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 02:31:45 AM

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?
I can see the shadow appearing to diverge from Mt Rainier due simply to perspective.

You know exactly what I'm talking about but as usual it will be frenzied denial.
It should be blatantly obvious for the genuine people to understand.

No, I do not know what you were talking about!
I genuinely asked you a question as to

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?

If even you do not know you mean. don't blame me!

Nobody's blaming you, calm down.
You weren't the one that thought up the nonsense ball of fire in a vacuum.

All I'm saying is, if a sun was that big, it would not cast a shadow over a mountain like we get shown. It would cast a shadow like a semi circle around that mountain instead of a strip shadow like we are shown.
So obviously it proves the Earth is not a globe and also proves that the sun is not a big ball of fire in a vacuum.

You haven't explained how it would cast a shadow upwards on a flat earth.  Also the sun is very far away, that's it has that effect on a round earth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 06:14:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 02:56:28 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 02:31:45 AM

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?
I can see the shadow appearing to diverge from Mt Rainier due simply to perspective.

You know exactly what I'm talking about but as usual it will be frenzied denial.
It should be blatantly obvious for the genuine people to understand.

No, I do not know what you were talking about!
I genuinely asked you a question as to

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?

If even you do not know you mean. don't blame me!

Nobody's blaming you, calm down.
You weren't the one that thought up the nonsense ball of fire in a vacuum.

All I'm saying is, if a sun was that big, it would not cast a shadow over a mountain like we get shown. It would cast a shadow like a semi circle around that mountain instead of a strip shadow like we are shown.
So obviously it proves the Earth is not a globe and also proves that the sun is not a big ball of fire in a vacuum.

You haven't explained how it would cast a shadow upwards on a flat earth.  Also the sun is very far away, that's it has that effect on a round earth.

It doesn't cast a shadow, upwards.

Quote from: Badxtoss on July 01, 2017, 07:30:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 06:14:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 02:56:28 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 02:31:45 AM

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?
I can see the shadow appearing to diverge from Mt Rainier due simply to perspective.

You know exactly what I'm talking about but as usual it will be frenzied denial.
It should be blatantly obvious for the genuine people to understand.

No, I do not know what you were talking about!
I genuinely asked you a question as to

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?

If even you do not know you mean. don't blame me!

Nobody's blaming you, calm down.
You weren't the one that thought up the nonsense ball of fire in a vacuum.

All I'm saying is, if a sun was that big, it would not cast a shadow over a mountain like we get shown. It would cast a shadow like a semi circle around that mountain instead of a strip shadow like we are shown.
So obviously it proves the Earth is not a globe and also proves that the sun is not a big ball of fire in a vacuum.

You haven't explained how it would cast a shadow upwards on a flat earth.  Also the sun is very far away, that's it has that effect on a round earth.

It doesn't cast a shadow, upwards.

Regardless of which side of the argument anyone is on it's clear that the shadow is upwards.  Ignoring FE & RE theories, if I think about this objectively, it seems this shadow would be impossible if the sun is always above the height of the peak.

Mike

Regardless of which side of the argument anyone is on it's clear that the shadow is upwards.  Ignoring FE & RE theories, if I think about this objectively, it seems this shadow would be impossible if the sun is always above the height of the peak.

Mike

Let me ask you this.
Does this happen every time with this mountain in the picture?
Does it happen every day?

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 06:14:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 02:56:28 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 02:31:45 AM

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?
I can see the shadow appearing to diverge from Mt Rainier due simply to perspective.

You know exactly what I'm talking about but as usual it will be frenzied denial.
It should be blatantly obvious for the genuine people to understand.

No, I do not know what you were talking about!
I genuinely asked you a question as to

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?

If even you do not know you mean. don't blame me!

Nobody's blaming you, calm down.
You weren't the one that thought up the nonsense ball of fire in a vacuum.

All I'm saying is, if a sun was that big, it would not cast a shadow over a mountain like we get shown. It would cast a shadow like a semi circle around that mountain instead of a strip shadow like we are shown.
So obviously it proves the Earth is not a globe and also proves that the sun is not a big ball of fire in a vacuum.

Wrong.  but thanks for proving you have no concept of geometry.

A large distant sun would cast a shadow that would slightly converge.  Same reason the shadow of the Moon during a solar eclipse is smaller than the Moon. 

Quote from: Badxtoss on July 01, 2017, 07:30:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 06:14:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 02:56:28 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 02:31:45 AM

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?
I can see the shadow appearing to diverge from Mt Rainier due simply to perspective.

You know exactly what I'm talking about but as usual it will be frenzied denial.
It should be blatantly obvious for the genuine people to understand.

No, I do not know what you were talking about!
I genuinely asked you a question as to

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?

If even you do not know you mean. don't blame me!

Nobody's blaming you, calm down.
You weren't the one that thought up the nonsense ball of fire in a vacuum.

All I'm saying is, if a sun was that big, it would not cast a shadow over a mountain like we get shown. It would cast a shadow like a semi circle around that mountain instead of a strip shadow like we are shown.
So obviously it proves the Earth is not a globe and also proves that the sun is not a big ball of fire in a vacuum.

You haven't explained how it would cast a shadow upwards on a flat earth.  Also the sun is very far away, that's it has that effect on a round earth.

It doesn't cast a shadow, upwards.

Demonstrably untrue.  The same effect can be seen anywhere on earth during many sunrises and sunsets when clouds are lit from underneath.  Have you ever actually SEEN a sunrise or sunset?

Quote from: MicroBeta on July 01, 2017, 08:23:39 AM

Regardless of which side of the argument anyone is on it's clear that the shadow is upwards.  Ignoring FE & RE theories, if I think about this objectively, it seems this shadow would be impossible if the sun is always above the height of the peak.

Mike

Let me ask you this.
Does this happen every time with this mountain in the picture?
Does it happen every day?

It happens every time there are clouds with a ceiling higher that the peak at the time of sunrise/sunset.  Because it's a pretty cool sight so it's kind of a claim to fame in the area which is why there are so many pictures.  The conditions that make this happen aren't exactly rare it's certainly not an everyday occurrence.  You have to be in the right place at the right time.

Mike

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 07:39:34 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on July 01, 2017, 07:30:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 07:17:17 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 06:14:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 02:56:28 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 01, 2017, 02:31:45 AM

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?
I can see the shadow appearing to diverge from Mt Rainier due simply to perspective.

You know exactly what I'm talking about but as usual it will be frenzied denial.
It should be blatantly obvious for the genuine people to understand.

No, I do not know what you were talking about!
I genuinely asked you a question as to

What do you mean by "the shadow is only in one direction from an" 864,938 mile diameter sun?

If even you do not know you mean. don't blame me!

Nobody's blaming you, calm down.
You weren't the one that thought up the nonsense ball of fire in a vacuum.

All I'm saying is, if a sun was that big, it would not cast a shadow over a mountain like we get shown. It would cast a shadow like a semi circle around that mountain instead of a strip shadow like we are shown.
So obviously it proves the Earth is not a globe and also proves that the sun is not a big ball of fire in a vacuum.

You haven't explained how it would cast a shadow upwards on a flat earth.  Also the sun is very far away, that's it has that effect on a round earth.

It doesn't cast a shadow, upwards.

Demonstrably untrue.  The same effect can be seen anywhere on earth during many sunrises and sunsets when clouds are lit from underneath.  Have you ever actually SEEN a sunrise or sunset?

To be fair, it is very hard to see in a mountain range.  You only see this with single peaks like Mt. Rainier making it rare to see such a stark example. 

However, IMHO it can only happen when the light source is below the peak of the mountain.  This makes it clear to me that sun is below the horizon and only possible in a rotating globe earth.

Mike

Wrong.  but thanks for proving you have no concept of geometry.

A large distant sun would cast a shadow that would slightly converge.  Same reason the shadow of the Moon during a solar eclipse is smaller than the Moon.

What a load of crap.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 01, 2017, 08:34:22 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on July 01, 2017, 08:23:39 AM

Regardless of which side of the argument anyone is on it's clear that the shadow is upwards.  Ignoring FE & RE theories, if I think about this objectively, it seems this shadow would be impossible if the sun is always above the height of the peak.

Mike

Let me ask you this.
Does this happen every time with this mountain in the picture?
Does it happen every day?

It happens every time there are clouds with a ceiling higher that the peak at the time of sunrise/sunset.  Because it's a pretty cool sight so it's kind of a claim to fame in the area which is why there are so many pictures.  The conditions that make this happen aren't exactly rare it's certainly not an everyday occurrence.  You have to be in the right place at the right time.

Mike

Think of the global Earth the NASA show us.
Take a look at the clods covering and think of a light hitting a ball with these clouds.
It's just not going to happen in how this picture depicts.