So, I guess telescopes are selective?

Quote from: Shifter on September 10, 2018, 12:47:22 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on September 10, 2018, 12:45:03 AM

Quote from: Shifter on September 09, 2018, 10:43:13 PM

Don't forget the top of Mt Chimborazo!! 

Don't YOU forget the top of Mt Chimborazo which still isn't the highest mountain on earth as defined from the international recognised datum.

Give it a rest rab.

You are the one that needs to give it a rest!
You do not get to decide the datum from which mountain heights are measured.
The distance from the centre of the earth is irrelevant to almost everything so put that sock back where it belongs!

Leave it to you rab to take a big steaming dump on yet another thread. 

<< Irrelevant >>

Who Mt Chimborazo?

"You said "the sun is blocked by the SOLID object within the clouds", would the sunlight still be able to shine around the "solid" parts? We would stiil see the sunlight shining through the clouds."

>> Some clouds can be penetrated by the sunlight, some others not, i.g. rain cloud


"This is not a common event, it's not a day to day occurrence"

>> Manual things indeed happens that way. There is no single constant method to pour the rain water. Sometimes it's like a bombing, sometimes it occures smoothly.


"Why can't we see the sun or sunlight at high altitudes?"

>> You can. Unless you believe ISS video.

"Some clouds can be penetrated by the sunlight, some others not, i.g. rain cloud"
These rain clouds still don't completely block our very of the sun. Maybe a rain cloud in occurring in the southern direction but you could still see the sunlight in the northern direction. For us to not see the sun, these rain clouds would need to happen 24/7. The clouds would need to be at every timezone in every continent.

"Manual things indeed happens that way. There is no single constant method to pour the rain water. Sometimes it's like a bombing, sometimes it occures smoothly."

Do you have a link to this occurrence happening single every day, in all time zones and all different weather or season types? If this did happening every single day they, no one would see the sun, but we do. Does this same occurrence happen at high altitude?

I know we can see the sun at high altitudes, but why can't we see is when is "on the other side" of this "flat disk"?
There are no clouds blocking our view, the atmosphere is a lot thinner the higher you go so that it not blocking us. Nothing is preventing us from seeing the sun on the other side at high altitude, yet we still can't see it, why is that?

The second layer of the clouds block the sun from sight. The more distance, the denser clouds that stay between the observer and the sun.

UA can be another factor.
The sunlight ain't attracted by gravity. It seems bending down because the earth goes up.

The second layer of the clouds block the sun from sight. The more distance, the denser clouds that stay between the observer and the sun.

No, it would simply be more, not denser. But even that typically cant block the light. It is only on rare occasions that there is enough cloud cover to make it seem like night.
Regardless, if it was going to rely upon the clouds, you would not have the regularity of day and night that we do. Instead nighttime would be at unpredictable times.

UA can be another factor.
The sunlight ain't attracted by gravity. It seems bending down because the earth goes up.

That would make it even worse for you, as it would result in the sun appearing higher.

Quote from: totallackey on September 06, 2018, 09:03:10 AM

Assumption other celestial bodies are further away from the surface of the earth.

Planes have flown higher than 60,000 feet.

You still haven't answered the question.

There is no valid question as you have made assumptions your premise.

Quote from: Danang on September 06, 2018, 11:09:13 PM

The sun lies above layers of the clouds.
By analogy: in the night in an open air the layer is like a tabel and there is lamp on it. If you lie on the ground near the table, the lamp is not visible. All you see is darkness.
The more distant, the more cloud layers will block the sun's body before people's eyes on earth.

Clouds can form at altitudes up to 40,000ft high. There is a natural phenomenon of noctilucent clouds, that go up to 200,000ft however they don't always appear and they are translucent. Which means the clouds wouldn't block our view, we would still able to see the sunlight.

Jesus, you have no end to the BS you spout, uh?

Perspective. Buoyancy. Universal acceleration.

How do either of those 3 explain the question posed by the OP?

When giving an answer please go into detail about why it justifies your stance.

Now bear in mind, I'm not just any old poster, I'm the most renowned RET poster on the site so any answers need to be detailed enough to justify a response from me.

Let's see if your up to the challenge.

Quote from: ThatsInteresting on September 07, 2018, 11:37:42 AM

Quote from: Danang on September 06, 2018, 11:09:13 PM

The sun lies above layers of the clouds.
By analogy: in the night in an open air the layer is like a tabel and there is lamp on it. If you lie on the ground near the table, the lamp is not visible. All you see is darkness.
The more distant, the more cloud layers will block the sun's body before people's eyes on earth.

Clouds can form at altitudes up to 40,000ft high. There is a natural phenomenon of noctilucent clouds, that go up to 200,000ft however they don't always appear and they are translucent. Which means the clouds wouldn't block our view, we would still able to see the sunlight.

Jesus, you have no end to the BS you spout, uh?

You could literally search this up on google, how is this BS?

Quote from: ThatsInteresting on September 07, 2018, 11:37:42 AM

Clouds can form at altitudes up to 40,000ft high. There is a natural phenomenon of noctilucent clouds, that go up to 200,000ft however they don't always appear and they are translucent. Which means the clouds wouldn't block our view, we would still able to see the sunlight.

Jesus, you have no end to the BS you spout, uh?

Please explain exactly what is wrong with this:

Clouds can form at altitudes up to 40,000ft high. There is a natural phenomenon of noctilucent clouds, that go up to 200,000ft however they don't always appear and they are translucent. Which means the clouds wouldn't block our view, we would still able to see the sunlight.

Quote from: ThatsInteresting on September 06, 2018, 01:20:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 06, 2018, 09:03:10 AM

Assumption other celestial bodies are further away from the surface of the earth.

Planes have flown higher than 60,000 feet.

You still haven't answered the question.

There is no valid question as you have made assumptions your premise.

I literally just clarified this in previous posts.

Quote from: totallackey on September 06, 2018, 09:03:10 AM

Assumption other celestial bodies are further away from the surface of the earth.

Planes have flown higher than 60,000 feet.

Just researched it and yes the highest plane has gone up to 90,000. However I was referring to commercial planes, which go to 60,000ft, because not everyone can fly in a military grade aircraft but thank you for correcting me.

So far the most common trait I've seen from various of flat earth models are that the sun and moon are closest to the face of the earth while the stars and planets are behind them.

Besides, if the planets were in front of the sun and moon, we would be seeing planetary (solar and lunar) eclipse that would involve planets, yet we don't.

You still haven't answered the question.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 06, 2018, 01:48:24 PM

That's Interesting, Venus and Mercury transit the sun.

That would make sense in the heliocentric model because Mercury and Venus are closer to the sun than the earth. It would probably make sense on a flat earth too, if it were real.

By your logic, we should be able to see the rest of the planets as well. Where are Mars, Jupiter,  Saturn and all the other planets' transits between earth and the sun?

Still haven't gotten an answer.

You say planets are closer to us than the sun, not only would that not be possible but you have not provided evidence to that.

If you say that they are closer than the sun, give me evidence of transit every still planet or at least one planet (beside Mercury and Venus) when you can easily see the a different plant between us and the sun.

There is not such thing as a invalid question, a question can be stupid but not invalid. Every question has an answer but you still haven't answered mine.

There is no valid question as you have made assumptions your premise.

Nope. The key assumption required is that made by FEers, that telescopes can magically bring things back into view after they are obscured by the horizon.

The character of sunrives:
It might begin with a little dot of light due to athmoplane, but afterwards the pattern will be like 'sunRISE'.

Yes, it seem RISING. But it looks 'rising' from another, higher horizon i.e. "cloud horizon".

Sunlight can reach all over the dome. Midnight sun in arctic circle is an example for the 'unreal sun'. It's just a reflection of the actual sun.
You can imagine something in daily occurence:
Outside and inside house is being dark, the window has a glass cover. If you turn on a lamp before the window, you'll see its reflection on the window's glass. It's just a reflection.
(Yet midnight sun in antarctic circle is absulutely the REAL sun).

One sun + another one sun's reflection

Yes, it seem RISING. But it looks 'rising' from another, higher horizon i.e. "cloud horizon".

Only with significant cloud cover. You can also easily observe it appearing to rise from behind the land or sea based horizon, with the only thing getting in the way being the land or sea.

Sunlight can reach all over the dome. Midnight sun in arctic circle is an example for the 'unreal sun'. It's just a reflection of the actual sun.

That should mean you can see 2. Also, why just Arctic?

You can imagine something in daily occurence:
Outside and inside house is being dark, the window has a glass cover. If you turn on a lamp before the window, you'll see its reflection on the window's glass. It's just a reflection.

And if I turn my head, I can see the lamp.
You can't do that for the midnight sun.

Quote from: totallackey on September 11, 2018, 09:09:35 AM

Quote from: ThatsInteresting on September 07, 2018, 11:37:42 AM

Clouds can form at altitudes up to 40,000ft high. There is a natural phenomenon of noctilucent clouds, that go up to 200,000ft however they don't always appear and they are translucent. Which means the clouds wouldn't block our view, we would still able to see the sunlight.

Jesus, you have no end to the BS you spout, uh?

Please explain exactly what is wrong with this:

Quote from: ThatsInteresting on September 07, 2018, 11:37:42 AM

Clouds can form at altitudes up to 40,000ft high. There is a natural phenomenon of noctilucent clouds, that go up to 200,000ft however they don't always appear and they are translucent. Which means the clouds wouldn't block our view, we would still able to see the sunlight.

Now you?

Maybe thunderstorms will give you a clue as to the possible height of clouds.

Any object exceeding the height of the viewer that is placed in between the viewer and the object being viewed will eventually obscure that object.

The whole premise of the OP is skewed and makes the questions invalid.

Any object exceeding the height of the viewer that is placed in between the viewer and the object being viewed will eventually obscure that object.

If this was going to result in the sun disappearing due to clouds this would result in widely variable sunsets, with hours difference between days, due to how variable cloud cover is. This does not happen.

The whole premise of the OP is skewed and makes the questions invalid.

Only because it relies upon FE nonsense. However the question is still valid as it exposes the FE nonsense.

FEers claim objects appear to disappear over the horizon due to magic perspective, where telescopes are capable of bringing these objects back into view.
However this only happens for small, nearby objects like boats. For the sun, it cannot be brought back with a telescope.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 11, 2018, 02:05:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 11, 2018, 09:09:35 AM

Quote from: ThatsInteresting on September 07, 2018, 11:37:42 AM

Clouds can form at altitudes up to 40,000ft high. There is a natural phenomenon of noctilucent clouds, that go up to 200,000ft however they don't always appear and they are translucent. Which means the clouds wouldn't block our view, we would still able to see the sunlight.

Jesus, you have no end to the BS you spout, uh?

Please explain exactly what is wrong with this:

Quote from: ThatsInteresting on September 07, 2018, 11:37:42 AM

Clouds can form at altitudes up to 40,000ft high. There is a natural phenomenon of noctilucent clouds, that go up to 200,000ft however they don't always appear and they are translucent. Which means the clouds wouldn't block our view, we would still able to see the sunlight.

Now you?
Maybe thunderstorms will give you a clue as to the possible height of clouds.

Exactly and

Ask Tom: How is a thunderstorm's height determined, and how high can it be?

Quote

Dear Tom,
You frequently mention the heights of thunderstorms. How is that determined, and how high can thunderstorms be?
— Marty Braden

Dear Marty,

The National Weather Service maintains a national network of 121 Doppler radars whose combined, overlapping coverage blankets the nation. In continuous operation, the radars provide an ongoing stream of measurements of the atmosphere, including data about thunderstorms. Overlapping radar coverage means several radars can monitor the same thunderstorm simultaneously, permitting continuous tracking of storms as they move.

Thunderstorm tops are typically 30,000 to 40,000 feet above the surface, and in the U.S. even the most powerful thunderstorms rarely build above 65,000 feet. Tropical thunderstorms, somewhat higher, rarely exceed 72,000 feet.

And that fits well with what ThatsInteresting said.

Any object exceeding the height of the viewer that is placed in between the viewer and the object being viewed will eventually obscure that object.

The whole premise of the OP is skewed and makes the questions invalid.

Really? The OP asks

Mount Everest is about 30,000ft tall and the highest airplane we've flown was about 60,000ft. We have flown up weather balloons with go pros that go even higher. Why can't see this huge bright sun over this flat earth?

And clouds are certainly not always in the way.

Jack says:
"You can also easily observe it appearing to rise from behind the land or sea based horizon"

>> That applies only if the sea is being in high altitude due to high waves.
I said repeatedly: We are used to see the 'sunrise' above the clouds.


"why just Arctic?"

>> It's the consequence of Phew FE reality. The ACTUAL sun goes CCW (seen from earth: can be CW or CCW).
In antarctic circle the midnight sun shows perfect circular path, not zigzag path as seen from arctic circle.


"And if I turn my head, I can see the lamp.
You can't do that for the midnight sun."

The actual sun at southern part is blocked by the accumulation of clouds.

So, telescopes and binoculars help us see things that are far away. Many flat-earthers have "proven" that the earth is flat by looking at ships sailing over the sea with one. We also can use them to look at the planets or celestial bodies, like the moon and all of its details.

My question is that if our telescopes, high powered or not, can see and even take pictures of celestial bodies that are very far away, even further than the sun. Why can't we use these telescopes to see the sun when it is on the other side of the flat earth? Why can't we simply go on a mountain or a plane and look at our sun or see our sun's sunlight from a far distance?

Mount Everest is about 30,000ft tall and the highest airplane we've flown was about 60,000ft. We have flown up weather balloons with go pros that go even higher. Why can't see this huge bright sun over this flat earth?

Why can't we see the ice ring from the top of Mount Everest ?

Quote from: ThatsInteresting on September 05, 2018, 07:41:03 PM

So, telescopes and binoculars help us see things that are far away. Many flat-earthers have "proven" that the earth is flat by looking at ships sailing over the sea with one. We also can use them to look at the planets or celestial bodies, like the moon and all of its details.

My question is that if our telescopes, high powered or not, can see and even take pictures of celestial bodies that are very far away, even further than the sun. Why can't we use these telescopes to see the sun when it is on the other side of the flat earth? Why can't we simply go on a mountain or a plane and look at our sun or see our sun's sunlight from a far distance?

Mount Everest is about 30,000ft tall and the highest airplane we've flown was about 60,000ft. We have flown up weather balloons with go pros that go even higher. Why can't see this huge bright sun over this flat earth?

Why can't we see the ice ring from the top of Mount Everest ?

Our  smart Son of Orospu  says:

You can't rely on being able to see infinite distances.  Your eyes are fine.

Does that help ?

>> That applies only if the sea is being in high altitude due to high waves.

No, it happens as long as there isn't cloud cover. It can even be measured with a theolodite.

I said repeatedly: We are used to see the 'sunrise' above the clouds.

No. I'm not going to ignore the aspects of reality which show your model to be crap.

>> It's the consequence of Phew FE reality

i.e. it is based upon nonsensical baselss assertions rather than any form of rational thought.
You know that the Arctic midnight sun destroys your model so you make up whatever nonsense you can to pretend it works.

In antarctic circle the midnight sun shows perfect circular path, not zigzag path as seen from arctic circle.

No zig-zag path is observed (at least to any reasonable measurement). The sun traces circles from both poles.

The actual sun at southern part is blocked by the accumulation of clouds.

Then why isn't it blocked to the north as well?
At best you would get it blocked each way sometimes.

"why isn't it blocked to the north as well?"

At the north the dome meets the ground. It gives a fit position for a sunlight reflection that be seen on arctic circle.

The sun is being at the highest altitude.

At the north the dome meets the ground. It gives a fit position for a sunlight reflection that be seen on arctic circle.

That doesn't matter. You still have the light having to travel much further.
If it was going to be blocked from viewing to the south, it would also be blocked viewing to the north.

Quote from: ThatsInteresting on September 05, 2018, 07:41:03 PM

So, telescopes and binoculars help us see things that are far away. Many flat-earthers have "proven" that the earth is flat by looking at ships sailing over the sea with one. We also can use them to look at the planets or celestial bodies, like the moon and all of its details.

My question is that if our telescopes, high powered or not, can see and even take pictures of celestial bodies that are very far away, even further than the sun. Why can't we use these telescopes to see the sun when it is on the other side of the flat earth? Why can't we simply go on a mountain or a plane and look at our sun or see our sun's sunlight from a far distance?

Mount Everest is about 30,000ft tall and the highest airplane we've flown was about 60,000ft. We have flown up weather balloons with go pros that go even higher. Why can't see this huge bright sun over this flat earth?

Assumption other celestial bodies are further away from the surface of the earth.

Planes have flown higher than 60,000 feet.

Those aren’t assumptions.  They’re facts.  Mathematically and directly provable facts...unless you’ve got something that proves otherwise.

Mike

Quote from: Danang on September 14, 2018, 05:20:14 AM

At the north the dome meets the ground. It gives a fit position for a sunlight reflection that be seen on arctic circle.

That doesn't matter. You still have the light having to travel much further.
If it was going to be blocked from viewing to the south, it would also be blocked viewing to the north.

The bottom of the dome is situated quite near from Arctic circle. So the amount of the clouds are much less. Also, the sun's reflection position at the dome stays near as well. It can be regarded that the 'sun' is near too. That's the ingredient of so called 'daytime' -- even though it occurs at midnight hours.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 14, 2018, 02:46:23 PM

Quote from: Danang on September 14, 2018, 05:20:14 AM

At the north the dome meets the ground. It gives a fit position for a sunlight reflection that be seen on arctic circle.

That doesn't matter. You still have the light having to travel much further.
If it was going to be blocked from viewing to the south, it would also be blocked viewing to the north.

The bottom of the dome is situated quite near from Arctic circle. So the amount of the clouds are much less. Also, the sun's reflection position at the dome stays near as well. It can be regarded that the 'sun' is near too. That's the ingredient of so called 'daytime' -- even though it occurs at midnight hours.

How high is the dome, at it's peak?
How near or far is the Sun? Is it beneath the dome or above the dome?
What is the dome made of?
Why can't I see the dome with a telescope?

I have questions and you seemingly may have answers.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 14, 2018, 02:46:23 PM

Quote from: Danang on September 14, 2018, 05:20:14 AM

At the north the dome meets the ground. It gives a fit position for a sunlight reflection that be seen on arctic circle.

That doesn't matter. You still have the light having to travel much further.
If it was going to be blocked from viewing to the south, it would also be blocked viewing to the north.

The bottom of the dome is situated quite near from Arctic circle. So the amount of the clouds are much less.

So they should be able to see the sun to the south.

That is the massive problem with your reflection nonsense.

The light for the reflection needs to travel further than the light directly to the sun.
You have no justification for why they can see the sun to the north as a reflection but not to the south.

Stash says:

"How high is the dome, at it's peak?"

>> Based on a story of Indonesia's 1st president: Sukarno and the pilot in an airplane in which Sukarno asked the pilot to make the airplane go higher and higher.
Till the pilot couln't not increase the altitude of the airplane when it reached 17,000 feet = 5,181.6 meters. "There is a 'plafon' up there" said the pilot.
What about balloon experiment that claimed to reach 100,000 feet (+) ?
I have no idea.


"How near or far is the Sun?"

>>So far the trigonometry method only measures the refraction point of the sun at the dome. Morever due to refraction/bendy light from the dome, the visible direction of the sun from a distance is not necessarily the right direction.
The actual altitude of the sun is still unknown yet.


"Is it beneath the dome or above the dome?"

>> To me the sun is above the first dome and the second dome. The sunlight undergoes twice of refractions.


"What is the dome made of?"

Unknown glass-like substance. Some fell at Lybia.
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/04/the-mysterious-libyan-desert-glass.html?m=1


"Why can't I see the dome with a telescope?"

>> The sun is too bright to give images of the glass dome. By regular camera at night you can capture the dome image. After zooming out and some light filtering.
I suspected the dome is the white part of the sky that we can see by naked eyes.


"I have questions and you seemingly may have answers"

>> So sorry in case my replies are unsatisfactory.

Quote from: totallackey on September 06, 2018, 09:03:10 AM

Quote from: ThatsInteresting on September 05, 2018, 07:41:03 PM

So, telescopes and binoculars help us see things that are far away. Many flat-earthers have "proven" that the earth is flat by looking at ships sailing over the sea with one. We also can use them to look at the planets or celestial bodies, like the moon and all of its details.

My question is that if our telescopes, high powered or not, can see and even take pictures of celestial bodies that are very far away, even further than the sun. Why can't we use these telescopes to see the sun when it is on the other side of the flat earth? Why can't we simply go on a mountain or a plane and look at our sun or see our sun's sunlight from a far distance?

Mount Everest is about 30,000ft tall and the highest airplane we've flown was about 60,000ft. We have flown up weather balloons with go pros that go even higher. Why can't see this huge bright sun over this flat earth?

Assumption other celestial bodies are further away from the surface of the earth.

Planes have flown higher than 60,000 feet.

Those aren’t assumptions.  They’re facts.  Mathematically and directly provable facts...unless you’ve got something that proves otherwise.

Mike

This is a FE forum and those are Re-tard facts.