Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain

  • 122 Replies
  • 3360 Views
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #90 on: June 18, 2019, 03:03:41 AM »
you are fully discredited.
say something intelligent and we can continue discussions.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #91 on: June 18, 2019, 03:04:25 AM »
you are fully discredited.
say something intelligent and we can continue discussions.

Baseless talkings and baseless disrespecting out of topic again. Reported because of low content.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #92 on: June 18, 2019, 03:05:33 AM »
newton was wrong on a few things.
but he was right on other things.
be right on something and we can continue discussions.
so far you're batting 0:1,000,000

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #93 on: June 18, 2019, 04:10:56 AM »
you ignore the fact that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said.
Again, provide the full details, otherwise it isn't helping your case.
Even your diagram shows the light going downwards, not upwards, so it still can't cast light upwards and cause a mountain to cast a shadow upwards on the cloud unless it is below it.
If you wish to disagree, provide the details of your dome, showing clearly how the sun casts light upwards to the mountain (and even to objects quite close to Earth).

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #94 on: June 18, 2019, 04:17:28 AM »


The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #95 on: June 18, 2019, 04:39:28 AM »
I've already drawed how it works.
No you haven't.
You have shown how your dome can make downwards going light still go down.
What you need to show is how this downwards going light magically turns around and goes upwards.
You need to show how the sun casts light upwards on an object that is below it.

Posting the same image elsewhere wont help you as it doesn't show what you need to show.
You may as well just be posting a picture of a cat, that would be just as good an argument (i.e. not good at all).

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #96 on: June 18, 2019, 05:04:13 AM »


Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

rabinoz

  • 22617
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #97 on: June 18, 2019, 05:53:49 AM »

No, your diagram shows the sunlight still shining DOWN and not upwards as needed to explain the "Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain".

The left-hand side shows how it happens on the Globe but the right-hand side shows why you Flat-Earth explanation cannot cause those upward slanting shadows!

And dome excuse does not help much at all.

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #98 on: June 18, 2019, 05:59:28 AM »
Oh i thought we were talking about shadows ON the mohntain
Haha
either way
Fe logic fails.

*

Macarios

  • 1739
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #99 on: June 18, 2019, 07:29:29 AM »
They say Sun is 5000 km high and 51 km in diameter (32 miles).
If you are in Mineapolis at solar noon for Equinox, Sun will have angular diameter of 2 * ArcTg(25.5 / 7071) = 0.41 degrees.
In reality we see angular diameter of 0.53 degrees, which means Sun ahs to be 2 * tg(0.275) * 7071 = 65 km = 40 miles.
(7071 km is distance along the line of sight because the ground distance from Mineapolis to Equator is 5000 km and Sun is 5000 km above it.)

To reach vanishing point Sun has to look as small as 0.0167 degrees (1 arc minute).
Remember, the 0.0167 degrees (1/60 of a degree) is not only vertically but also horizontally.

With 65 km in diameter it has to be (65/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 223 450 km away.
There is not enough room under the dome. The whole diameter of the flat disc is 40 000 km.
It is 5.5 times smaller.

Even if it was just 51 km in diameter, it would have to be (51/2) / tg(0.0167/2) = 175 325 km away.
Still can't fit.
40 000 km is still 4.3 times smaller.

Even at that distance Sun would keep floating at ArcTg(5000 / 175 325) = 1.6 degrees above the horizon.

And still 5000 - 6 = 4994 kilometers higher than the highest clouds. :)

Another option would be if light simply stops at 10 000 km from Sun and we don't see it any more.
Then how that light hits tops of high mountains and tall buildings further away behind us?

The third option would be for Sun to hide behind something for sunset and sunrise, but that's what FE is trying to avoid.

you ignore the fact that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said.

Many models put Sun inside the dome.
If you pull Sun out of the Dome you still can't make it be 175 325 km away, and bottom cloud illumination chances are even worse.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #100 on: June 18, 2019, 01:55:17 PM »
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
I'm a big cry baby
 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
If you want to do it for bot protection you need to obfuscate the text.
Computers are very good at reading well formatted text with well known fonts.
All I need to do is upload your image to google drive then tell it to open in google docs, and I get all the text.

Now again, stop just imaging I say what you want me to.
I don't care about the garbage image you have posted.
That image does not help your case.
I'm not denying that you have posted a completely irrelevant image.
I accept that you have spammed such an image.
Repeatedly spamming it as if it magically solves your problem is just further showing you have no answer.

Again, what direction is the light in your image?
DOWNWARDS!
Do you understand that?
The direction of the light in your image is going downwards towards Earth.
This means if it hits a mountain, the mountain will cast an image which goes downwards towards Earth.
Notice how this is not going upwards, towards a cloud?

What you need to show is light going upwards from below the mountain, towards the top of the mountain such that it can then cast a shadow on a cloud above the mountain.
Refraction doesn't magically make the light go upwards, no matter how hard you try and how much you practice your spells.

As you are just spamming the same image which doesn't address the issue at all, I haven't been lying.
You repeatedly claiming to have been able to address the issues means you have been lying (as you haven't addressed the issue).


So I will ask again, can you provide an explanation (preferably with an image) which shows how the light goes upwards.
Note the image needs to show the light going upwards, hitting a mountain, and casting a shadow on a cloud above the mountain.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #101 on: June 18, 2019, 02:40:18 PM »
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
I'm a big cry baby
 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
If you want to do it for bot protection you need to obfuscate the text.
Computers are very good at reading well formatted text with well known fonts.
All I need to do is upload your image to google drive then tell it to open in google docs, and I get all the text.

Now again, stop just imaging I say what you want me to.
I don't care about the garbage image you have posted.
That image does not help your case.
I'm not denying that you have posted a completely irrelevant image.
I accept that you have spammed such an image.
Repeatedly spamming it as if it magically solves your problem is just further showing you have no answer.

Again, what direction is the light in your image?
DOWNWARDS!
Do you understand that?
The direction of the light in your image is going downwards towards Earth.
This means if it hits a mountain, the mountain will cast an image which goes downwards towards Earth.
Notice how this is not going upwards, towards a cloud?

What you need to show is light going upwards from below the mountain, towards the top of the mountain such that it can then cast a shadow on a cloud above the mountain.
Refraction doesn't magically make the light go upwards, no matter how hard you try and how much you practice your spells.

As you are just spamming the same image which doesn't address the issue at all, I haven't been lying.
You repeatedly claiming to have been able to address the issues means you have been lying (as you haven't addressed the issue).


So I will ask again, can you provide an explanation (preferably with an image) which shows how the light goes upwards.
Note the image needs to show the light going upwards, hitting a mountain, and casting a shadow on a cloud above the mountain.

In the one hand, you are targeting me with two or three accounts.

On the other hand, whenever I knock out you then your fans admins are deleting my posts to hide your being knock out.

It is obviously admins are deleting me to provocate and stop me. This is their main target. Because you are crying them. Since you are their boss they have to be obey your orders to stop me.

Are you thinking it is required to reply all your baseless statements are not worth than a shit but more worth than our admins?
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

Stash

  • 3113
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #102 on: June 18, 2019, 06:42:07 PM »
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
I'm a big cry baby
 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
If you want to do it for bot protection you need to obfuscate the text.
Computers are very good at reading well formatted text with well known fonts.
All I need to do is upload your image to google drive then tell it to open in google docs, and I get all the text.

Now again, stop just imaging I say what you want me to.
I don't care about the garbage image you have posted.
That image does not help your case.
I'm not denying that you have posted a completely irrelevant image.
I accept that you have spammed such an image.
Repeatedly spamming it as if it magically solves your problem is just further showing you have no answer.

Again, what direction is the light in your image?
DOWNWARDS!
Do you understand that?
The direction of the light in your image is going downwards towards Earth.
This means if it hits a mountain, the mountain will cast an image which goes downwards towards Earth.
Notice how this is not going upwards, towards a cloud?

What you need to show is light going upwards from below the mountain, towards the top of the mountain such that it can then cast a shadow on a cloud above the mountain.
Refraction doesn't magically make the light go upwards, no matter how hard you try and how much you practice your spells.

As you are just spamming the same image which doesn't address the issue at all, I haven't been lying.
You repeatedly claiming to have been able to address the issues means you have been lying (as you haven't addressed the issue).


So I will ask again, can you provide an explanation (preferably with an image) which shows how the light goes upwards.
Note the image needs to show the light going upwards, hitting a mountain, and casting a shadow on a cloud above the mountain.

In the one hand, you are targeting me with two or three accounts.

On the other hand, whenever I knock out you then your fans admins are deleting my posts to hide your being knock out.

It is obviously admins are deleting me to provocate and stop me. This is their main target. Because you are crying them. Since you are their boss they have to be obey your orders to stop me.

Are you thinking it is required to reply all your baseless statements are not worth than a shit but more worth than our admins?

Aside from all of the above. You wrote to Macarios, "You ignore the fact that the sun is behind a spherical water wall that causes light refraction. calculate it again, but this time, considering the factor I said."

What's that factor? And how does that factor specifically bend the light up under a cloud or cast a shadow from a lower mountain onto the top of a higher mountain. What's the calculation you speak of that would explain this phenomena?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #103 on: June 24, 2019, 05:37:56 AM »
Aside from all of the above. You wrote to Macarios, "You ignore the fact ...
I'm glad to see you have awared I have wrote to Macarios, but not to you.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

Macarios

  • 1739
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #104 on: June 24, 2019, 11:24:02 AM »
Aside from all of the above. You wrote to Macarios, "You ignore the fact ...
I'm glad to see you have awared I have wrote to Macarios, but not to you.

This is public forum and threads are not private correspondence between you and me.
He or everyone else has right to join the conversation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the "Spherical Water Wall", here is diagram, show us where is the Sun and how sunlight gets to the horizon.

Add Sun here and add the missing part of the sunbeam from Sun to horizon.

I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #105 on: June 24, 2019, 12:47:08 PM »
This is public forum and threads are not private correspondence between you and me.

I do not remember I said its being forbid, and you?


He or everyone else has right to join the conversation.

Surely, and I have a right to critise it, haven't I?

Reply my statements first before continue to reply remained statements. And as a note, I've ignored him, you see his name in my ignore list. I have a right to ignore him too, haven't I?He is not provide information but make knowledge pollution. Do you respect my thoughts or not?

About the "Spherical Water Wall", here is diagram, show us where is the Sun and how sunlight gets to the horizon.

A diagram's showing something is your own thoughts. There is not a value in the name of being an evidence.

Add Sun here and add the missing part of the sunbeam from Sun to horizon.

Is there any proof of this or are you talking depends on your free ignorance?

Drawing

the way you draw is not the same as my subject.

however, when you look at the sky, it is higher above you perspectival but adjacent to the ground in the horizon. that is, where the sun sets, the place where the dome seems like touches the ground and the horizon meet in the same place. You cannot see 6,000 kmeters horizontally with the naked eye, an object at that distance merges on the horizon. this also has to do with the fact that angular size is a reverse trigonometric function. The dome is not closed in the form of a semicircle. so the angular size quickly shrinks to you according to observe point  at the horizon at 6000 km with a difference you can't notice. I hope you can understand that. I hope you can get this.

There isn't a gap between dome and atmoflat.

The highness of the dome is 100 kms.

Please calculate the appearent size of an object has 100 km high and 6000 kms distance to the observe point first.

If you draw it considering centered observe point and dome's apperance depends on its angular size to observe point then this turns a realistic drawing can be talked about.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #106 on: June 24, 2019, 01:19:48 PM »
Sucha detailed critique of his drawong.
Why not dispell all confusion and produce your own drawing.
Or photo.

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #107 on: June 24, 2019, 02:46:07 PM »
I do not remember I said its being forbid, and you?
You didn't say that directly, instead you dismissed what someone said because they weren't who you wanted to respond to.

I've ignored him
No you didn't.
If you ignored him, you wouldn't have responded.

A diagram's showing something is your own thoughts. There is not a value in the name of being an evidence.
No, this is of great value.
You are claiming your magic dome magically results in the light from the sun being bent upwards to hit the bottom of clouds, with mountains casting shadows upwards on a mountain.
You are yet to establish just how this magic works but instead just repeatedly appeal to your magic dome.

Macarios has been kind enough to provide a drawing of your dome where all you need to do is add in the sun and some lines showing where the light goes. Yet you still refuse to make a picture showing how the light hits the clouds from below.
the way you draw is not the same as my subject.
Then draw it like you want it drawn.
Give us a picture, showing the dome, the sun, the mountain and the cloud, and clearly show how the light rays from the sun are travelling upwards such that the mountain casts a shadow on the clouds.

this also has to do with the fact that angular size is a reverse trigonometric function.
No it isn't.
We have wonderful tools like telescopes and binoculars which greatly enhance angular resolution, but which fail to move the horizon.

Please calculate the appearent size of an object has 100 km high and 6000 kms distance to the observe point first.
Are you saying the sun is only 100 km high? Otherwise I fail to see how this is relevant.
This also has massive implications for the size of the sun.
If the sun is only 100 km high then when it is directly above you it is 100 km away, while at sunset it would be roughly 6000 km away. That is a factor of 60. Due to the small angles involved we can approximate angular size using the small x approximation and end up with the sun at sunset being ~one 60th of the size of it at mid day when directly above. But this is never observed.

Also, to directly answer your question, that is still 1 degree above the horizon. (more accurately it is ~0.95 degrees or 57' 17". This is much greater than the limit of even human resolution.
So no sunset at 6000 km. In order to bring a 100 km object to within the horizon within the limit of human resolution (~ 1 arc minute) you would need to move it to a distance of roughly 343 775 km away.

*

Macarios

  • 1739
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #108 on: June 24, 2019, 03:20:35 PM »
that is, where the sun sets, the place where the dome seems like touches the ground and the horizon meet in the same place.

If Dome exists it covers the whole Earth.
Looking from Africa you see Sun sets somewhere in Brazil?
Why people don't see end of the Dome there?

In reality your horizon is much closer.
Stand at a beach by the sea:
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.

You cannot see 6,000 kmeters horizontally with the naked eye, an object at that distance merges on the horizon. This also has to do with the fact that angular size is
a reverse trigonometric function. The dome is not closed in the form of a semicircle. So the angular size quickly shrinks to you according to observe point  at the horizon
at 6000 km with a difference you can't notice. I hope you can understand that. I hope you can get this.

There isn't a gap between dome and atmoflat.

The highness of the dome is 100 kms.


I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.

If we apply standard refraction then:
If you are 2 m above the sea, horizon is 5.45 km away.
If you are 1 km above the sea, horizon is 96 km away.
If you are 10 km above the sea, horizon is at 304 km.
If you are 100 km above the sea, horizon is at 966 km.

And you say that Dome is directly at 100 km.

Do you see now what is the problem?

Please calculate the appearent size of an object has 100 km high and 6000 kms distance to the observe point first.

If you draw it considering centered observe point and dome's apperance depends on its angular size to observe point then this turns a realistic drawing can be talked about.

Object 6000 km away and 100 km high is (in direct line) is 6001 km away from the eye.
SQRT(60002 + 1002) = 6000.8
The triangle has very sharp angle and the difference between the hipotenuse and the leg is small.
ArcTan(100/6000) = 0.95 degrees.

Apparent size of an object at that distance depends on physical size of the object.

For example: object with diameter of 30 km will have apparent size (angular diameter) of
2 * ArcTan[(30/2) / 6000.8] = 0.286 degrees = 17.16 arc minutes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right now, at this very moment, I think that it is important to imagine two people looking at the Sun simultaneously from two places very far away from each other.

Where is the dome for some guy in Istanbul, and where will guy from Madrid see that same dome?

Guy in Madrid will have Sun still 32.8 degrees away from sunset.
Time difference is 2 hours and 10 minutes and the distance is 2740 km.

And in reality Sun travels at the constant speed of 15 degrees per hour.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #109 on: June 26, 2019, 01:52:36 AM »
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #110 on: June 26, 2019, 02:06:39 AM »
If Dome exists it covers the whole Earth.
Correct. Limit of dome may be more or at least equal to earth limit.
Looking from Africa you see Sun sets somewhere in Brazil?
Nope. You see sun sets somewhere at skyline. it just means you can't see it anymore.
Why people don't see end of the Dome there?
because dome is further. Again, you see the skyline, not the Brasil when you see the sun setting. Suns image unites to skyline when it setting.
In reality your horizon is much closer.
What you mean with reality, which reality, reality to whom?
Stand at a beach by the sea:
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.
It simply explains why can not you see the sun after setting. disappears behind the sea wave. you can see more if there was not waves. As a note so it is not 6000 miles but 6000kms, if I remember it true. We Europeans except Englishes and a few use metric system.

I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.

If we apply standard refraction then:
If you are 2 m above the sea, horizon is 5.45 km away.
If you are 1 km above the sea, horizon is 96 km away.
If you are 10 km above the sea, horizon is at 304 km.
If you are 100 km above the sea, horizon is at 966 km.

And you say that Dome is directly at 100 km.

Do you see now what is the problem?
There is nothing at there claim horizon's being 6000 kms. I said "you can not see anything 600kms HORIZONTALY". This is horizontal, not "horizon'tal". It means flat, level,...

<off topic>
Since you've missunderstood what I meant so you have did some explanations but I am passing this part.
Right now, at this very moment, I think that it is important to imagine two people looking at the Sun simultaneously from two places very far away from each other.

Where is the dome for some guy in Istanbul, and where will guy from Madrid see that same dome?

Guy in Madrid will have Sun still 32.8 degrees away from sunset.
Time difference is 2 hours and 10 minutes and the distance is 2740 km.

And in reality Sun travels at the constant speed of 15 degrees per hour.
this should be calculated by experiments. The outer shape of the dome is also important here. We have an estimate about it but our estimates may be a bit different. also because of light refraction and angular size you can not see the sun exactly where it is located. however, the shape of the dome can be calculated by trial and error. Since the so called scientists have nothing with real science I don't guess this will be done in a soon next.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

Macarios

  • 1739
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #111 on: June 26, 2019, 02:28:38 AM »
If Dome exists it covers the whole Earth.
Correct. Limit of dome may be more or at least equal to earth limit.
Looking from Africa you see Sun sets somewhere in Brazil?
Nope. You see sun sets somewhere at skyline. it just means you can't see it anymore.
Why people don't see end of the Dome there?
because dome is further. Again, you see the skyline, not the Brasil when you see the sun setting. Suns image unites to skyline when it setting.
In reality your horizon is much closer.
What you mean with reality, which reality, reality to whom?
Stand at a beach by the sea:
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.
It simply explains why can not you see the sun after setting. disappears behind the sea wave. you can see more if there was not waves. As a note so it is not 6000 miles but 6000kms, if I remember it true. We Europeans except Englishes and a few use metric system.

I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.

If we apply standard refraction then:
If you are 2 m above the sea, horizon is 5.45 km away.
If you are 1 km above the sea, horizon is 96 km away.
If you are 10 km above the sea, horizon is at 304 km.
If you are 100 km above the sea, horizon is at 966 km.

And you say that Dome is directly at 100 km.

Do you see now what is the problem?
There is nothing at there claim horizon's being 6000 kms. I said "you can not see anything 600kms HORIZONTALY". This is horizontal, not "horizon'tal". It means flat, level,...

<off topic>
Since you've missunderstood what I meant so you have did some explanations but I am passing this part.
Right now, at this very moment, I think that it is important to imagine two people looking at the Sun simultaneously from two places very far away from each other.

Where is the dome for some guy in Istanbul, and where will guy from Madrid see that same dome?

Guy in Madrid will have Sun still 32.8 degrees away from sunset.
Time difference is 2 hours and 10 minutes and the distance is 2740 km.

And in reality Sun travels at the constant speed of 15 degrees per hour.
this should be calculated by experiments. The outer shape of the dome is also important here. We have an estimate about it but our estimates may be a bit different. also because of light refraction and angular size you can not see the sun exactly where it is located. however, the shape of the dome can be calculated by trial and error. Since the so called scientists have nothing with real science I don't guess this will be done in a soon next.

Read your post again, slowly.
Then read your previous post, also slowly.

Compare.

You are contradicting yourself.

You don't even remember what you wrote two posts ago.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 02:30:16 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #112 on: June 26, 2019, 03:36:17 AM »
:'(
Changing the author of a quote to misattribute what is said is vastly different from ignoring someone because the person you wanted to respond didn't.
Do you understand that?

Pointing out that you are relying upon magic and are completely unable to justify your claims is not misrepresenting what you are saying.
Unless you can draw a diagram showing how the light is shining upwards at a mountain to cast a shadow upwards, I will continue to call it magic.

RE explains this quite well. In the coordinate system centred on the mountain, the sun is below the mountain, it has a lower elevation.
But FE is yet to provide an explanation.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #113 on: June 26, 2019, 04:01:52 AM »
:'( :'( :'(
I can't read and reply your post
 :'(  :'(  :'(

The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #114 on: June 26, 2019, 04:03:05 AM »
If Dome exists it covers the whole Earth.
Correct. Limit of dome may be more or at least equal to earth limit.
Looking from Africa you see Sun sets somewhere in Brazil?
Nope. You see sun sets somewhere at skyline. it just means you can't see it anymore.
Why people don't see end of the Dome there?
because dome is further. Again, you see the skyline, not the Brasil when you see the sun setting. Suns image unites to skyline when it setting.
In reality your horizon is much closer.
What you mean with reality, which reality, reality to whom?
Stand at a beach by the sea:
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.
It simply explains why can not you see the sun after setting. disappears behind the sea wave. you can see more if there was not waves. As a note so it is not 6000 miles but 6000kms, if I remember it true. We Europeans except Englishes and a few use metric system.

I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.

If we apply standard refraction then:
If you are 2 m above the sea, horizon is 5.45 km away.
If you are 1 km above the sea, horizon is 96 km away.
If you are 10 km above the sea, horizon is at 304 km.
If you are 100 km above the sea, horizon is at 966 km.

And you say that Dome is directly at 100 km.

Do you see now what is the problem?
There is nothing at there claim horizon's being 6000 kms. I said "you can not see anything 600kms HORIZONTALY". This is horizontal, not "horizon'tal". It means flat, level,...

<off topic>
Since you've missunderstood what I meant so you have did some explanations but I am passing this part.
Right now, at this very moment, I think that it is important to imagine two people looking at the Sun simultaneously from two places very far away from each other.

Where is the dome for some guy in Istanbul, and where will guy from Madrid see that same dome?

Guy in Madrid will have Sun still 32.8 degrees away from sunset.
Time difference is 2 hours and 10 minutes and the distance is 2740 km.

And in reality Sun travels at the constant speed of 15 degrees per hour.
this should be calculated by experiments. The outer shape of the dome is also important here. We have an estimate about it but our estimates may be a bit different. also because of light refraction and angular size you can not see the sun exactly where it is located. however, the shape of the dome can be calculated by trial and error. Since the so called scientists have nothing with real science I don't guess this will be done in a soon next.

Read your post again, slowly.
Then read your previous post, also slowly.

Compare.

You are contradicting yourself.

You don't even remember what you wrote two posts ago.

No, you are. Your can not understand what I tell or understand them different does not magically them different. Read them once again.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #115 on: June 26, 2019, 04:26:15 AM »
Again, STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I AM SAYING!
If you don't like your crappy picture getting replaced by crying, then stop being a cry baby and actually post what you want to say.

:'(:'(:'(
Stop lying.
You are yet to show any evidence.
So far the closest you have come is providing a picture of simple refraction which still has light going down.
Notice that it is still going down, not up.

So can you provide an explanation as to how the sun light magically starts to go upwards when it is above the object?
Until you do so I will continue to call it magic.

It has been explained to repeatedly what is being asked of you. Feigning ignorance wont help you.

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #116 on: June 26, 2019, 05:26:03 AM »
If Dome exists it covers the whole Earth.
Correct. Limit of dome may be more or at least equal to earth limit.
Looking from Africa you see Sun sets somewhere in Brazil?
Nope. You see sun sets somewhere at skyline. it just means you can't see it anymore.
Why people don't see end of the Dome there?
because dome is further. Again, you see the skyline, not the Brasil when you see the sun setting. Suns image unites to skyline when it setting.
In reality your horizon is much closer.
What you mean with reality, which reality, reality to whom?
Stand at a beach by the sea:
Sun during sunset is 6000 miles away, horizon is 3 miles away.
It simply explains why can not you see the sun after setting. disappears behind the sea wave. you can see more if there was not waves. As a note so it is not 6000 miles but 6000kms, if I remember it true. We Europeans except Englishes and a few use metric system.

I tried to understand, but, as I said, horizon is not 6000 km away. You know it very well.

If we apply standard refraction then:
If you are 2 m above the sea, horizon is 5.45 km away.
If you are 1 km above the sea, horizon is 96 km away.
If you are 10 km above the sea, horizon is at 304 km.
If you are 100 km above the sea, horizon is at 966 km.

And you say that Dome is directly at 100 km.

Do you see now what is the problem?
There is nothing at there claim horizon's being 6000 kms. I said "you can not see anything 600kms HORIZONTALY". This is horizontal, not "horizon'tal". It means flat, level,...

<off topic>
Since you've missunderstood what I meant so you have did some explanations but I am passing this part.
Right now, at this very moment, I think that it is important to imagine two people looking at the Sun simultaneously from two places very far away from each other.

Where is the dome for some guy in Istanbul, and where will guy from Madrid see that same dome?

Guy in Madrid will have Sun still 32.8 degrees away from sunset.
Time difference is 2 hours and 10 minutes and the distance is 2740 km.

And in reality Sun travels at the constant speed of 15 degrees per hour.
this should be calculated by experiments. The outer shape of the dome is also important here. We have an estimate about it but our estimates may be a bit different. also because of light refraction and angular size you can not see the sun exactly where it is located. however, the shape of the dome can be calculated by trial and error. Since the so called scientists have nothing with real science I don't guess this will be done in a soon next.

Read your post again, slowly.
Then read your previous post, also slowly.

Compare.

You are contradicting yourself.

You don't even remember what you wrote two posts ago.

How can he remeber?
Hes spamming on every possible active thread.
Like 10000 posts.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #117 on: June 26, 2019, 05:47:20 AM »
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18636
  • Backstage
Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #118 on: June 26, 2019, 05:49:18 AM »
How can he remeber?
Hes spamming on every possible active thread.
Like 10000 posts.
Replying all the statements and spamming are different things. if I'm giving an answer to the all questions that may be an answer to it, it's not called spam, but it's hard working.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain
« Reply #119 on: June 26, 2019, 05:55:37 AM »
How can he remeber?
Hes spamming on every possible active thread.
Like 10000 posts.
Replying all the statements and spamming are different things. if I'm giving an answer to the all questions that may be an answer to it, it's not called spam, but it's hard working.

Hard work to cover your ears and close your eyss and say to yourself "its flat its flat its flat its fake its fake uts fake" over and over?