Calling FE’s, draw out how a sunset works on a flat Earth?

Lol! I've never caught you tripped up, JackBlack? Mate, anytime you're ready to post up a photo of the flat earth model...

What's the matter? So upset from getting your ass handed to you on this topic you had to bring up another time you got your ass repeatedly handed to you?

Jackblack, half the flat earthers out there, are out there because the horizon is flat. (I was going to say straight but this seems to be a language you prefer) 

It seems to me, that you and Unconvinced are saying the horizon line in any seascape photo, is..............curved on the vertical plane?

Did you bother reading what I said?
If you did, you would recognise "vertical plane" in this case, is quite unclear. Just what do you mean by "vertical plane"?
Do you mean vertical based upon your location, where a line going from you straight down would be in that vertical plane? If so, it wont be curved there, and we don't need it to be.
Or do you mean vertical based upon a point on the horizon, at which case as soon as you are not viewing it from in the plane, that "vertical" will be offset from the former definition and there will be a component of the curvature in that direction.

I have no issue with you saying it is curved on the horizontal plane, because it is. At sea level we are standing at any given time in the centre of a circle with a radius of about 5km. Five kilometres equidistant in all directions.

Again, there is no need to invoke near sea level here.

If we ignore the imperfections of Earth, then at any altitude, the horizon will be ~the same distance in every direction in the horizontal plane (defined as the plane tangent to Earth at the point on Earth directly below you), with the same angle of dip all around. That would still be entirely "horizontal". Even if you were to look at Earth from the sun, using that same definition of horizontal, it is still horizontal.

Photos at sea level show it is straight

To what level of uncertainty?
And it certainly wasn't in that photo.

Flat earthers are correct about the horizon being flat at sea level

Again, the horizon is flat.
Flat and straight are not the same thing.
A circle is flat, but not straight.

If you disagree, prove me wrong with diagrams, before I prove I'm right with diagrams.

You mean like the images I already provided which you just ignored?

Here it is again, the horizon in the image discussed, first unaltered, then with a thick line on top, then with that line removed and pushing the lower portion of the image up to remove the curve:


We see a clear curve in the first case, but no curve in the second and third.
And a close up of the difference between a straight line from the horizon at one edge of the photo to the horizon at the other edge, showing the horizon is higher in the middle than a straight line is:


So there is no before you prove yourself right.
You have already been proven to be wrong.

The horizon in the image is quite clearly curved.

Jackblack, you're the one that said a flat earth model could be created from flat earth data alone, even flat earth scientific data, but when it was "politely" pointed out to you it could not, and all scientific data led to a spherical Earth and all flat earth data was not data, your ego got the better of you. Your ass was handed to you repeatedly in that thread like at the end of a jackhammer by multiple members to the point your ass was battered, bruised, and bleeding profusely. But it would seem you're from the school where if you don't admit you were wrong, then that means you were right. Well, you were wrong. But I digress.

Do you ever check your posts after posting? What the hell is that first "photo" supposed to be of? It's stretched vertically beyond recognition and looks like it could be towers. As for the second and last photo in your post (the one with the pale yellow sky and the straight purple line under the horizon line), again, I am baffled. You say the horizon line in that last image has a clear bulge in the middle, as demonstrated by the straight purple line under it, yet the distinct horizontal bands of colour making up the horizon line above the placed purple line, are perfectly the same heights all the way across, right down to the very pixels! There is absolutely no bulge. Do you need glasses?

You haven't proven me wrong. You've proven you are either half blind, are subject to spells of ineptitude, or are a bold faced liar. 

On the matter of straight and flat, a flat surface is a straight surface. But a straight line is not necessarily a flat surface. You see, flatness refers to a physical surface. The earth being spherical, is a curved surface in all directions seen against the backdrop of the sky, and appearing as a straight line at sea level to us. The horizon is not a flat surface, it's a horizontal straight line. You seem to have difficulty with this concept, so I'll put up diagrams later to illustrate my points after I've slept.

Back on the topic of this thread, I just watched the sunrise this morning, and remarked how the rising sun lights up the underside of the clouds with the tops of the clouds being dark. My photos didn't do it justice at all.  But on a flat Earth, the rising sun would not be rising at all, it would be a moving star in the distance in the sky which grows to the sun size as we all know it, and would be lighting up clouds always from the top, because it is always way higher than the clouds. That's the way light works, flat earthers.  At sunset, again, the sun as it disappears behind the rising horizon, lights up the underside of clouds. A flat earth sun hundreds of kilometers above the Earth could never ever do this.

Hi I apologize for cutting into your conversation, I just have a quick question.
A while back I had come across an awesome flat earth model that explained all of the phases of the moon, the seasons the way the sun and moon get closer and farther then closer again..etc. but I can't seem to find it now can someone please help me?
Any help you could give me would be great. I'm trying to convince my skeptical ass friend.

flat earth model

Again, bringing up a previous case of your ass being handed to you wont help you.
If you want to keep bitching and moaning about it, go back to the thread, and deal with the refutation of your BS there.

Do you ever check your posts after posting? What the hell is that first "photo" supposed to be of? It's stretched vertically beyond recognition and looks like it could be towers.

Yes, I do. It is clear you don't, as if you did you would understand exactly what those images are.
They aren't stretched vertically. They are compressed horizontally.
This is done to make the curvature more apparent.

It is incredibly obvious in the first.

The second and third demonstrate what happens to a straight line, that it remains straight under such compression.
The forth was made by drawing a straight line from one edge of the photo to the other, aligning it to the horizon on each edge, then zooming in on the middle.
If the horizon was straight, it should follow that line.

All clearly proving that you are wrong, that the horizon in this image is curved.

You haven't proven me wrong. You've proven you are either half blind, are subject to spells of ineptitude, or are a bold faced liar.

And jumping straight into projection I see.

If I haven't proven you wrong, then explain why the firs image shows a curved horizon.
If I haven't proven you wrong, then explain why the horizon in the middle of the image is clearly above a straight line connecting the points where the horizon and the edge of the photo intersect.

Both of these require the horizon to be curved.

On the matter of straight and flat, a flat surface is a straight surface.

Straight applies to a line (1D), flat applies to a surface (2D).
Here is a simple definition of straight from Google:
extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend.
A key part is that it is 1 direction, because a line is effectively 1D.

But a straight line is not necessarily a flat surface.

Most people can tell the difference between a line and a surface.

flatness refers to a physical surface.

No it doesn't.
Flatness can refer to an abstract surface as well.

The horizon is not a flat surface, it's a horizontal straight line. You seem to have difficulty with this concept

You mean you appear to have difficulty accepting that you are wrong.
Me not accepting your incorrect BS doesn't mean I have difficulty with the concept.

Once more, the horizon is a circle. If it was a straight line, you would not be able to follow it as you turned around 360 degrees.
If it was a straight line it would span only 180 degrees at most (technically slightly less).

And a circle is not a straight line.
But a circle is flat as it is contained entirely inside a 2D plane.

So once more, the horizon is flat. It is a horizontal curved line, circling around you.

And of course, in the previous post you claim that you would have diagrams that would prove you correct. Yet even now you refuse to provide anything, instead just appealing to "after you sleep".
All you have are your empty words.
You have no evidence or rational thought to back up your claim.

Hi I apologize for cutting into your conversation, I just have a quick question.
A while back I had come across an awesome flat earth model that explained all of the phases of the moon, the seasons the way the sun and moon get closer and farther then closer again..etc. but I can't seem to find it now can someone please help me?
Any help you could give me would be great. I'm trying to convince my skeptical ass friend.

Do you mean the simple one which shows the sun circling above the tropic of cancer in June, the tropic of Capricorn in December, and in between those for the rest of the year?
If so, that doesn't explain much.
And I'm yet to see one explain the phases of the moon.

Hi I apologize for cutting into your conversation, I just have a quick question.
A while back I had come across an awesome flat earth model that explained all of the phases of the moon, the seasons the way the sun and moon get closer and farther then closer again..etc. but I can't seem to find it now can someone please help me?
Any help you could give me would be great. I'm trying to convince my skeptical ass friend.

I don't think I've ever seen a model of how moon phases work on a flat earth, let alone one that meets reality. You can also try searching YouTube directly as sometimes it's a little more targeted even when you filter on google for videos/images.

The one thing a few FEr's espouse is the "shadow object". It's basically another moon-ish type orb that we can't see that sneaks inbetween the sun and moon causing shadows on the moon, aka, phases. Neato!

The one thing a few FEr's espouse is the "shadow object". It's basically another moon-ish type orb that we can't see that sneaks inbetween the sun and moon causing shadows on the moon, aka, phases. Neato!

I think the shadow object is predominantly used to explain lunar eclipses, I've not seen it used to justify phases before.
There might be some people who are exceptions to that, wouldn't surprise me, but I don't think it's that common.

Moon is certainly a weird one.

Quote from: Stash on February 11, 2023, 02:35:45 PM

The one thing a few FEr's espouse is the "shadow object". It's basically another moon-ish type orb that we can't see that sneaks inbetween the sun and moon causing shadows on the moon, aka, phases. Neato!

I think the shadow object is predominantly used to explain lunar eclipses, I've not seen it used to justify phases before.
There might be some people who are exceptions to that, wouldn't surprise me, but I don't think it's that common.

Moon is certainly a weird one.

Good point. I think you're right. I confused the two. And yeah, the shadow object as eclipses does seem to be rare. I think here, Wise was into that for a while, but could be mistaken.

Here's a thread on it from 2008...Shadow Object

Definitely eclipses.

But yeah, I can't think of seeing any models on FE moon phases.

Here's Rowbotham's take (Word salad alert - Ye Olde 'Phosphorus in Olive Oil' gambit):

MOON'S PHASES.
IT has been shown that the moon is not a reflector of the sun's light, but is self-luminous. That the luminosity is confined to one-half its surface is sufficiently shown by the fact that at "new moon" the entire circle or outline of the whole moon is often distinctly visible, but the darker. outline or circle is always apparently less than the segment which is illuminated. It is a well ascertained fact that a luminous body appears larger, or subtends a greater angle at the eye, than a body of exactly the same magnitude, but which is not luminous. Hence, it is logically fair to conclude that as the part of the moon which is non-luminous is always of less magnitude than the part which is luminous, that luminosity is attached to a part only. From this fact it is easily understood that "new moon," "full moon," and "gibbous moon," are simply the different proportions of the illuminated surface which are presented to the observer on earth. A very simple experiment will both illustrate and imitate these different phases. Take

p. 334

a wooden or other ball, and rub one half its surface with a solution of phosphorus in olive oil. On slowly turning this round in a dark room, all the quarters and intermediate phases of the moon will be most beautifully represented.

But yeah, I can't think of seeing any models on FE moon phases.

Someone needs to bring back moonshrimp.

But yeah, I think I see 'A rotating ball with one lit side' the most frequently, though the shadow object explanation for eclipses itself seems to appeal to the moon reflecting the Sun's light.

Quote from: Stash on February 11, 2023, 06:10:11 PM

But yeah, I can't think of seeing any models on FE moon phases.

Someone needs to bring back moonshrimp.

But yeah, I think I see 'A rotating ball with one lit side' the most frequently, though the shadow object explanation for eclipses itself seems to appeal to the moon reflecting the Sun's light.

Yeah, the shadow object thing can't even hold a candle to the more credible and obvious explanation than those glowing horny little mooshrimp. We definitely need to bring them back into the fold.

It gets confusing because there are a bunch of different views and permutations...

- The moon is 2d
- The moon is 3d, rotating or something
- The moon is self illuminating (moonshrimp!)
- The moon is a projection on a dome
- The moon is above the dome, lens effect
- It's 700 miles above, or 3000 and 32 miles in diameter, etc.
- Sneaky shadow object for eclipses
- It's hollow
- It's artificial
- It's actually an orb of mild cheddar

I'm sure I'm missing some.

It gets confusing because there are a bunch of different views and permutations...

- The moon is 2d
- The moon is 3d, rotating or something
- The moon is self illuminating (moonshrimp!)
- The moon is a projection on a dome
- The moon is above the dome, lens effect
- It's 700 miles above, or 3000 and 32 miles in diameter, etc.
- Sneaky shadow object for eclipses
- It's hollow
- It's artificial
- It's actually an orb of mild cheddar

I'm sure I'm missing some.

WOW!  Modern "flat Earth belief originated with the English writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). Based on conclusions derived from his 1838 Bedford Level experiment,"

Modern Flat Earth Scientists have had almost 200 years to figure out something as basic as the position and orientation of their moon.  Yet, apparently, they haven't.  Are they really that dumb?  Yeah, I guess they must be.  There is no other explanation.

Quote from: Stash on February 11, 2023, 06:10:11 PM

But yeah, I can't think of seeing any models on FE moon phases.

Someone needs to bring back moonshrimp.

I think you'll find it's pronounced moonshramp and it's as good an explanation as any flatty one.  Though of course it does require the shramp themselves to be in on The Conspiracy, as their periodic bioluminescence fits exactly with the round earth model.  Same for any "self illuminating" hypothesis I suppose.   

- The moon is 3d, rotating or something

To account for why on a flat earth nobody ever sees the back side of the moon.  I wondered if anyone ever posted it was like a coin with the same image on each side like a two headed quarter spinning really fast? 

Quote from: Stash on February 12, 2023, 09:25:55 AM

- The moon is 3d, rotating or something

To account for why on a flat earth nobody ever sees the back side of the moon.  I wondered if anyone ever posted it was like a coin with the same image on each side like a two headed quarter spinning really fast?

Yeah, that's a big problem for at least monopole FE. If the moon is circling around within the Tropics. people farther south or farther north would see different phases at the same time at a minimum and the far side of the moon at a maximum. And that isn't observable reality.

Maybe that's why you don't see a lot of moon phases explanations from the various FE camps.

As for sunrises and sunsets I've only seen a couple of FE explanations, there very well may be more:

1) Bendy light
2) Perspective/Distance

1) Pretty much undefined, no predictive nature.
2) Observably, we would see the distant object shrink in size as it gets further away. We don't.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 11, 2023, 01:08:53 PM

flat earth model

Again, bringing up a previous case of your ass being handed to you wont help you.
If you want to keep bitching and moaning about it, go back to the thread, and deal with the refutation of your BS there.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 11, 2023, 01:08:53 PM

Do you ever check your posts after posting? What the hell is that first "photo" supposed to be of? It's stretched vertically beyond recognition and looks like it could be towers.

Yes, I do. It is clear you don't, as if you did you would understand exactly what those images are.
They aren't stretched vertically. They are compressed horizontally.
This is done to make the curvature more apparent.

It is incredibly obvious in the first.

The second and third demonstrate what happens to a straight line, that it remains straight under such compression.
The forth was made by drawing a straight line from one edge of the photo to the other, aligning it to the horizon on each edge, then zooming in on the middle.
If the horizon was straight, it should follow that line.

All clearly proving that you are wrong, that the horizon in this image is curved.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 11, 2023, 01:08:53 PM

You haven't proven me wrong. You've proven you are either half blind, are subject to spells of ineptitude, or are a bold faced liar.

And jumping straight into projection I see.

If I haven't proven you wrong, then explain why the firs image shows a curved horizon.
If I haven't proven you wrong, then explain why the horizon in the middle of the image is clearly above a straight line connecting the points where the horizon and the edge of the photo intersect.

Both of these require the horizon to be curved.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 11, 2023, 01:08:53 PM

On the matter of straight and flat, a flat surface is a straight surface.

Straight applies to a line (1D), flat applies to a surface (2D).
Here is a simple definition of straight from Google:
extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend.
A key part is that it is 1 direction, because a line is effectively 1D.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 11, 2023, 01:08:53 PM

But a straight line is not necessarily a flat surface.

Most people can tell the difference between a line and a surface.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 11, 2023, 01:08:53 PM

flatness refers to a physical surface.

No it doesn't.
Flatness can refer to an abstract surface as well.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 11, 2023, 01:08:53 PM

The horizon is not a flat surface, it's a horizontal straight line. You seem to have difficulty with this concept

You mean you appear to have difficulty accepting that you are wrong.
Me not accepting your incorrect BS doesn't mean I have difficulty with the concept.

Once more, the horizon is a circle. If it was a straight line, you would not be able to follow it as you turned around 360 degrees.
If it was a straight line it would span only 180 degrees at most (technically slightly less).

And a circle is not a straight line.
But a circle is flat as it is contained entirely inside a 2D plane.

So once more, the horizon is flat. It is a horizontal curved line, circling around you.

And of course, in the previous post you claim that you would have diagrams that would prove you correct. Yet even now you refuse to provide anything, instead just appealing to "after you sleep".
All you have are your empty words.
You have no evidence or rational thought to back up your claim.

I have sleep deprivation and delirium to back up my claim. Most flat earthers don't carry the same excuse.

JackBlack, you were right on this one, and I was wrong. Well done. Subsequently, Sceptimatic, this means you were wrong also.

I had to use my Earth globe and spin it a few times to get my nightshift mind around how it works.

Thus, even if you were out at sea miles from land in all directions, the wind had flattened the waves to almost nothing, and you jumped in the ocean with your eyes half submerged, you would still be looking slightly down at the dip of the true horizon in all directions. The true horizon would still carry a slight yet imperceptible curvature in all directions, as you turn around. Exactly like looking slightly down and across the top of an earth globe (Across the Arctic circle) and slowly spinning it, and observing the slight curvature remains the same. I guess it's similar to holding a circular dinner plate up to your eye level and horizontal, looking straight ahead and rotating the plate.

I know you wouldn't be caught dead owning an Earth globe, Sceptimatic, but a basketball or a dinner plate could nicely demonstrate to you how the horizon is curved. Notice how I didn't say isn't flat, because i know you liken flat to mean straight, and the horizon kinda is flat but isn't straight.