# RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun

• 53 Replies
• 4846 Views

#### JackBlack

• 17036
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #30 on: December 08, 2017, 12:51:03 PM »
The critical problem of RE is among others: at "6 months of midnight sun"
No, there is no critical problem of RE regarding the midnight sun.
Reality matches the RE.

While the critical problem of (conventional) FE is their denial of midnight sun at (around) south pole.
A larger problem is why everywhere doesn't have it, all the time.

RFE still wait and see... ^_^
RFE fails with the northern midnight sun.

#### JackBlack

• 17036
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #31 on: December 08, 2017, 12:52:11 PM »
When, How Long, Trajectory of The Sun: Before Eyes or Circling, etc. etc.

Thanks before.
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but I will give it a go:
Firstly, the FE answer is quite simple.
As the sun is above us at all times, the sun would always be visible, so the midnight sun would be everywhere, always.
Wrong.
If you think it is wrong, point out what was wrong with my line of reasoning.

A key part of the midnight sun is that it never sets.
If the sun's light was merely limited visibility or it being a spotlight, it would never set.

#### Danang

• 5287
• Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #32 on: December 08, 2017, 01:08:02 PM »
The critical problem of RE is among others: at "6 months of midnight sun"
No, there is no critical problem of RE regarding the midnight sun.
Reality matches the RE.

While the critical problem of (conventional) FE is their denial of midnight sun at (around) south pole.
A larger problem is why everywhere doesn't have it, all the time.

RFE still wait and see... ^_^
RFE fails with the northern midnight sun.

Mirror for you, Jack. ~
• (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

?

#### Curious Squirrel

• 183
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2017, 01:10:44 PM »
I respectfully call BS so long as you are in accordance with his full statement. The important part to your reply is highlighted. If you are speaking of a time other than during an eclipse, thick clouds, or within a building etc. (thus meaning the sun is no longer within line of sight) I would love to hear about it, but until you provide some form of evidence of such a claim I state you are lying.
You should learn the difference between terms "line of sight," and, "unobstructed view," or, "sight line."

The last two are synonymous.

Even a luminous object can be within your line of sight and an obstruction can still be hindering or completely preventing you from seeing it.

And his statement overtly claimed a more luminescent object was required to prevent the objects' viewing and implies that light will travel infinitely.

That statement is nothing more than an assumption on both accounts.
Line of sight: "A straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision."

It helps if you actually know what a phrase or statement means BEFORE you attempt to claim it means something else. Once again, the important part has been highlighted for your convenience.

I will grant you his statement could use some work/clarification, but yours is an out and out lie when taken in the context of his full statement. The sun would not be within your line of sight during those times of 'nearly black as night' unless you are experiencing something heretofore unknown, because your line of sight to the sun is being obstructed by something.

?

#### ItsRoundIPromise

• 541
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2017, 01:22:28 PM »
The Sun is luminescent.  Do you require proof of that or can we agree on that being axiomatic in this exercise?
I agree the Sun emits light.
Great!  So I don't have to go deal with trying to prove that part of the statement (to you, anyway.  I'll deal with narc when he gets around to doing his math homework on the focal length of a lunar aragoscope).

Even a luminous object can be within your line of sight and an obstruction can still be hindering or completely preventing you from seeing it.

And his statement overtly claimed a more luminescent object was required to prevent the objects' viewing and implies that light will travel infinitely.

That statement is nothing more than an assumption on both accounts.
An object that is obstructed is not in line of sight.

I agree that I can't prove that light will travel infinitely.  For the purpose of proving Jack's statement, can we agree that the Sun is not far enough away that it's light will fail to reach Earth without an obstruction of some kind?

The flat Earth model generally accepted by flat Earth believers places the Sun above the surface of the Earth at all times.  Do you require proof of that or can we agree on that being axiomatic in this exercise?
Okay, go.
[/quote]
Does "Okay, go" mean, "yes, we agree that this is axiomatic.", or "I challenge the statement and would like it proved."

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2017, 01:29:49 PM »

What you said is already a general knowledge.

I want proof of 6 months of sun's appearance without setting.
If you disagree with facts that have been known for a long period go there yourself and try to disprove it.
Then spend six months at the true Geographic South Pole and check it out there.

#### Danang

• 5287
• Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2017, 04:46:52 PM »

What you said is already a general knowledge.

I want proof of 6 months of sun's appearance without setting.
If you disagree with facts that have been known for a long period go there yourself and try to disprove it.
Then spend six months at the true Geographic South Pole and check it out there.

That's no data.

IF the sun rise or set, there wouldn't be "dark clouds" (underneath it) indicating their heights are UNDER the sun's altitude.
The clouds should had been bright at its underneath, but that doesn't happen.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 04:48:57 PM by Danang »
• (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2017, 05:19:44 PM »
Mars n other 'planets' are stars, something illuminates, heavily spinning.
No, "Mars n other 'planets' are" not stars. That difference has been known for thousands of years.
The word "planet" came from Greek and Latin and meant "wanderer" as to the early astronomers they seemed to wander among the "fixed stars".

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2017, 05:21:37 PM »
IF the sun rise or set, there wouldn't be "dark clouds" (underneath it) indicating their heights are UNDER the sun's altitude.
The clouds should had been bright at its underneath, but that doesn't happen.
What do you mean by "dark clouds"? Are you referring to some particular photo?

#### Danang

• 5287
• Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2017, 05:44:44 PM »
Mars n other 'planets' are stars, something illuminates, heavily spinning.
No, "Mars n other 'planets' are" not stars. That difference has been known for thousands of years.
The word "planet" came from Greek and Latin and meant "wanderer" as to the early astronomers they seemed to wander among the "fixed stars".

Skip definition for a while.
Stick to the nature of the object/body itself.
'Planets' are lumminous, this is different from just 'bright'.
'Planets' emit lights, not just reflect lights as earth does.
They are not the same as earth.
It's impossible to go there.

Instead, why not searching celestial place like earth: non luminescent, non heavily spinning places.

Try again.
• (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

#### Danang

• 5287
• Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2017, 05:46:34 PM »
IF the sun rise or set, there wouldn't be "dark clouds" (underneath it) indicating their heights are UNDER the sun's altitude.
The clouds should had been bright at its underneath, but that doesn't happen.
What do you mean by "dark clouds"? Are you referring to some particular photo?

If a cloud is bright upperneath, and dark underneath, what does it mean?
• (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2017, 06:25:15 PM »
If a cloud is bright on top, and dark underneath, what does it mean?
That means that at that time the elevation of the sun is higher than the elevation of the top of the clouds - as it usually is.

But what about cases like this?
The following photos are taken just before sunrise.
 Please explain where these light rays are coming from if not from the sun just below the horizon.P.40 20170503 06.15 Clouds at Sunrise And lease explain what illuminates the underside of these clouds before sunrise!P.61 20170710 06.35 Clouds Before Sunrise
And this:
The sun shining up onto the underside of the clouds in?

Sun Beneath Clouds 4
And there are photos on this site of the sun rising behind Mt Ranier:

Mt Rainier Casting a Shadow Upward to Clouds, sky Tacoma Washington
from: GU Board, General Science Thread
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 08:40:55 PM by rabinoz »

?

#### Curious Squirrel

• 183
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2017, 07:22:39 PM »
Mars n other 'planets' are stars, something illuminates, heavily spinning.
No, "Mars n other 'planets' are" not stars. That difference has been known for thousands of years.
The word "planet" came from Greek and Latin and meant "wanderer" as to the early astronomers they seemed to wander among the "fixed stars".

Skip definition for a while.
Stick to the nature of the object/body itself.
'Planets' are lumminous, this is different from just 'bright'.
'Planets' emit lights, not just reflect lights as earth does.
They are not the same as earth.
It's impossible to go there.

Instead, why not searching celestial place like earth: non luminescent, non heavily spinning places.

Try again.
Planets do not emit their own light. They only reflect it, just like Earth does.

#### Sam Hill

• 642
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2017, 08:23:12 PM »
'Planets' are lumminous, this is different from just 'bright'.
'Planets' emit lights, not just reflect lights as earth does.

Observation disagrees with your statement.  For example, Venus is observed to have phases, just like the moon.

And in case you wanted to claim that to be a NASA lie, don't bother: it was Galileo who discovered this several hundred years before NASA was a thing.

#### JackBlack

• 17036
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2017, 08:53:47 PM »
IF the sun rise or set, there wouldn't be "dark clouds" (underneath it) indicating their heights are UNDER the sun's altitude.
The clouds should had been bright at its underneath, but that doesn't happen.
You mean like this:

Clouds bright on the bottom towards the sun, shaded at the back, even a shadow from a mountain.

Stick to the nature of the object/body itself.
'Planets' are lumminous, this is different from just 'bright'.
'Planets' emit lights, not just reflect lights as earth does.
They are not the same as earth.
It's impossible to go there.
Wrong.
Earth and the other planets emit IR.
But the light that you see is the light they reflect.
For example:

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #45 on: December 09, 2017, 09:51:19 AM »
I respectfully call BS so long as you are in accordance with his full statement. The important part to your reply is highlighted. If you are speaking of a time other than during an eclipse, thick clouds, or within a building etc. (thus meaning the sun is no longer within line of sight) I would love to hear about it, but until you provide some form of evidence of such a claim I state you are lying.
You should learn the difference between terms "line of sight," and, "unobstructed view," or, "sight line."

The last two are synonymous.

Even a luminous object can be within your line of sight and an obstruction can still be hindering or completely preventing you from seeing it.

And his statement overtly claimed a more luminescent object was required to prevent the objects' viewing and implies that light will travel infinitely.

That statement is nothing more than an assumption on both accounts.
Line of sight: "A straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision."

It helps if you actually know what a phrase or statement means BEFORE you attempt to claim it means something else. Once again, the important part has been highlighted for your convenience.

I will grant you his statement could use some work/clarification, but yours is an out and out lie when taken in the context of his full statement. The sun would not be within your line of sight during those times of 'nearly black as night' unless you are experiencing something heretofore unknown, because your line of sight to the sun is being obstructed by something.
A sightline (also sight line) or visual axis is a normally unobstructed line of sight

?

#### smokified

• 386
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #46 on: December 09, 2017, 11:11:47 AM »
When, How Long, Trajectory of The Sun: Before Eyes or Circling, etc. etc.
Thanks before.
There are no arguments, just observed and easily proven facts:
At the North Pole there is daylight from March 21 to September 21.
Everywhere north of the Arctic Circle has "midnight sun" on June 21.
Everywhere south of the Antarctic Circle has "midnight sun" on December 21.
At the South Pole there is daylight from September 21 to March 21 of the next year.
All dates are UTC.

Anyone claiming otherwise is trying to deceive or trick you.

Have you yourself proven 6 months of midnight sun?

The earth tilts... Is it fact or fiction?

They claim they have come to Flat Mars, but they have Never shown anything about the whole earth, including tilt video.

Ironical.

Have you yourself proven anything you believe in?

You are just a really super dense moron it would seem.

?

#### Curious Squirrel

• 183
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #47 on: December 10, 2017, 12:12:48 AM »
I respectfully call BS so long as you are in accordance with his full statement. The important part to your reply is highlighted. If you are speaking of a time other than during an eclipse, thick clouds, or within a building etc. (thus meaning the sun is no longer within line of sight) I would love to hear about it, but until you provide some form of evidence of such a claim I state you are lying.
You should learn the difference between terms "line of sight," and, "unobstructed view," or, "sight line."

The last two are synonymous.

Even a luminous object can be within your line of sight and an obstruction can still be hindering or completely preventing you from seeing it.

And his statement overtly claimed a more luminescent object was required to prevent the objects' viewing and implies that light will travel infinitely.

That statement is nothing more than an assumption on both accounts.
Line of sight: "A straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision."

It helps if you actually know what a phrase or statement means BEFORE you attempt to claim it means something else. Once again, the important part has been highlighted for your convenience.

I will grant you his statement could use some work/clarification, but yours is an out and out lie when taken in the context of his full statement. The sun would not be within your line of sight during those times of 'nearly black as night' unless you are experiencing something heretofore unknown, because your line of sight to the sun is being obstructed by something.
A sightline (also sight line) or visual axis is a normally unobstructed line of sight
Is that Wikipedia? Because no dictionary defines sightline using line of sight in the definition. Personally I'll take dictionary over Wikipedia. Not to mention this says nothing about what the phrase "line of sight" means. I posted the dictionary definition, which clearly states the visual line is unobstructed.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #48 on: December 10, 2017, 03:09:31 AM »

The earth tilts... Is it fact or fiction?

The earth does not really tilt, but its axis of rotation is almost perfectly aligned with the star Polaris.
The plane of the earth's rotation at an angle of about 23.5° to the "ecliptic" - the plane of its orbit around the sun.

So the earth has no significant "wobble".

?

#### totallackey

• 4526
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #49 on: December 10, 2017, 09:44:52 AM »
I respectfully call BS so long as you are in accordance with his full statement. The important part to your reply is highlighted. If you are speaking of a time other than during an eclipse, thick clouds, or within a building etc. (thus meaning the sun is no longer within line of sight) I would love to hear about it, but until you provide some form of evidence of such a claim I state you are lying.
You should learn the difference between terms "line of sight," and, "unobstructed view," or, "sight line."

The last two are synonymous.

Even a luminous object can be within your line of sight and an obstruction can still be hindering or completely preventing you from seeing it.

And his statement overtly claimed a more luminescent object was required to prevent the objects' viewing and implies that light will travel infinitely.

That statement is nothing more than an assumption on both accounts.
Line of sight: "A straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision."

It helps if you actually know what a phrase or statement means BEFORE you attempt to claim it means something else. Once again, the important part has been highlighted for your convenience.

I will grant you his statement could use some work/clarification, but yours is an out and out lie when taken in the context of his full statement. The sun would not be within your line of sight during those times of 'nearly black as night' unless you are experiencing something heretofore unknown, because your line of sight to the sun is being obstructed by something.
So, my line of sight is obstructed. Puts a full end to his statement.

RE-tards making a claim the Sun over a flat earth would always be visible to everyone on the Earth are full of shit.

#### JackBlack

• 17036
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #50 on: December 10, 2017, 12:27:41 PM »
So, my line of sight is obstructed. Puts a full end to his statement.
RE-tards making a claim the Sun over a flat earth would always be visible to everyone on the Earth are full of shit.
What is obstructing your line of sight?
What is between you and the sun that prevents you seeing it?

Note: We can see it just above the horizon, so the air clearly obstruct it.

The other thing that shows it quite clearly isn't the air getting in the way is where the sun is visible from.
Regardless of what FE map you use there is always a time where the sun is visible from further away than a location where it is not visible from.

For example, if it was going to be the air, the sun's light would reach a roughly circular area. As it is always seen for roughly 12 hours on the equator, the area it illuminates would have to look something like this:

But even that doesn't match reality, as during summer, the further south you are (below the tropic) the earlier the sun rises.

So what is there obstructing your view of the sun?

#### sokarul

• 18883
• Extra Racist
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #51 on: December 10, 2017, 02:13:18 PM »
I respectfully call BS so long as you are in accordance with his full statement. The important part to your reply is highlighted. If you are speaking of a time other than during an eclipse, thick clouds, or within a building etc. (thus meaning the sun is no longer within line of sight) I would love to hear about it, but until you provide some form of evidence of such a claim I state you are lying.
You should learn the difference between terms "line of sight," and, "unobstructed view," or, "sight line."

The last two are synonymous.

Even a luminous object can be within your line of sight and an obstruction can still be hindering or completely preventing you from seeing it.

And his statement overtly claimed a more luminescent object was required to prevent the objects' viewing and implies that light will travel infinitely.

That statement is nothing more than an assumption on both accounts.
Line of sight: "A straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision."

It helps if you actually know what a phrase or statement means BEFORE you attempt to claim it means something else. Once again, the important part has been highlighted for your convenience.

I will grant you his statement could use some work/clarification, but yours is an out and out lie when taken in the context of his full statement. The sun would not be within your line of sight during those times of 'nearly black as night' unless you are experiencing something heretofore unknown, because your line of sight to the sun is being obstructed by something.
So, my line of sight is obstructed. Puts a full end to his statement.

RE-tards making a claim the Sun over a flat earth would always be visible to everyone on the Earth are full of shit.
Totallacking

Why is the sun visible for thousands of miles in one direction but not in the other?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### Danang

• 5287
• Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2017, 01:32:06 AM »
Speaking of MAP, try Reverse Flat Earth Map.

Any other globe map, distance calculator, or such, all are just JOKING.

LOL

Just audit n prove it by your selves.

LOL again ~
• (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

#### JackBlack

• 17036
##### Re: RE & FE, Please Submit Your Logical Arguments on Midnight Sun
« Reply #53 on: December 11, 2017, 01:38:55 AM »
Speaking of MAP, try Reverse Flat Earth Map.
Why?
It fails just like all the other FE maps.

Any other globe map, distance calculator, or such, all are just JOKING.
Nope, so far the globe is the only one that has been shown to work.

Just audit n prove it by your selves.
I have. Your map failed, the globe didn't.

Perhaps you should try it rather than just spouting such childish crap?