Twilight and Rayleigh Scattering on Flat Earth?

This is how Rayleigh Scattering works on Globe model. It gives daylight in atmosphere, and twilight.
When hit by sunlight from above, air scatters light and looks like glowing itself.
Illuminated part of atmosphere gives light to parts "at the edge of the night".
Rest of the air is in shade and no sunlight to scatter.



This is how Rayleigh Scattering doesn't work on Flat model.
It fails to create twilight.




The question is:
How DOES twilight work on Flat Earth?

Your Sun appears to be a uniform isotropic source, at least for the bottom half.

You have made this assumption previously.

This is not consistent with the widely-touted "spotlight" Sun.

Your diagram asking "HOW RAYLEIGH SCATTERIG WORKS ON FLAT EARTH?" is a straw man. You're right. "This is how Rayleigh Scattering doesn't work on Flat model. It fails to create twilight."

Don't present an assumed model and then discredit it.

To my knowledge no evidence has been presented to try and disprove the inverse square law.
Do you have any?

Your Sun appears to be a uniform isotropic source, at least for the bottom half.

You have made this assumption previously.

This is not consistent with the widely-touted "spotlight" Sun.

Your diagram asking "HOW RAYLEIGH SCATTERIG WORKS ON FLAT EARTH?" is a straw man. You're right. "This is how Rayleigh Scattering doesn't work on Flat model. It fails to create twilight."

Don't present an assumed model and then discredit it.

So, we agree on how it doesn't work.
Good.

My question was "How DOES it work?".

So, we agree on how it doesn't work.
Good.

My question was "How DOES it work?".

Good for you. Yes, I saw your question. I don't have an answer. That doesn't mean I can't comment on a flawed logical argument.

If you had a question, why didn't you just ask the question instead of prefacing it with a straw man you know to be incorrect?

Quote from: Macarios on March 20, 2018, 08:36:51 AM

So, we agree on how it doesn't work.
Good.

My question was "How DOES it work?".

Good for you. Yes, I saw your question. I don't have an answer. That doesn't mean I can't comment on a flawed logical argument.

If you had a question, why didn't you just ask the question instead of prefacing it with a straw man you know to be incorrect?

Presumably to preempt the answer, "Same as it works on a round earth model".  His preface eliminates that answer and requires someone to provide an actual model of functionality. 

I understand your point about assumptions that aren't accurate in a flat earth model, but I think you're reaching to apply it here.  He's explaining the mechanics in a conventional model, demonstrating that they won't work with a flat model, and asking to be shown a model that will yield the same observable result.  That's not a straw man, it's just asking a question with excellent clarity.

This is not consistent with the widely-touted "spotlight" Sun.

That's because the 'widely-touted "spotlight" Sun' is not consistent with reality.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 08:05:39 AM

This is not consistent with the widely-touted "spotlight" Sun.

That's because the 'widely-touted "spotlight" Sun' is not consistent with reality.

The very definition of begging the question.

While waiting for an answer "How Does twilight work on Flat Earth?",
I've found one more way in which it DOESN'T work.

Quote from: markjo on March 20, 2018, 10:02:40 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 08:05:39 AM

This is not consistent with the widely-touted "spotlight" Sun.

That's because the 'widely-touted "spotlight" Sun' is not consistent with reality.

The very definition of begging the question.

Are you sure?  What question do you think it begs?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 10:36:12 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 20, 2018, 10:02:40 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 08:05:39 AM

This is not consistent with the widely-touted "spotlight" Sun.

That's because the 'widely-touted "spotlight" Sun' is not consistent with reality.

The very definition of begging the question.

Are you sure?  What question do you think it begs?

"The model that includes the spotlight sun is not true because the spotlight sun model is not true."

Pay attention.

At some point in life we all saw shadow of horizon on mountain side behind us in the moment when the Sun just set.
Or on some tall building(s).
The shadow crawls up for sunset and down for sunrise.

This is why idea of "Cone Sunlight" contradicts reality:



EDIT:
In Dubai the shadow of horizon takes about three minutes to crawl up to the top floor of Burj Khalifa 828 meters high.

Version with limited reach of sunlight also can't explain twilight.




The question was: "How DOES twilight work on Flat Earth?"

Quote from: markjo on March 20, 2018, 12:17:26 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 10:36:12 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 20, 2018, 10:02:40 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 08:05:39 AM

This is not consistent with the widely-touted "spotlight" Sun.

That's because the 'widely-touted "spotlight" Sun' is not consistent with reality.

The very definition of begging the question.

Are you sure?  What question do you think it begs?

"The model that includes the spotlight sun is not true because the spotlight sun model is not true."

Pay attention.

I'm sorry, but that wasn't a question.  It also wasn't my point.  It's more like "The model that includes the spotlight sun is not true because a small sun illuminating 1/2 of a large earth does not meet even the most generous definition of a spotlight."

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 01:37:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 20, 2018, 12:17:26 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 10:36:12 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 20, 2018, 10:02:40 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 08:05:39 AM

This is not consistent with the widely-touted "spotlight" Sun.

That's because the 'widely-touted "spotlight" Sun' is not consistent with reality.

The very definition of begging the question.

Are you sure?  What question do you think it begs?

"The model that includes the spotlight sun is not true because the spotlight sun model is not true."

Pay attention.

I'm sorry, but that wasn't a question. (snip)

Oh. My. God.

Get an education and learn what the phrase "begging the question" means.

It doesn't mean posing a question.

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2018, 08:19:17 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 01:37:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 20, 2018, 12:17:26 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 10:36:12 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 20, 2018, 10:02:40 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 20, 2018, 08:05:39 AM

This is not consistent with the widely-touted "spotlight" Sun.

That's because the 'widely-touted "spotlight" Sun' is not consistent with reality.

The very definition of begging the question.

Are you sure?  What question do you think it begs?

"The model that includes the spotlight sun is not true because the spotlight sun model is not true."

Pay attention.

I'm sorry, but that wasn't a question. (snip)

Oh. My. God.

Get an education and learn what the phrase "begging the question" means.

It doesn't mean posing a question.

Perhaps you should learn what "straw man argument" means.

Perhaps you should learn what "straw man argument" means.

It's hard to believe how inattentive you are in your despeate attempt to hide your ignorance. First reply to Marcarios' straw man OP.

You're only embarrassing yourself.

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2018, 05:14:38 PM

Perhaps you should learn what "straw man argument" means.

It's hard to believe how inattentive you are in your despeate attempt to hide your ignorance. First reply to Marcarios' straw man OP.
You're only embarrassing yourself.

Ok, let's see what are you trying to enchant with your magis word "straw man".

What do you know about Sun's radiation?
What causes night on Flat model?

I see three options:
1 - perspective
2 - cone shaped radiation
3 - limited reach of sunlight rays

Any other possibility?
After all these years at least some Flat Earther would measure something and learn from reality how Sun behaves.
Others wouldn't miss the opportunity to use that as proof.

If you don't have any fourth idea (or don't know anyone that does), then we already refuted all three possibilities.
There is no mechanism that allows for twilight in Flat Earth model.

If you had any other option, you would post it by now.
You wouldn't just use "straw man" chant to "excommunicate inconvenient facts".

Let me remind you:

1 - perspective
Sun "virtually" raises or sets because atmosphere air layers bend ligt:
This is why it doesn't work:


2- cone shaped radiation
We don't see Sun before "virtual" sunrise or after "virtual" sunset because sun light is directed to limited area below it.
This is why it doesn't work:


3 - limited reach of sunlight rays
Sunlight rays simply have limited "length" (distance that they can travel), our eyes just have to be close enough to Sun.
This is why it doesn't work:

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2018, 05:14:38 PM

Perhaps you should learn what "straw man argument" means.

It's hard to believe how inattentive you are in your despeate attempt to hide your ignorance. First reply to Marcarios' straw man OP.

And it seems that you're desperately trying to avoid the fact that the small, relatively near FE sun does not even remotely fit the definition of a spotlight.

There is no mechanism that allows for twilight in Flat Earth model.

Anyone who looks at any form of light on earth can easily ascertain the light has a variable amount of "strength and influence," that does not extend in perpetuity.

That is just a convenient fact of light you somehow want to ignore.

Once you figure out why that is the case in all other instances, then you might be able to answer your own question.
[/quote]

Quote from: Macarios on March 22, 2018, 11:50:51 PM

There is no mechanism that allows for twilight in Flat Earth model.

Anyone who looks at any form of light on earth can easily ascertain the light has a variable amount of "strength and influence," that does not extend in perpetuity.

Yes, it's called the inverse square law.  How does that explain twilight and Rayleigh scattering on a flat earth?

Quote from: Macarios on March 22, 2018, 11:50:51 PM

There is no mechanism that allows for twilight in Flat Earth model.

Anyone who looks at any form of light on earth can easily ascertain the light has a variable amount of "strength and influence," that does not extend in perpetuity.

That is just a convenient fact of light you somehow want to ignore.

Once you figure out why that is the case in all other instances, then you might be able to answer your own question.

First learn what is light, then talk about its "facts".
Do you even know what is the difference between visible light, infrared and ultraviolet?

You DO know the parts of electromagnetic spectrum, you saw the charts of it several times,
you could understand how light really works, but you are still hiding that knowledge for the sake of your "argument".

EDIT: Google for "electromagnetic wave propagation".

Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2018, 06:06:12 AM

Quote from: Macarios on March 22, 2018, 11:50:51 PM

There is no mechanism that allows for twilight in Flat Earth model.

Anyone who looks at any form of light on earth can easily ascertain the light has a variable amount of "strength and influence," that does not extend in perpetuity.

That is just a convenient fact of light you somehow want to ignore.

Once you figure out why that is the case in all other instances, then you might be able to answer your own question.

First learn what is light, then talk about its "facts".
Do you even know what is the difference between visible light, infrared and ultraviolet?

You DO know the parts of electromagnetic spectrum, you saw the charts of it several times,
you could understand how light really works, but you are still hiding that knowledge for the sake of your "argument".

EDIT: Google for "electromagnetic wave propagation".

Fuq all that.

You totally ignore the very fact light is absolutely variable in its strength and range of influence.

Your whole postulate is fuqed from the beginning.

Quote from: Macarios on March 23, 2018, 06:19:07 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2018, 06:06:12 AM

Quote from: Macarios on March 22, 2018, 11:50:51 PM

There is no mechanism that allows for twilight in Flat Earth model.

Anyone who looks at any form of light on earth can easily ascertain the light has a variable amount of "strength and influence," that does not extend in perpetuity.

That is just a convenient fact of light you somehow want to ignore.

Once you figure out why that is the case in all other instances, then you might be able to answer your own question.

First learn what is light, then talk about its "facts".
Do you even know what is the difference between visible light, infrared and ultraviolet?

You DO know the parts of electromagnetic spectrum, you saw the charts of it several times,
you could understand how light really works, but you are still hiding that knowledge for the sake of your "argument".

EDIT: Google for "electromagnetic wave propagation".

Fuq all that.

You totally ignore the very fact light is absolutely variable in its strength and range of influence.

Your whole postulate is fuqed from the beginning.

... and that variability is known, measured, and then described by inverse square law (the part you "conveniently skipped").

If you "refuse to know" it won't disappear.

Ok, let's see what are you trying to enchant with your magis word "straw man".

What do you know about Sun's radiation?
What causes night on Flat model?

I see three options:
1 - perspective
2 - cone shaped radiation
3 - limited reach of sunlight rays

Any other possibility?

Except that's not what your OP presents.

You chose one position that you assumed represents all of FE. You argue against it, saying this is how it doesn't work. Presenting a distorted or incomplete version of someone's position then discrediting it is a straw man.

Only after you're called on it do you suddenly "discover" another way it doesn't work.

Then after that it the assertion that *three* explanations are the only possible explanations.

Do you see a pattern in the logical fallacy?

... and that variability is known, measured, and then described by inverse square law (the part you "conveniently skipped").

If you "refuse to know" it won't disappear.

I do not care what you call it or why it occurs.

It is easily demonstrated that light (even direct beams) have a an area that is "less bright" other than directly in the middle of the beam.

Quote from: Macarios on March 22, 2018, 11:50:51 PM

Ok, let's see what are you trying to enchant with your magis word "straw man".

What do you know about Sun's radiation?
What causes night on Flat model?

I see three options:
1 - perspective
2 - cone shaped radiation
3 - limited reach of sunlight rays

Any other possibility?

Except that's not what your OP presents.

You chose one position that you assumed represents all of FE. You argue against it, saying this is how it doesn't work. Presenting a distorted or incomplete version of someone's position then discrediting it is a straw man.

Only after you're called on it do you suddenly "discover" another way it doesn't work.

Then after that it the assertion that *three* explanations are the only possible explanations.

Do you see a pattern in the logical fallacy?

My OP presents question about twilight.
As an introduction I gave one example.
In that example I described how one of possible solutions can't work.
Later I gave one more example, describing inability of one more mechanism to explain twilight.
Few posts later I gave third example with the same outcome.

And finally I listed all three possible solutions, with an option to add another.

You can scroll up and read this:

Any other possibility?
After all these years at least some Flat Earther would measure something and learn from reality how Sun behaves.
Others wouldn't miss the opportunity to use that as proof.

If you don't have any fourth idea (or don't know anyone that does), then we already refuted all three possibilities.
There is no mechanism that allows for twilight in Flat Earth model.

If you had any other option, you would post it by now.
You wouldn't just use "straw man" chant to "excommunicate inconvenient facts".

So, is there other possibility?
I was watching YouTube videos, reading other forums and FB groups, none of them offered fourth solution.
"Renowned" Flat Earthers just sweep things like that under the carpet and hope that no one will see it.

Do you have solution?
Is there Flat Earth explanation of twilight?
How do you know if there is or isn't?
Will you just chant your empty words "falacy" and "straw man" without ability to support them?

Do you question globe while blindly believe in flat, against observations and measurements?

Do you question globe while blindly believe in flat, against observations and measurements?

No.

Quote from: Macarios on March 23, 2018, 07:02:33 AM

... and that variability is known, measured, and then described by inverse square law (the part you "conveniently skipped").

If you "refuse to know" it won't disappear.

I do not care what you call it or why it occurs.

It is easily demonstrated that light (even direct beams) have a an area that is "less bright" other than directly in the middle of the beam.

Exactly.
Sunrise / sunset occur when Sun's ground distance is 10 000 km.
That is direct line distance of SQRT(10 000² + 5005²) = 11 183 km.
From latitude of 45 degrees at noon ground distance of Sun is 5000 km.
That is direct line distance of SQRT(5 000² + 5005²) = 7 075 km.
At 7075 km sunlight intensity is between 111 000 and 120 000 lux.
At 11 183 km sunlight intensity should be (111 000 to 120 000) / (11 183 / 7 075)² = (44 400 to 48 000) lux.

It is considerably less bright, but still not complete darkness.

If the reason was distance, after sunset you would still have 40% of sunlight, not zero.
Even at 14 150 km of in-line distance (13 235 km of ground distance) you would still have 25% of sunlight.

If the reason was hiding behid horizon, you would yell "EVEN THE SUN ITSELF IS PLOTTING AGAINST US, 'TRUTH' DEFENDERS !!!"

Quote from: Macarios on March 23, 2018, 12:03:33 PM

Do you question globe while blindly believe in flat, against observations and measurements?

No.

Ok. Thanks.

Now, let's try this thing together:

Does Sun shine in every direction, regardless the model?