Maximum seeing distance

I've replied your question. Its their job. Don't get serious them. This is their job. They are two robots continue to talk whether you tell them shut up or not. They will not care.

I hope you now get the moon light problem.

It isn't our job. We aren't paid for this. Nor are we robots.

Yes, I will continue to talk even if you tell me to shut up.
I will continue to point out your lies and the massive problems with your claims.
If you want me to shut up, either stop making such ridiculous claims, or try to rationally defend them.

There is no moon light problem and you are just running away because you have completely failed at the original topic and now need to change topic to try and avoid this failure.

Now again:
How you can see the sun, especially when it sets, if we can only see such a limited distance?
We know it isn't refraction as that would make it appear higher, not lower.
We know it isn't simply a case of it getting too thick into the atmosphere. If that was the case then it would disappear high in the sky as it fades to a blur.
We know your "optical illusion" and claims of being in a simulation is just you not understanding or misrepresenting how reflection works. (I take it you don't have mirrors in your place?)

Quote from: Souleon on May 07, 2019, 12:19:14 PM

For the ice wall, I would like to ask you to make a new thread.
And rabinoz and blackjack please hold back for a while. You are overhelming wise. I would like to talk with wise here for a while 1on1. No offensive, but that would just be very kind, thanks.

Quote from: wise on May 06, 2019, 01:16:40 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 06, 2019, 10:09:56 AM

Quote from: wise on May 06, 2019, 12:13:46 AM

A lot of light related issues are Optical illusion. I have many workings about this issue but want to shortify it for you.



In this photo, you see the object (which object?) on your way to the moon are clearly seen as brightly, and the remain areas are in darkness. This is because the earth's being 2D simulation and fake. Because if you move to any direction to right or left, then the past (?) brightly area turns to darkness and another dar area turns to brightly (?). This is nothing but the nonsence of this weak system.

This system only tries to prevent smart people like me. But when issue (?) comes to create its own components (?), then it turns a cheap computer program. the system fights against intelligent people to hide their mistakes and weaknesses. and so the retards manage the world. This is not related the issue but related the jackblack and other angry globularists here. I hope you'll not turn an angry globularists here.

Sorry, but I have problems in understanding your writing.

But you seem to have the believe, if I understood correctly, that it is an illusion that the sun is behind the horizon during rising and setting, because it has to be higher according to FET.
Thus, are you basically thinking:
"reality does not fit to FET, therefore, it has to be a cheap computer program with errors"?
so, to nail your logic down: "false" = "false" is true?

This object:



You have completly missunderstand me. If you try to get my thinking you can not do that.

If you really want to get my thinking and want to give up kiding as how you did, I can reply it. But by this wording you can't get a sincere answer. I recommend you give up to be an angry globularist logic, and be a man, normal man. Otherwise you can unable to get me.

Wise,
I was and am not angry and also not kidding. This was a misunderstanding because you cannot hear my tone by reading written text. If we would talk you would hear my tone to be friendly, calm and interested. Maybe you can read it again with this just described tone in mind.

Ok, let us try again. Please try to write in simple logic, so I can understand.

Something like
"In reality strange phenomena can be observed" → ... → "RE wrong and FE true".

What exactly is bothering you with the moon pictures? Please use short and clear sentences.

I did not see an angry globularist accept himself being an angry globularist. Anyways, I'll pre agree your not being angry globularist, till you show an evidence again you are so.



Under moon light, you are clearly seing the object A.

In darkside, you almost can not see any detail of ship B.

So much so that, you can zoom men on object A and see men are fishing. But you can not see any details in ship B.

The problem here, the light on the ship is "IMAGINARY". Because the light on the ship is relevant with the position of observer, inother say, you see the ship A because it is under the moon according to your point of view. If you move right to get moon upside of SHIP B, then you'll see all details in SHIP B and then OBJECT A will go in darkness.

So that, moon light on the ship is imaginary, not real. It is because there is a program, and the simulation allows you to see OBJECT A when it stays under the position of the moon according to your point of view.

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Rabinoz and jackblack your are doing it again ... Ok never mind.. 

Quote from: John Davis on May 07, 2019, 09:59:15 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 05, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

When you light a flashlight in the dark, say on a camping trip - does it extend forever? Or does it fade away?

Hello John, thanks for joining the debate. It fades away. Please go on!

The sun light also is scattered and will not indefinitely through a medium.

Quote from: Souleon on May 07, 2019, 10:52:50 PM

Rabinoz and jackblack your are doing it again ... Ok never mind.. 

Quote from: John Davis on May 07, 2019, 09:59:15 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 05, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

As I understood "horizon" from FET, it results from that at a certain distance human eyes cannot see further. So I wonder, why can we see the sun, which is, even in FET, much further away than the horizon?

When you light a flashlight in the dark, say on a camping trip - does it extend forever? Or does it fade away?

Hello John, thanks for joining the debate. It fades away. Please go on!

The sun light also is scattered and will not indefinitely through a medium.

Did you mean "not go infenitely"?
If so: The question was, why do we still see the sun, and not, why we don't..

Quote from: wise on May 07, 2019, 12:56:35 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 07, 2019, 12:19:14 PM

For the ice wall, I would like to ask you to make a new thread.
And rabinoz and blackjack please hold back for a while. You are overhelming wise. I would like to talk with wise here for a while 1on1. No offensive, but that would just be very kind, thanks.

Quote from: wise on May 06, 2019, 01:16:40 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 06, 2019, 10:09:56 AM

Quote from: wise on May 06, 2019, 12:13:46 AM

A lot of light related issues are Optical illusion. I have many workings about this issue but want to shortify it for you.



In this photo, you see the object (which object?) on your way to the moon are clearly seen as brightly, and the remain areas are in darkness. This is because the earth's being 2D simulation and fake. Because if you move to any direction to right or left, then the past (?) brightly area turns to darkness and another dar area turns to brightly (?). This is nothing but the nonsence of this weak system.

This system only tries to prevent smart people like me. But when issue (?) comes to create its own components (?), then it turns a cheap computer program. the system fights against intelligent people to hide their mistakes and weaknesses. and so the retards manage the world. This is not related the issue but related the jackblack and other angry globularists here. I hope you'll not turn an angry globularists here.

Sorry, but I have problems in understanding your writing.

But you seem to have the believe, if I understood correctly, that it is an illusion that the sun is behind the horizon during rising and setting, because it has to be higher according to FET.
Thus, are you basically thinking:
"reality does not fit to FET, therefore, it has to be a cheap computer program with errors"?
so, to nail your logic down: "false" = "false" is true?

This object:



You have completly missunderstand me. If you try to get my thinking you can not do that.

If you really want to get my thinking and want to give up kiding as how you did, I can reply it. But by this wording you can't get a sincere answer. I recommend you give up to be an angry globularist logic, and be a man, normal man. Otherwise you can unable to get me.

Wise,
I was and am not angry and also not kidding. This was a misunderstanding because you cannot hear my tone by reading written text. If we would talk you would hear my tone to be friendly, calm and interested. Maybe you can read it again with this just described tone in mind.

Ok, let us try again. Please try to write in simple logic, so I can understand.

Something like
"In reality strange phenomena can be observed" → ... → "RE wrong and FE true".

What exactly is bothering you with the moon pictures? Please use short and clear sentences.

I did not see an angry globularist accept himself being an angry globularist. Anyways, I'll pre agree your not being angry globularist, till you show an evidence again you are so.



Under moon light, you are clearly seing the object A.

In darkside, you almost can not see any detail of ship B.

So much so that, you can zoom men on object A and see men are fishing. But you can not see any details in ship B.

The problem here, the light on the ship is "IMAGINARY". Because the light on the ship is relevant with the position of observer, inother say, you see the ship A because it is under the moon according to your point of view. If you move right to get moon upside of SHIP B, then you'll see all details in SHIP B and then OBJECT A will go in darkness.

So that, moon light on the ship is imaginary, not real. It is because there is a program, and the simulation allows you to see OBJECT A when it stays under the position of the moon according to your point of view.

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

I see sorry; we can't still see the sun when it goes far enough away. This is what causes daylight and night.

Of note - most flat earth models also hold the sun to be a lot closer than round earth models, and have it a lot smaller.

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

I see sorry; we can't still see the sun when it goes far enough away. This is what causes daylight and night.

Then why does it appear to set?
If it was simply a case of it going too far away, it should either shrink to a point or fade to a blur, rather than clearly appearing to set behind the horizon.

I see sorry; we can't still see the sun when it goes far enough away. This is what causes daylight and night.

Of note - most flat earth models also hold the sun to be a lot closer than round earth models, and have it a lot smaller.

Incorrect! If "we can't still see the sun when it goes far enough away" it would also appear to get smaller "when it goes far enough away" because of perspective (ever heard of it?).
And neither the sun nor the moon get smaller when they go away - not during a day anyway.

Again, you are wrong because I have no claim so your questions are BS.

Really?
So this isn't a claim from you:

Air stringency decreases rapidly in vertical direction. air density at sea level is very high. in some regions it is comparable to the weight of water. however, after 10 kilometers highness the air density is very low. 20-50 kilometers of a person horizontally is the distance of sight. After 20-50 kilometers high, there is almost no air. therefore, every object after 20-50 kilometers is visible, no matter how far / high it is. the sun is at a distance of 6000 kilometers when rising. but it is also possible to see it because it is bigger and it is actually higher because of the light breaking. I gave the number of seeing limit as 20-50 kms because it is related the observe point and observing objects' being whether through sea, land, sand, or something else affect the density of air in see level.

in other words, the horizontal vision limit is 20-30 kilometers, while the vertical vision limit is infinite.

That sure seems like a claim (or a few).
You are claiming that the atmosphere limits visibility of distant objects.
If you apply this to the sun, that means the sun should disappear high in the sky, fading to a blur as the atmosphere obscures it.

As such, my question is a perfectly valid response.
How you can see the sun, especially when it sets, if we can only see such a limited distance?

Can you actually address this or can you just repeatedly dodge it?
At the very least, can you retract your claim, admitting it is baseless?

(I'm ignoring the rest of your post as it is just more insults, grow up).

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2019, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

You are still waiting for a sincere answer, although I told you don't deserve an answer at all, right?

Yes, I am stilling pointing out the massive flaws with your claims which show they don't match reality.
You not wanting to answer isn't going to change that. I will continue to expose the flaws in your claims/arguments.

Again, if the atmosphere limited visibility then the sun would fade to a blur high in the sky, not appear to set as it does daily.
The same would apply to the horizon.

the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

No, the most likely reason is that light travels in a straight line. There is no need for any simulation, and again, this has nothing to do with the topic.

Quote from: Souleon on May 09, 2019, 07:03:49 AM

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2019, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2019, 12:15:34 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 09, 2019, 07:03:49 AM

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2019, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

The term "always" may be a pretentious word for it but "naturally" it should be so.

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 08:38:23 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2019, 12:15:34 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 09, 2019, 07:03:49 AM

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2019, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

The term "always" may be a pretentious word for it but "naturally" it should be so.

Ok good, understood
Then let's go on: what do you know about light reflection?

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2019, 12:02:54 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 08:38:23 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2019, 12:15:34 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 09, 2019, 07:03:49 AM

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2019, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

The term "always" may be a pretentious word for it but "naturally" it should be so.

Ok good, understood
Then let's go on: what do you know about light reflection?

Ahaha. What are you trying to do, a test?

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 12:14:41 PM

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2019, 12:02:54 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 08:38:23 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2019, 12:15:34 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 09, 2019, 07:03:49 AM

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2019, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

The term "always" may be a pretentious word for it but "naturally" it should be so.

Ok good, understood
Then let's go on: what do you know about light reflection?

Ahaha. What are you trying to do, a test?

I am interested in what you think about light reflection. Would you say it is real? And wouldn't you agree that a water surface can reflect light quite well, which we can see especially well when it is dark below the surface?

Maximum seeing distance is an ambiguous thread title!

Firstly, maximum seeing distance depends on how good one's eyesight is. 20/20 vision is a term used to express normal visual acuity. (You can see clearly at 20 feet what can normally be seen at that distance.)

If we are talking about maximum land distance we can see at sea level, with 20/20 eyesight, the answer is about 5km, depending on how tall or short you are, due to earth's surface curving out of sight at that distance. If Earth were flat, you could see a candle flickering on a dark night, at a distance of 48 kilometers.

Arguably, for most of this thread though, the discussion has been on visual acuity. We all agree that Earth's atmosphere prevents us seeing further than about 20km.

How far the human eye can see, depends on how many photons a distant object emits. The farthest object visible to the naked eye, is the andromeda galaxy at 2.6 million light years from earth.

Vision scientist Selig Hecht, in 1941, at Columbia University, found the absorption of 5 to 14 photons or the activation of 5 to 14 rod cells in your eyes, are the minimum required, to elicit an awareness of visual perception.

Oh, and a photo showing moonlight illuminating a sailboat on the ocean and the surrounding water of that boat, is a photo of real light. There is nothing imaginary about it.

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2019, 12:15:23 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 12:14:41 PM

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2019, 12:02:54 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 08:38:23 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2019, 12:15:34 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 09, 2019, 07:03:49 AM

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2019, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

The term "always" may be a pretentious word for it but "naturally" it should be so.

Ok good, understood
Then let's go on: what do you know about light reflection?

Ahaha. What are you trying to do, a test?

I am interested in what you think about light reflection. Would you say it is real? And wouldn't you agree that a water surface can reflect light quite well, which we can see especially well when it is dark below the surface?

I think you are trying to lead me with this question. I have already some works on light reflection and what it causes. You can reach them by searching in this forum.

Maximum seeing distance is an ambiguous thread title!

Firstly, maximum seeing distance depends on how good one's eyesight is.

I disagree.

Unless you are blind, your eyesight doesn't determine how far you can see. All it will effect is how well you can resolve objects or see dim objects.

The main thing which actually effects how far you can see is an obstruction (like Earth as you have said), or the light being scattered/absorbed.

We all agree that Earth's atmosphere prevents us seeing further than about 20km.

No, it varies dramatically depending upon conditions, but I have never observed vision to be limited to 20 km due to the atmosphere except in severe fog where it is more like a few hundred m.

The 20 km is just made up by "wise" to pretend to have an explanation for the horizon with a FE.

I think you are trying to lead me with this question.

Yes, he is trying to lead you to an understanding of what is shown with you putting the pieces together rather than what I did where I just stated it.

The reason only a part of the water is "illuminated" is because you are looking at a reflection of the moon.
As the surface of the water is not flat (which in this case has nothing to do with Earth being flat or round and instead is mainly due to the ripples) it will cause a distorted reflection where it stretches out significantly, which will depend upon the nature of the ripples/waves.
So that light moving around as you move is simply a result of how reflections work. Again, it doesn't require to be imaginary or a simulation.

As for the boats, again, they are silhouetted. Notice how you don't actually see the light from the people in the boat, instead they appear as dark cutouts blocking the light?

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 12:22:34 PM

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2019, 12:15:23 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 12:14:41 PM

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2019, 12:02:54 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 08:38:23 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2019, 12:15:34 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 09, 2019, 07:03:49 AM

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2019, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

The term "always" may be a pretentious word for it but "naturally" it should be so.

Ok good, understood
Then let's go on: what do you know about light reflection?

Ahaha. What are you trying to do, a test?

I am interested in what you think about light reflection. Would you say it is real? And wouldn't you agree that a water surface can reflect light quite well, which we can see especially well when it is dark below the surface?

I think you are trying to lead me with this question. I have already some works on light reflection and what it causes. You can reach them by searching in this forum.

I tried: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2
but it's all from this thread.

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2019, 03:04:31 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 12:22:34 PM

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2019, 12:15:23 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 12:14:41 PM

Quote from: wise on May 10, 2019, 12:02:54 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 10, 2019, 08:38:23 AM

Quote from: wise on May 09, 2019, 12:15:34 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 09, 2019, 07:03:49 AM

mods, would you remove all the insult posts without or with neglect-able value with respect to the topic? And give some warnings? I thought its strictly moderated...

There is nothing about you from all these insults and hard discussings. I can lead two different language with two different type of persons. You seem still fair respectfull. During you behave respectfull you'll get response with same language. We are with others here since years and this is our general behavious ourselves. Surely mods are baning and warning people when required. Be sure they are banning us even it not required. So your calling them to take measure is not required. It is really not required.

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 01:35:51 PM

Quote from: wise on May 08, 2019, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 08, 2019, 11:56:51 AM

It is very logical that the light reflection on the water always takes place in much higher intensity near the line of sight under the moon. The reason for this is, that there the probability is highest that the angle of incidence (moon to water surface) is equal to the angle of reflection (water surface to your eyes/camera). More to the sides it is less likely, but it also happens as you can see in the picture with respect to the bright spots on the water. In fact, the light is also reflected in all other directions with similar intensity, but simply misses your eyes/camera if the incident and reflection angle do not match. It's that simple and no imaginary light or simulation is needed for explanation.

Wise, please read again, and try to understand this. It took me really long to write, because English is not my native language. Afterwards, I am looking forward your response. If you are not willing to try to understand this, I cannot take you serious anymore.

Don't worry, English isn't also my native language too. I think I've wrote something simple. what you're telling is a theory. You have to prove this practically.

Nope. I don't want to try to understand your bullshit theory, so that you are free to don't take me serious anymore, you are free to don't take the truth seriour anymore.

So much so that, you are free to close your eyes to the truth; I can not prevent you to do this.

Why are you so upset? I just wrote "trying to understand", not "believe".

You are not telling yourself trying to understand; but you've offered me to understand it. I've already know what this issue. There is nothing new here me to understand.

When it comes to an area of ​​light it illuminates the area. only the light source in a line between you and the region is not bright. if you look around an electric pole you can see it. it illuminates around circuly. the most likely reason for a remote light source to illuminate as a straight line is your view is a result of simulation.

Do you mean that light sources illuminate always spherical evenly and not in in higher intensity along a straight line towards the observer?

The term "always" may be a pretentious word for it but "naturally" it should be so.

Ok good, understood
Then let's go on: what do you know about light reflection?

Ahaha. What are you trying to do, a test?

I am interested in what you think about light reflection. Would you say it is real? And wouldn't you agree that a water surface can reflect light quite well, which we can see especially well when it is dark below the surface?

I think you are trying to lead me with this question. I have already some works on light reflection and what it causes. You can reach them by searching in this forum.

I tried: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2
but it's all from this thread.

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

The light source from doing the flashlight effect. Is the moonlight like that? Is it just along a line? I do not think so. This is no way connected to the real moonlight, but BS. This visual is total a BS.

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 12:37:49 AM

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

The light source from doing the flashlight effect. Is the moonlight like that? Is it just along a line? I do not think so. This is no way connected to the real moonlight, but BS. This visual is total a BS.

It is connected: This image visualizes the "incident = reflection angle" part of my explanation. Did you notice that you avoid my simple questions? I wonder why, are they too simple to be worth for a reply? I invite you to kindly to be less in confrontation mode. 

Ok here is the next one. A candle, so a spherically illuminating light source, and we see also here a line of reflection on the table:

I am sure you saw something similar like this in reality before, didn't you? 

And thus, why shouldn't the water surface act the same? 

Also no simulation, right? (just answer with "yes/no" please, it won't hurt). 

Or here, another scene and instead of an photo with long exposure time, as video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vC13F967Xtc 

PS: btw inside of the flash light is also a spherically illuminating light source, which is then reflected out to one side for higher intensity.

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2019, 05:36:37 AM

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 12:37:49 AM

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

The light source from doing the flashlight effect. Is the moonlight like that? Is it just along a line? I do not think so. This is no way connected to the real moonlight, but BS. This visual is total a BS.

It is connected: This image visualizes the "incident = reflection angle" part of my explanation. Did you notice that you avoid my simple questions? I wonder why, are they too simple to be worth for a reply? I invite you to kindly to be less in confrontation mode. 

Ok here is the next one. A candle, so a spherical light source, and we see also here a line of reflection on the table:

I am sure you saw something similar like this in reality before, didn't you? 

And thus, why shouldn't the water surface act the same? 

Also no simulation, right? (just answer with "yes/no" please, it won't hurt). 

Or here, another scene and instead of an photo with long exposure time, as video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vC13F967Xtc 

You've gave perfect example of why this earth is a two dimentional simulation.

the fact that light continues along a line, in fact it should be spread out to four sides, is proof that it is not real, it is simulation.

Thank you for proved the earth's being a simulation.

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 07:44:01 AM

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2019, 05:36:37 AM

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 12:37:49 AM

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

The light source from doing the flashlight effect. Is the moonlight like that? Is it just along a line? I do not think so. This is no way connected to the real moonlight, but BS. This visual is total a BS.

It is connected: This image visualizes the "incident = reflection angle" part of my explanation. Did you notice that you avoid my simple questions? I wonder why, are they too simple to be worth for a reply? I invite you to kindly to be less in confrontation mode. 

Ok here is the next one. A candle, so a spherical light source, and we see also here a line of reflection on the table:

I am sure you saw something similar like this in reality before, didn't you? 

And thus, why shouldn't the water surface act the same? 

Also no simulation, right? (just answer with "yes/no" please, it won't hurt). 

Or here, another scene and instead of an photo with long exposure time, as video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vC13F967Xtc 

You've gave perfect example of why this earth is a two dimentional simulation.

the fact that light continues along a line, in fact it should be spread out to four sides, is proof that it is not real, it is simulation.

Thank you for proved the earth's being a simulation.

Did you really just wrote, that our 3 spatial dimensions, we daily live in, are completely 2D-simulated? Saying something like that doesn't help with your credibility, wise

Please don't make me have to go through an entire thread like this again to clean up a bunch of insults and temper tantrums.

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2019, 11:24:29 AM

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 07:44:01 AM

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2019, 05:36:37 AM

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 12:37:49 AM

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

The light source from doing the flashlight effect. Is the moonlight like that? Is it just along a line? I do not think so. This is no way connected to the real moonlight, but BS. This visual is total a BS.

It is connected: This image visualizes the "incident = reflection angle" part of my explanation. Did you notice that you avoid my simple questions? I wonder why, are they too simple to be worth for a reply? I invite you to kindly to be less in confrontation mode. 

Ok here is the next one. A candle, so a spherical light source, and we see also here a line of reflection on the table:

I am sure you saw something similar like this in reality before, didn't you? 

And thus, why shouldn't the water surface act the same? 

Also no simulation, right? (just answer with "yes/no" please, it won't hurt). 

Or here, another scene and instead of an photo with long exposure time, as video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vC13F967Xtc 

You've gave perfect example of why this earth is a two dimentional simulation.

the fact that light continues along a line, in fact it should be spread out to four sides, is proof that it is not real, it is simulation.

Thank you for proved the earth's being a simulation.

Did you really just wrote, that our 3 spatial dimensions, we daily live in, are completely 2D-simulated? Saying something like that doesn't help with your credibility, wise

I am not saying this for the first time.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2137912#msg2137912

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2155823#msg2155823

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2157752#msg2157752

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2137669#msg2137669

I think wise already has the crediblity of wise with simulation theory.

Please don't make me have to go through an entire thread like this again to clean up a bunch of insults and temper tantrums.

the subject went to a slightly different area, but that did not happen at our request. This has evolved to itself. Hey, relax, I think you have not to spend your credit points here.

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 11:29:26 AM

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2019, 11:24:29 AM

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 07:44:01 AM

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2019, 05:36:37 AM

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 12:37:49 AM

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

The light source from doing the flashlight effect. Is the moonlight like that? Is it just along a line? I do not think so. This is no way connected to the real moonlight, but BS. This visual is total a BS.

It is connected: This image visualizes the "incident = reflection angle" part of my explanation. Did you notice that you avoid my simple questions? I wonder why, are they too simple to be worth for a reply? I invite you to kindly to be less in confrontation mode. 

Ok here is the next one. A candle, so a spherical light source, and we see also here a line of reflection on the table:

I am sure you saw something similar like this in reality before, didn't you? 

And thus, why shouldn't the water surface act the same? 

Also no simulation, right? (just answer with "yes/no" please, it won't hurt). 

Or here, another scene and instead of an photo with long exposure time, as video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vC13F967Xtc 

You've gave perfect example of why this earth is a two dimentional simulation.

the fact that light continues along a line, in fact it should be spread out to four sides, is proof that it is not real, it is simulation.

Thank you for proved the earth's being a simulation.

Did you really just wrote, that our 3 spatial dimensions, we daily live in, are completely 2D-simulated? Saying something like that doesn't help with your credibility, wise

I am not saying this for the first time.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2137912#msg2137912

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2155823#msg2155823

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2157752#msg2157752

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2137669#msg2137669

I think wise already has the crediblity of wise with simulation theory.

wow.. you have been busy with this, that is for sure 
But whether simulation or not, it is 3D per definition. 2D is only in one plane
.... now "flat earth" written by you gets a completely new meaning 

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2019, 12:33:22 PM

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 11:29:26 AM

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2019, 11:24:29 AM

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 07:44:01 AM

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2019, 05:36:37 AM

Quote from: Souleon on May 11, 2019, 12:37:49 AM

But ok, I approach it differently. The following can do everyone easily at home:

No simulation involved, do you agree?

(I am just trying to figure out at which point exactly you don't agree with my explanation).

The light source from doing the flashlight effect. Is the moonlight like that? Is it just along a line? I do not think so. This is no way connected to the real moonlight, but BS. This visual is total a BS.

It is connected: This image visualizes the "incident = reflection angle" part of my explanation. Did you notice that you avoid my simple questions? I wonder why, are they too simple to be worth for a reply? I invite you to kindly to be less in confrontation mode. 

Ok here is the next one. A candle, so a spherical light source, and we see also here a line of reflection on the table:

I am sure you saw something similar like this in reality before, didn't you? 

And thus, why shouldn't the water surface act the same? 

Also no simulation, right? (just answer with "yes/no" please, it won't hurt). 

Or here, another scene and instead of an photo with long exposure time, as video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vC13F967Xtc 

You've gave perfect example of why this earth is a two dimentional simulation.

the fact that light continues along a line, in fact it should be spread out to four sides, is proof that it is not real, it is simulation.

Thank you for proved the earth's being a simulation.

Did you really just wrote, that our 3 spatial dimensions, we daily live in, are completely 2D-simulated? Saying something like that doesn't help with your credibility, wise

I am not saying this for the first time.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2137912#msg2137912

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2155823#msg2155823

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2157752#msg2157752

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2137669#msg2137669

I think wise already has the crediblity of wise with simulation theory.

wow.. you have been busy with this, that is for sure 
But whether simulation or not, it is 3D per definition. 2D is only in one plane
.... now "flat earth" written by you gets a completely new meaning 

I am working on many disciplines of flat earth theory. Simulaton theory is compared new developed theory, I've took it my work book in 2018. It doesn't mean I'll explain everything with it. It's a theory. it is consistent in itself and explains a lot of issues. but when it comes to other flat world theories, it is necessary to see what the outcome will be after simulation theory encountered with the others. yet I can't say that all areas are outstanding with simulation theory. we do not have enough work on this issue. we need more work on this. The number of employees in this regard in the world is very little compared to other subjects of the flat world. To give an example, I'm just trying to do this on this site, and this is just one of the things I'm working on. very little and insufficient in general.