Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain

Nice try. But you made a mentality mistake. The explanation is already made depends on flat earth dome model. What was your expection about it, does it has to include space, instead of flat earth dome?

If it needed to include the dome why did you post a picture trying to explain it that was completely wrong and had no dome?
You are just making up excuses to pretend you aren't wrong.

But as I said, dome or no dome, IT STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN IT!
Notice how even with your dome the light is going downwards?
You need to explain how the light ends up going upwards, towards the bottom of a cloud.

Quote from: JackBlack on June 14, 2019, 02:13:23 AM

Quote from: wise on June 14, 2019, 12:55:22 AM

Please do not forget to add the dome affection.

Only if you can show the dome is real.

Even then all you manage to do is get it to come back into the same direction. That isn't going to cause a cloud (or any object) to be illuminated from below while the sun is above.
Nor is it going to make the sun set.
So you still have the same problems.

Nice try. But you made a mentality mistake. The explanation is already made depends on flat earth dome model. What was your expection about it, does it has to include space, instead of flat earth dome?

There's no way that your "Dome Hypothesis" can explain this sort of thing that needs upward slanting sun's rays!

Upward slanting sun's rays shining up under the cloud layer:

Sun's rays shining up on clouds before sunrise

And upward slanting shadows on the underside of clouds with the sun lower than the peak of Mount Rainier:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Clouds_Lit_From_Below

This is clouds by lit by diffuse light from the underneath:

and not well defined direct rays as in:

Sun's rays shining up on clouds before sunrise

But in my photo the sun's rays are shining upwards from behind a cloud almost on the horizon.
If the sun were higher in the sky it would be readily be visible:

P.67 2018 Mar 20 - Equinox Sunrise 05:58:18

And if you are going you suggest your Electromagnetic Acceleration I suggest that you provide evidence that:

• Such bending of light by electric or magnetic fields is even possible is the atmosphere and the near vacuum above.
• If you have evidence for  (1) there is a plausible source of such fields.

Electromagnetic Acceleration
According to the theory hypothesis of the Electromagnetic Accelerator, light is bending upwards over very long distances and can illuminate the underside of clouds during sunrise or sunset.

If you have no evidence your Electromagnetic Acceleration hypothesis is a nothing but a baseless hypothesis.

With the regularly observed upward slanting shadow from Mt Rainier, the idea of the sun's rays being reflected seems highly unlikely unless you can identify sufficiently large bodies of water in exactly the required position.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Clouds_Lit_From_Below

Are you capable of providing arguments or just spamming links?
We aren't discussing a reflection off the ocean or the like. The image provided in the OP doesn't match that at all.
Notice how the clouds in your link are clearly illuminated from above, while in the OP there is absolutely no sign of illumination from above?

Also, it isn't according to the Universities Space Research Association, it is according to Dave Lynch.

It also cant account for the easily observed upwards cast shadows from the sun near sunset, including when you can still see the sun.

As for your magic bendy light, there is absolutely no justification for thinking light bends like that, especially considering the massive anisotropy it requires. Such bendy light also destroys a large collection of FE arguments, including the Bedford Level failure which is often touted.
So I think I'll stick with the rational FE explanation rather than magic bendy light.

Really? It's your picture. Prove that the sun's light isn't bouncing off of anything or that the rays are caused from curvature rather than any other cause. You came here and posted that picture. There are multiple explanations for what may be occuring, and you have nothing except some hand waiving assumption.

Really? It's your picture. Prove that the sun's light isn't bouncing off of anything or that the rays are caused from curvature rather than any other cause. You came here and posted that picture. There are multiple explanations for what may be occuring, and you have nothing except some hand waiving assumption.

I think we all know what is happening here, these continual attempts to get a single person here to come up with proof you will not accept is pointless.  Clearly this shows the sun shining below the clouds on a round earth.

Look how thin that cloud layer is.
And yet, you can't see direct sunlight coming through, while you can see some much weaker reflection coming from below?
Where is the Sun from above?
LOL

Ah, so there is no actual evidence that this is caused by a ball earth then.

You have horse blinders on.

Ah, so there is no actual evidence that this is caused by a ball earth then.

Yes, the location of the sun relative to the earth shows this.

(Tom, any news of the details of your plan to produce a map of the earth?)

Really? It's your picture.

No it isn't.

Prove that the sun's light isn't bouncing off of anything

If the sun was above we should see signs of it being illuminated from above. Just like the picture on your wiki has the close regions of the cloud clearly illuminated from above.
That is not the case with the picture of the OP.

And again, it can be done far more directly by measuring at sunset or sunrise, especially at high altitude which then allows one to note that the suns shadow is cast upwards as you can directly see it and the shadow it is casting.

that the rays are caused from curvature

I'm not saying the rays are caused by curvature.
I am merely saying the OP and other such instances show the sun goes below your position on Earth.

There are multiple explanations for what may be occuring, and you have nothing except some hand waiving assumption.

Not really.
There is one simple, rational explanation, and then there are your attempts to appeal to pure magic, i.e. hand waiving assumptions to try and prop up a failed model.

Ah, so there is no actual evidence that this is caused by a ball earth then.

No, this is part of strong evidence of a round Earth. The other key part is that the sun always remains above some point on Earth.
It works just fine with the ancient FE model which only had one time zone which the sun literally went below.

No one has been able to provide any rational alternative, just attempts which clearly don't work, and pure magic.

Really? It's your picture. Prove that the sun's light isn't bouncing off of anything or that the rays are caused from curvature rather than any other cause. You came here and posted that picture. There are multiple explanations for what may be occuring, and you have nothing except some hand waiving assumption.

To which photo are you referring? Has no one told you about the [quote] . . . . [/quote] that clarifies this issue?

The previous post to your was by JackBlack and contained only your photo!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 12:05:54 AM

https://wiki.tfes.org/Clouds_Lit_From_Below

Are you capable of providing arguments or just spamming links?
We aren't discussing a reflection off the ocean or the like. The image provided in the OP doesn't match that at all.
Notice how the clouds in your link are clearly illuminated from above, while in the OP there is absolutely no sign of illumination from above?

---

Maybe this is the photo:

But in my photo the sun's rays are shining upwards from behind a cloud almost on the horizon.
If the sun were higher in the sky it would be readily be visible:

P.67 2018 Mar 20 - Equinox Sunrise 05:58:18

As I noted there. If the illumination was not from the sun at a very low altitude then where do YOU suggest the light came from?

---

And YOU dare talk of "some hand waiving assumption" after coming up with a hypothesis like your Electromagnetic Acceleration!

And if you are going you suggest your Electromagnetic Acceleration I suggest that you provide evidence that:
Such bending of light by electric or magnetic fields is even possible is the atmosphere and the near vacuum above.

In case YOU hadn't heard photons are electrically neutral and are unaffected by electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields.
The only effect is the rotation of the plane of polarisation due to magnetic fields in some solids.
You might read Q & A: Light and Magnets... and Gravity Q: How far can a magnetic field bend light?
So unless you have some solid evidence of this effect then Electromagnetic Acceleration is simply a baseless assertion! More hand-waving.

---

With the regularly observed upward slanting shadow from Mt Rainier, the idea of the sun's rays being reflected seems highly unlikely unless you can identify sufficiently large bodies of water in exactly the required position.

Please identify these "sufficiently large bodies of water in exactly the required position" to cause the "regularly observed upward slanting shadow from Mt Rainier".

You accuse us of "having nothing except some hand waiving assumptions" yet propose pure hypotheses like Universal Acceleration and Electromagnetic Acceleration. Talk about being hypocritical!

Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.

Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.

No, it relies upon simple logic.
Your refutation relies upon pure magic.

Again, the only "alternative" to the sun actually being below is to have the light magically bend upwards, which destroys a large portion of FE "arguments", as this bending light would cause similar issues as the curvature of Earth, so the high prophet Row Boat wouldn't have seen the flag.

Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.

Sunsets of Mt Everest. The shadows from lower mountains creep up to obscure higher mountains. The sun is not reflecting up off of the sea, or anything, for example. It can’t, there are mountains in the way.  No matter how far away the sun gets it can’t cast a shadow upward to the top of the highest mountain in the world unless it is moving ‘downward’. In other words, setting behind a horizon.

A 3000 mile high FE sun can't cast a shadow upward on the mountains no matter how far away it gets; it never breaks the horizontal plane of the lower peak to do so:

The fe sun would appear to move slower at sunset, while in reality the sun appears to move faster at sunset.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 03:50:35 PM

Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.

No, it relies upon simple logic.
Your refutation relies upon pure magic.

Again, the only "alternative" to the sun actually being below is to have the light magically bend upwards, which destroys a large portion of FE "arguments", as this bending light would cause similar issues as the curvature of Earth, so the high prophet Row Boat wouldn't have seen the flag.

Where did we say that it simulates RET?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 03:50:35 PM

Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.

Sunsets of Mt Everest. The shadows from lower mountains creep up to obscure higher mountains. The sun is not reflecting up off of the sea, or anything, for example. It can’t, there are mountains in the way.  No matter how far away the sun gets it can’t cast a shadow upward to the top of the highest mountain in the world unless it is moving ‘downward’. In other words, setting behind a horizon.

A 3000 mile high FE sun can't cast a shadow upward on the mountains no matter how far away it gets; it never breaks the horizontal plane of the lower peak to do so:

Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.

Your argument is literally akin to me claiming that pouring a cup of water on golfball disproves RET gravity.

You have to address the models available.

Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.

Didn't you read?

And YOU dare talk of "some hand waiving assumption" after coming up with a hypothesis like your Electromagnetic Acceleration!

Quote from: rabinoz on June 15, 2019, 01:58:18 AM

And if you are going you suggest your Electromagnetic Acceleration I suggest that you provide evidence that:
Such bending of light by electric or magnetic fields is even possible is the atmosphere and the near vacuum above.

In case YOU hadn't heard photons are electrically neutral and are unaffected by electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields.
The only effect is the rotation of the plane of polarisation due to magnetic fields in some solids.
You might read Q & A: Light and Magnets... and Gravity Q: How far can a magnetic field bend light?
So unless you have some solid evidence of this effect then Electromagnetic Acceleration is simply a baseless assertion! More hand-waving.

You accuse us of "having nothing except some hand waiving assumptions" yet propose pure hypotheses like Universal Acceleration and Electromagnetic Acceleration. Talk about being hypocritical!

Then read Stash's post: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain « Reply #45 on: Today at 10:02:03 AM »

And you hand-waving with projections and impossible Electromagnetic Acceleration seems such an unnecessary complexity.
All those guesses cannot match the simple explanation of the sun's being hidden by the earth and then majestically rising into full view!

Sunrise - Black Sea HD 265,498 views by kalcymc
Or

HD Video 1080p 4K - Timelapse with Sunrise Sunsets by ZH Media

What are you rambling about? You just posted pictures of what RET claims are illusions! The sun is below the horizon in those pictures in RET.

Quote from: Stash on June 15, 2019, 05:02:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 03:50:35 PM

Your proof relies on an assumption which you refuse to demonstrate. Please demonstrate your explanation against any other.

Sunsets of Mt Everest. The shadows from lower mountains creep up to obscure higher mountains. The sun is not reflecting up off of the sea, or anything, for example. It can’t, there are mountains in the way.  No matter how far away the sun gets it can’t cast a shadow upward to the top of the highest mountain in the world unless it is moving ‘downward’. In other words, setting behind a horizon.

A 3000 mile high FE sun can't cast a shadow upward on the mountains no matter how far away it gets; it never breaks the horizontal plane of the lower peak to do so:

Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.

You have to address the models available.

And the model in your Wiki seems to be:

Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to an elliptic area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise on a Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.

Rendered picture of the Sun in relation to the Earth

Stash's diagram pictures that rather well!

A 3000 mile high FE sun can't cast a shadow upward on the mountains no matter how far away it gets; it never breaks the horizontal plane of the lower peak to do so:

Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.

Your argument is literally akin to me claiming that pouring a cup of water on golfball disproves RET gravity.

You have to address the models available.

I don't see that as the case. Instead of a 3000 mile high sun which I thought was pretty common in FET should I cite SBR's 700 mile high sun instead?

Do you mean this as how the sun works from your wiki:

"Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective."

How am I saying anything that is not akin to an FE sun? No matter this nonsense of a "laws of perspective" the sun still can't descend below the plane of the top of the lower mountain to cast a shadow up on to the top of the highest mountain in the world in FET.

So why don't you point out where I have incorrectly addressed the FE sun 'model' instead of dodging the issue entirely.

What are you rambling about? You just posted pictures of what RET claims are illusions! The sun is below the horizon in those pictures in RET.

What do you mean "illusions"? No one that I've seen, other than you, claims that sunrise is an illusion.
Now watch the two videos linked to the sunrise photographs!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 06:12:59 PM

What are you rambling about? You just posted pictures of what RET claims are illusions! The sun is below the horizon in those pictures in RET.

What do you mean "illusions"? No one that I've seen, other than you, claims that sunrise is an illusion.
Now watch the two videos linked to the sunrise photographs!

RET says that the sun is below the horizon in the pictures you posted.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 05:32:46 PM

Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.

Your argument is literally akin to me claiming that pouring a cup of water on golfball disproves RET gravity.

You have to address the models available.

I don't see that as the case. Instead of a 3000 mile high sun which I thought was pretty common in FET should I cite SBR's 700 mile high sun instead?

Do you mean this as how the sun works from your wiki:

"Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective."

How am I saying anything that is not akin to an FE sun? No matter this nonsense of a "laws of perspective" the sun still can't descend below the plane of the top of the lower mountain to cast a shadow up on to the top of the highest mountain in the world in FET.

So why don't you point out where I have incorrectly addressed the FE sun 'model' instead of dodging the issue entirely.

Please point out which FE model depicts a sun that recedes forever without setting into the horizon.

Quote from: Stash on June 15, 2019, 06:25:04 PM

I don't see that as the case. Instead of a 3000 mile high sun which I thought was pretty common in FET should I cite SBR's 700 mile high sun instead?

Do you mean this as how the sun works from your wiki:

"Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective."

How am I saying anything that is not akin to an FE sun? No matter this nonsense of a "laws of perspective" the sun still can't descend below the plane of the top of the lower mountain to cast a shadow up on to the top of the highest mountain in the world in FET.

So why don't you point out where I have incorrectly addressed the FE sun 'model' instead of dodging the issue entirely.

Please point out which FE model depicts a sun that recedes forever without setting into the horizon.

This one!

Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to an elliptic area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise on a Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.

Rendered picture of the Sun in relation to the Earth

Unless you drag in quite impossible refraction or totally unsupportable hypotheses like your Electromagnetic Accelerator.

Quote from: Stash on June 15, 2019, 06:25:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2019, 05:32:46 PM

Interesting. However, no FE model says that is how the sun works.

Your argument is literally akin to me claiming that pouring a cup of water on golfball disproves RET gravity.

You have to address the models available.

I don't see that as the case. Instead of a 3000 mile high sun which I thought was pretty common in FET should I cite SBR's 700 mile high sun instead?

Do you mean this as how the sun works from your wiki:

"Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective."

How am I saying anything that is not akin to an FE sun? No matter this nonsense of a "laws of perspective" the sun still can't descend below the plane of the top of the lower mountain to cast a shadow up on to the top of the highest mountain in the world in FET.

So why don't you point out where I have incorrectly addressed the FE sun 'model' instead of dodging the issue entirely.

Please point out which FE model depicts a sun that recedes forever without setting into the horizon.

Where did I ever say it recedes forever? I said no matter how far away it gets.

From your wiki:

"In a long row of lamps, the second, supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series, will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.

I said no matter how far away the sun gets (recedes) it cannot cast a shadow from the lower peak up to the top of higher peak on a flat earth. Don't start with the disingenuous distraction that I'm not addressing the FET model just because you can't explain the Everest evidence. You asked for a demonstration and got 3. Now address it directly and stop dodging.

None of those models say that the sun recedes forever without setting. A long line of lamp posts also "sets" into the horizon.

Your rebuttal is a theory about perspective and infinitely receding perspective lines which was created in ancient times. Your rebuttal is an ancient theory.

None of those models say that the sun recedes forever without setting.

What are you even talking about? No one ever said anything about a sun receding forever. Do I have to explain to you how FET explains sunsets (sunrises)?

Here's a refresher: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun

Now, how does the above refresher explain the shadow from the lower mountain rising up to the top of the highest mountain when the FE sun is receding (setting)?